NAVAL PACT

Taranaki Daily News, 30 December 1921, Page 5

NAVAL PACT

FINAL DECISION. SUBMARINE TO STAY. RATIO ONLY RESULT. FRANCE BLOCKS THE WAY. The principal features of naval limitation have been settled by the Washington Conference, and agreement on ."natters of detail will complete the task of reducing the burden of naval armament. Briefly, the result is a reduction of capital ships according to the ratio agreed upon, but the submarine *s to stay. Britain's attempt to abolish the submarine was blocked by France, who. according to Mr. Balfour, will have the biggest submarine fleet in the world and a potential menace to other nations. By Telegraph.—Press Assn —Copyright. Received Dec. 29, 5.5 pjn. Washington, Dec. 28. ‘"The French action to-day destroyed all chance of an agreement being reached at this Conference on the submarine issue,"’ said an American delegate after this morning's meeting of the committee. France demanded the right to build 90,000 tons of guhrnarines and 330,000 tons of auxiliary craft. The demand was made positively without any spirit of concession, the imprearion left being that finality had been reached and there would be no re-opening of the question at this Conference. After expressing regret at the French stand, Mr. A. J. Balfour (Britain) notified the committee that if France would not agree to a reduction in submarine tonnage, Britain insisted on freedom to build as many submarines and auxiliary craft as she thought she wan.ed. Italy and Japan followed Britain’s lead. This leaves the capital ship ratio practically the sole result of the Conference on naval limitation. Even here France suggests she is entitled to special consideration, and wants permission to start building in 1927, though the ships would not be put into commission till the end of the naval holiday. There remain for consideration subsidiary matters, such as the rire and gun-power of cruisers and other minor matters, which the committee is now dealing with. Undoubtedly the French, judging by various propaganda cables reaching here last week, hope to use their wrecking of the Conference on the submarine issue to force Britain lo consider an Atlantic pact, and perhaps even a greater guarantee of their security in Europe. FRANCE’S DECISION. Official.—At the opening of the meeting of the committee on the limitation of naval armament M. Sarraut (France» announced that as a token of the goodwill of France the French Cabinet had resolved to accept a reduction to 175.000 tons in capital ships, Sut suggesting qualification of the naval icliday through liberty to lay down at the beginning of 1927 ships intended for the ■eplaeexnent of twenty-year-old vessels, rhe French Cabinet, the supreme council >n national defence, concluded that it wa§ mpossibie to accept a limitation of subnarines and auxiliary craft below 90.000 u>ns affd 330,000 tons respectively, without imperilling the vital interests of the country. The French delegation has been instructed to consent to no concession on these figures. Regret was expressed that France cannot carry out entirely the American proposals for a reduction and limitations.

Mr. C. E. Hughes (America) accepted the French statement as a definite final Expression by the French Government. He /as greatly gratified at the decision to limit apital ships. This should not be minimised, and if the Conference succeeded in his direction it would do much to reduce axation. He confessed that he was disippointed at the submarine and auxiliary iraft statement from France. If submarines were to be available as defence fleets t was evident they should bear some relation to the size of fleets. France’s demand meant, therefore, that Britain and the United States should greatly increase their onnage. This could hardly be called limitation. and, moreover, an increase in submarine tonnage meant an increase in antisubmarine tonnage. It was, therefore, a serious question whether there was hope >f accomplishing anything like limitation. BIG SUBMARINE FLEET. Mr. Balfour was profoundly disappointed, hough he rejoiced that France was prepared to agree to capital ship limitation. Ibis, he agreed, would immensely relieve taxation, though he did not feel that the sacrifice on the part of France was of an overwhelming character, seeing that her allot men: allowed her actually to increase her present fleet. But the French proposed to increase submarines threefold. The French announcement was a singular contribution to the Conference. The diminution of armament, considered in conjunction with the refusal of the French to discuss land disarmament, created a position that must cause anxiety and disappointment. Furthermore, their proposal regarding replacement would seriously interfere with the plans for a naval holiday. Mr. Balfour was perfectly unable to conceive how the French programme was regarded as a defensive policy. If submarines were to be used as a strictly military weapon, how could a fleet of 175,000 tons need 90,000 tons of submarines? It was perfectly obvious that a submarine fleet of that size was intended to destroy commerce. It therefore appeared, when all assembled to discuss limitation, that France proposed to build instruments of illegitimate warfare to an extent equal in numbers and superior in efficiency to those legitimately Acquired by any other fleet in the world. MENACE TO BRITAIN. The effect on British opinion was perfectly dear. If at their very gates there was a huge fleet of submarines of the newest type no limitation of any kind of auxiliary vessels could be admitted by the British Government. Public notice had now been given in the moat formal manner that this great fleet was to be built on the shores nearest to Britain, and would necessarily be the greatest menace. He did 'not doubt that if the occasion ever arose Britain would be equal to it. but Britain reserved full right to build any auxiliary craft she considered necessary. Signor Schanser (Italy) said he did not dispute the importance of capital ships, and he would not attempt to hide the fact that the French announcement gave Italy serious preoccupation from the viewpoint of economic and political consequences alike

