The Auckland Star: WITH WHICH ARE INCORPORATED The Evening News, Morning News and The Echo. MONDAY, FEBRUARY 18, 1929. NAVAL LIMITATIONS.

Auckland Star, Volume LX, Issue 41, 18 February 1929, Page 6

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

MONDAY, FEBRUARY 18, 1929. NAVAL LIMITATIONS.

.For <Ae oawas tfcat lacks assistance, For the tcrong that needs resistance For the future in the And the good that we can do.

It is not often that a highly-placed British diplomat commits such a grievous error in judgment as to obtrude his private opinions upon the general public; and the British Ambassador at Washington is not likely to hear the last of his recent "faux pas" for some time to come. Sir Esme Howard has attempted to disarm criticism by assuring the world that in discussing Naval Limitations he expressed only his own personal views. But it is obviously impossible for any ambassador to dissociate himself completely from his official capacity. The blunder of Mr. P. A. Britten, Chairman of the Naval Committee of the House of Representatives, who recently "as a private individual'' suggested to Mr. Baldwin another disarmament conference, should have proved an effective Avarning to Sir Esme Howard, and the British Ambassador's elaborate attempt at explanation is in itself an admission that he has been guilty of a serious diplomatic misdemeanour. Apart from the circumstances of this communication, there is nothing of special importance in Sir E. Howard's views. He stated that, as Congress has now passed the Cruiser Bill, there can be no objection to a further discussion of the whole problem of naval disarmament by Britain and America, and he indicated that in all probability a step would soon be taken in this direction. As it has been generally anticipated that the new , President would soon take the initiative in this matter, the British Ambassador's pronouncement is interpreted in some quarters as a semi-official hint to the effect that an American proposal for a further Naval Conference would be well received in London. Of course the official diplomatic world, both in London and Washington, is holding itself carefully aloof from these suggestions. No doubt the prospects of agreement between Britain and the United States on naval questions are better to-day than they were in 1!)22 at Washington, or in 1927 at Geneva. But there is a growing conviction at Home that after all there is not very much to be gained by formal discussion of these matters. If the Americans decide to make their naval position impregnable, nothing can prevent them from building the strongest fleet in the world. And if the majority of Americans believe that their political and commercial requirements necessitate the creation of a great fleet of a certain special character, no argument that British pacifists can produce is likely to deter them. As regards the controversy over the various types of warship, the "National Review'' considers that "it would be much wiser for each Power to build the ships it thinks it wants than to be argued or manoeuvred by the other into building ships it does not want, in pursuit of the phantom of 'parity.' " There is much common sense in this advice. Eor no matter how large or how small navies may be. the world's chance of avoiding war depends finally on the growth of "the will to peace," and this does not seem to be promoted by naval conferences.