FRANCE’S DANGER.

Taranaki Daily News, 3 January 1922, Page 5

FRANCE’S DANGER.

MENACE OF ITER NAVY. POSITION OF ISOLATION. THREAT TO BRITAIN. | By Telegraph.—Press Assn.—■ Copyright. Racebed Dec. 31, 5.5 pm London, Dec. 30. The Times’ correspondent at Washington says: “Upon France will now fall the h.ame for any development that may diminish the achievement of the Conference. Japan may feel secure in hardening its heart against a liberal policy fo- China, without which an amicable settlement in the Pacific is impossble. -k Japanese writer, early in the Conference, said Japan had lost a golden opportunity to assume the leadership in Far Eastern affairs. She has made concessions, but these lacked any

air or free and generous renunciation. If she holds out for safeguards in Manchuria and Shantung it will be Imperialism in disguise, and such a course would in the opinion of every American I hare talked with, gravely prejudice the chances of the Senate’s ratification of the Quadruple Treaty.

“The Conference and the affairs of the world have reached a point of crucial importance. France, for all practical purposes, will stand aside, for she has deeidel that the time has not come to act in the spirit which the Conference dejn»nd«. It remains to be seen whether the Japanese statesmen will rise to the< 'level of their opportunity, or whether the force of the unfortunate example will incline them to finish the work France hi.' begun." ‘•'We must revert to France as a foreign Stat* whose fleet requires special study if France insists upon her submarine programme.” said Admiral Bal-

lard, director of operations during the war, in the course of an outspoken article in the Evening News. “All the documents in a certain safe at the Admiralty, of which only four people hold the key, will be labelled ‘most secret instructions for flag officers.’ In the event cf war with France, with 90,000 submarine tonnage, France could make the Channel more dangerous for British capital ships than the Germans did in the North Sea. Britain would be obliged to mantain 200 submarines, the only alternative being conscription. If the French employed them in the Mediterranean it would go a long way towards pa r a’ysing British power and influence in Asia Minor, Palestine, Egypt and India. Such a position would suit a certain type of French politician, who is out to terminate cordial relations, and would make strong measures for self-defence necessary."—Times Service-

APPREHENSION IN BRITAIN. BRITISH ATTITUDE EXPLAINED. ASSURANCE FROM FRANCE. Received Jan. 2, 7-5 p.m. Washington. Dec. 30. Official: At this morning’s meeting of the limitation committee Lord Lee (First Lord of the British Admiralty; said he desired to clear up a misunderstanding of the British attitude regarding submarines before the Government commits itself on the second Root resolution. “Here is a united opportunity,” said Lee, “for France to reassure Britain. I want to explain to my French friends what apprehension exists in Britain. It is not clear what are the views of the French naval staff on the matter of the utilisation of the submarine, though I don’t want to be provocative in calling attention to the kind o£ statement openly made in h'gh quarters of the French naval general staf. January the Review Maritime published under the direction of that body a series of articles on submarine warfare by an active staff officer and naval lecturer.”

Lard Lee read a number of quotations from the articles, claiming that the way the Germans used submarines was first advocated by a French writer, whe justified them in an article which concluded: “Martindale is at hand, whieh will overthrow for good and all the naval power in the British Empire. Th st article, Lord Lee declared, was justification for the apprehension and ever bitterness which the British feel that their late allies should contemplate warfare of that kind. He added: “I suggest the way is open to the Freach Government to repudiate these docaments bv adopting the Root resolution*. If’ this i* done I believe Frame will regain much of the ground lost between us, largely through a genuine mieMnderstanding.’’ Admiral de Bon (France) said the idea of attacking a friend was inconceivable to the French. The article written by an officer attached to the literary section and in no way reprew*nts the views of the French navy. AdMiral de Bon said he considered the suggestion monstrous. The French never harbored any notion of using German snetiiod’ of submarine warfare, adding formal repudiation of the article m the name of the French navy. General Sarraut (France) also repudiated'the article and protested against the Press campaign by American papers ’against France. General Sarraut defended France s action, as being designed for her national needs, and he only a-ked for the postponement of the Root Resolutions in order that assent might be dothed with all the moral force belonging to the decisions of the French Senator G. F. Pearce (Australia) pointed out that the wording of article three dealing with piracy only penalised nfli *r- of the nations adopting the agreement. He suggested an amendmrui makiß- their application general. Senator Root, acknowledging the importance of the point, consented to adjonra the "matter pending the advice of th? Government.- —Aas.-X-Z. Cable