M. Hanihara (Japan) stated that Japan regarded it as a misfortune that there had been failure to agree regarding auxiliary craft, and supported the American proposals of limitation rather the claim of freedom to build such cra,t. Mr. Hughes said he gathered that it was not deemed practicable to reach an agreement. Apparently the Powers desired freedom of action in regard to the construction of auxiliary craft. WANTED FOR DEFENCE. M. Sarraut said he was not there to make comment on th£ decisions of his Government. He found that certain suggestions were wholly inacceptable to the French Government, which was inspired by its conception of the true needs of France and her colonies. They did not take exception to the size of the British Navy. France had no desire to destroy merchant vessels, but she must defend her coast lines and colonies. He objected to the statement that France’s submarine programme could be considered as a menace to any of her friends. Mr. Balfour pointed out that M. Sarraut quite misinterpreted the British attitude. Centuries had shown France not to be seriously threatened by Britain on land, and if the inconceivable happened, and friends became enemies, British superiority in capital ships w’ould not harm France’s life, but with the largest submarine fleet in the world France could utilise them for

commerce destruction against Britain. It was difficult to believe that in the stress of war she would not do so. There was no doubt submarines were powerless as a protection for lines of communication; they were useless for that purpose, and were powerful for one purpose only—the destruction of commerce. It was reasonable for Britain, seeing the establishment of a vast fleet a few miles from her coast to say candidly that she did not look with indifference on the situation created. Lord Lee (First Lord of the British Admiralty) proposed to limit gun calibre, applied to aeroplane carriers as well as cruisers. The discussion of the resolution regarding the individual tonnage of ships and the calibre of guns was postponed, after the delegations had expressed approval, as they wanted to consult their Governments. RULES OF WARFARE. The chairman asked Senator Root to read the following resolutions dealing with the rules of warfare governing submarines: (1) The signatory Powers, desiring to make more effective the rules adopted by civilised nations for the protection of the lives of neutral* and non-combatants at sea during time of war, declare that among those rules the following shall be deemed established as part of the international law: (1) A merchant vessel must be ordered to stop for a visit to search to determine character before it can be captured; a merchant vessel must not be attacked unless it refuses to stop for a visit of search; a merchant vessel must not be destroyed unless the crew and passengers are first placed in safety. (2) Belligerent submarines are not under any circumstances exempt from the rules above stated; if a submarine cannot capture a merchant vessel in conformity with those rules the existing law of nations requires it to desist from attack; the signatory Powers invite the adherence of all other Powers thereto.

(2) The Powers, recognising the practical impossibility of using submarines as commence destroyers without violating the requirements universally accepted by civilised nations, declare their ascent to the prohibition of such use. (3) The signatory Powers further declare that any person in the service of any Power adopting these rules .who shall violate them, whether under orders or not, shall be liable to be tried as a pirate. The delegates expressed sympathy with the resolutions, consideration of which was postponed. Resolutions governing tonnage, character and armament of airplane carriers were then submitted, suggesting that the maximum of each ship be [ 27,000 tons, with guns not larger than , eight inch. , Lord Lee’n proposition that no warIship carry a gun of greater calibre than sixteen inch was unanimously accepted. The meeting then adjourned. i FRANCE CREATES PRECEDENT. There is no doubt the British delegation is most disappointed at .the French attitude and have no hesitation in expressing their opinions. Mr. Balfour’s remarks were characterised as very pointed by the American spokesman, while following immediately after the conference the British spokesman said it was a deplorable thing for any nation to take the position they had seen taken to-day. He did not anticipate that the French position would be so extraordinary. Itaiy has advanced a proposition that if France is allowed to break the naval holiday she (Italy) wants permission also. M. Sarrant announced to-night that he was joining with the British in asking for an open session to discuss submarines. He said he was tired of being attacked and wanted to put the French case before the public. France’s colonies had the reserves of men required for submarines bind ( auxfiliary craft to protect their transportation in the event of another war in Europe.— Special to Australian Press Assn.