Ashburton Guardian Magna est Veritas et Prævalebit. FRIDAY, JULY 26, 1935. THE NAVAL PROBLEM.

Ashburton Guardian, Volume 55, Issue 242, 26 July 1935, Page 4

Ashburton Guardian Magna est Veritas et Prævalebit. FRIDAY, JULY 26, 1935. THE NAVAL PROBLEM.

In his recent speech in the House of Commons the First Lord of the Admiralty said that after December, 1936, all the existing naval agreements would come to an end, and unless they could put something in their place, all navies in the future would be entirely unrestricted. It was unfortunately necessary, Sir Bolton Eyres-Monsel! continued, to abandon the principle of ratios in efforts to secure new agreements because some countries felt that it was wounding to the national pride. Instead they had to have a system of programmes. Britain (said the First Lord) would not ask the Naval Powers, what their ultimate strength was going to be, but what sue navy did they propose to have in, say, 1'942. The vast amount of work done to achieve naval disarmament is all to the credit of its promoters, in so far as they have been sincerely eager to restrict the possibilities of war. In the Washington Treaty a real beginning was made, and it was meant to be a basis of further effort. However, its provisions apply almost solely to battleships and aircraft carriers, leaving the cruiser ratios untouched. Good in intent and effect as it was, its limits should not be overlooked. Afterwards came, in 1927, the hapless Geneva 'wrangle about cruiser “parity,” initiated by the United States —a sorry example of the way these things should not be done. Only American opinion has been at all enthusiastic about the London Treaty, for reasons that relate to increases for the United States. It has been no real check on competitive building, because of its two major defects: of the five negotiating Powers, France and Italy refused to sign and have not proceeded since to conclusive negotiations making the treaty fully effective; and by the so-called “escalator clause” the other three Powers —Britain, the United States and Japan—were given a right to make increases if non-signatory Powers entered on new construction of a competitive nature. From the standpoint of international agreement to disarm, the treaty 'was almost a complete failure; as an achievement of fair-play it was scandalously imperfect, advantage being taken of British complacency. Its total effect has been utterly disappointing to all hopeful of an assurance of peace through disarmament, and informed British opinion is agreed that it has worked prejudicially against the Empire’s security. Its redeeming merit was a provision for continuing naval negotiations, this being added in pursuance of a good precedent set at Washington. There it was agreed that “within one year of the date on which a notice of termination by any Power has taken effect, all the contracting Powers shall meet in conference.” At London the relevant provision had in view the Disarmament Conference soon to meet: Unless thehigh contracting parties should agree otherwise by reason of a more general disarmament limiting naval armaments, to which they all become parties, they shall meet in conference in 1933 to frame a new treaty to replace and to carry out the purposes of the present treaty, it being understood that none of the provisions of the present treaty shall prejudice the attitude of any of the high contracting parties at the conference agreed to. Unhappily, the “more general agreement has not been reached as was hoped. Not only is jt not in sight, but the negotiations for a conference this year are, to say the least, uncertain. Ihe only clear-cut issue that emerges is that in the interests of the security ot the Empire Britain must have a navy of adequate strength. The Government has had to recognise the necessity of making up, within treaty limits, considerable leeway in this respect, and of. considering future requirements in the light of the approaching expiry of the treaties. “The National Government,” it was stated in a White Paper issued some time ago, can no longer close its eyes to the fact that adequate defences are still required for security and to enable the British Empire to play its part in maintaining the peace of the world.