The Auckland Star: WITH WHICH ARE INCORPORATED The Evening News, Morning News and The Echo. SATURDAY, AUGUST 6, 1927. THE CONFERENCE FAILS.

Auckland Star, Volume LVIII, Issue 184, 6 August 1927, Page 8

The Auckland Star: WITH WHICH ARE INCORPORATED The Evening News, Morning News and The Echo.

SATURDAY, AUGUST 6, 1927. THE CONFERENCE FAILS.

For the cause that laeke assistance, For the wrong that need* resistance, For the future in the distance. And the good that tee can do.

Universal regret will be felt, but little surprise is likely to be expressed, at the failure of the Naval Limitation Conference. For some time past it has been evident that the uncompromising attitude of the American delegates and the American Government toward all schemes and proposals but their own must render any general agreement impossible. Such discussions, if they are to produce practical results, must be conducted on "give and take" principles. But the Americans have not only been inflexible; they have made a special merit of their obstinacy. It is some consolation, however, to learn that the "conversations" so unfortunately cut short at Geneva are to be continued between the various Governments concerned; and it is possible that the diplomats, working in a calmer and more congenial atmosphere, may yet succeed where the delegates, exposed to current criticism ,of a singularly vehement and disturbing kind, have failed.

To affix the blame for this unfortunate collapse is necessarily an invidious task. But as Britain's policy has been denounced, and her motives misinterpreted by her American critics, it seems to be a duty to repeat with emphasis that the Americans appear to have approached this discussion in a thoroughly wrong spirit. The professed purpose of the Conference was to reduce the strength of the world's navies, thereby decreasing the probability of war, and at the same time lightening the tremendous burden thrown upon all nations alike by competitive naval expenditure. Yet the Americans, who had promoted the Conference, came to Geneva with a cut-and-dried scheme involving far heavier naval expenditure for themselves and the world at large, and they absolutely refused to admit that the special needs of Britain or Japan constituted a reason for allowing these Powers to possess more naval units of any given type than the United States.

Against this self-assertive and dictatorial attitude arguments and protests proved unavailing. But there have been some indications that American public opinion in its higher levels has been impressed by the clear and cogent statement of Britain's case by her delegates and Ministers. The admission made during the past week by Mr. Frank Simonds, that America's demand for '"equality" is based not upon her naval requirements, but on "national pride," is a particularly useful contribution to the controversy. But that the American nation as a whole fails to understand this has been made painfully clear by the chairman of the Naval Committee of the House of Representatives. Mr. Butler has just told the world, through the New York "Times," that the next thing the United States will have to do is "to build a navy in accordance with America's needs," and he translates this to mean that his country "will necessarily want a navy as strong as that of Britain."

We need hardly stay to criticise Mr. Butler's assertion that America has "the same need as Britain," and that the United States "must build enough small ships to make the large ships effective." How or why a selfcontained continent can be said to need cruisers in the sense in which an island empire needs them Mr. Butler docs not condescend to explain. But, conscious of the weakness ot liis case, he has gone to some trouble to prcju-. dice the American people against Britain by insinuating suspicion of her motives. Why does Britain want cruisers, he asks; what nation does she expect to attack her? The retort is obvious enough. Against what enemy are the Americans proposing to build not only huge battleships, but a great fleet of cruisers as well? It is a pitiable wrangle, but it is not Britain's fault that it has descended to this level. In spirit and in fact the Americans are responsible for the failure of the Naval Conference, and the best of them will admit it.