NAVAL PROBLEMS

Ashburton Guardian, Volume 56, Issue 50, 10 December 1935, Page 5

NAVAL PROBLEMS

OPENING OF THE CONFERENCE. BRITAIN’S APPEAL TO POWERS. SPEECH BY MR BALDWIN. ATTITUDE OF THE DOMINIONS. United Press Association —Copyright) (Received This Day, 9.5 ami.) LONDON, December 9. The Prime Minister (Mr Stanley Baldwin-, in welcoming the delegates to the Naval Conference, said there existed a grave obligation to carry on the work of the previous conferences and to do their utmost to avert the calamity of a return to unrestricted naval competition. As Britain took the initiative in the preparatory work, the Government felt it had a greater obligation then the other Governments to summon the present conference. Britain’s position was stated in detail in a memorandum presented at the Disarmament Conference in 1932, and it remained the same to-day. Britain was prepared to prolong the principles of the Washington and London Treaties, subject to modifications necessitated by the altered international circumstances. “We attach the greatest importance to the continuation of limitation, qualitatively and quantitatively, and would like to see a reduction in the size of all larger types of ships and guns,” said Mr Baldwin. “We still press for the abolition of submarines if possible. It is vital to agree to prevent the misuse of submarines. None of us get exactly what we want, but we must agree on certain limitations, relieving the public threat of a general race in naval armaments. We must not feel it a duty to go one better than our neighbours in the evolution of new types of larger ships, which are the most expensive and the most dangerous of all types of naval competition. Sir James Parr (High Commissioner for New Zealand) said that the hopes Mr Stanley Baldwin expressed weio aiso the hopes of New Zealand, which was specially interested in naval limitation from the viewpoint of easing the financial burd,en which was of serious importance to a young, developing country. Nobody.in New Zealand but was not appalled at the ruinous cost of competitive armaments, which burden no country, not even the richest, can hear. . “New Zealand considers that an effort should again be made to obtain an agreement on both limitation, future “construction and maximum displacement, also the calibre of guns and categories of ships,” said Sir James. “Frankly, the conference meets m circumstances far from favourable. It launched under less promising circumstances than others, the challenge to see that we do not fail is all the greater. The mere fact that in these troubled times we are able to meet to leason together itself is a happy augury.” Mr Stanley Bruce (High Commissioner for Australia) said: “There is a tendency to forget the lessons so piesent in our minds after tl\e world conflagration, yet the need for co-opera-tive action is as great to-day as it was then. We are seeing the first signs of recovery after five years of unpaialleled financial and economic crisis. The failure of this conference might plunge us back into the depths of depression. Australia requires only those naval forces which are necessary foi defence, to give a sense of security which is the surest foundation .of peace. We are desirous of prolonging the principles of the Washington and London treaties with only such changes as altered circumstances demand. We favour the continuation of the provisions of quantitative limitations and, above the limitation and quantitative fields, we desire a reduction in the size of the.large types of ships and guns and the abolition of submarines. The task of reconciling the necessarily varying requirements in no light one, calling for all the energy and goodwill at our command, in which the Australian delegation will wholeheartedly co-oper-ate.”