NAVAL LIMITATION

Dominion, Volume 23, Issue 109, 1 February 1930, Page 11

NAVAL LIMITATION

COMPROMISE PLAN » SUGGESTED CATEGORIES GREAT ADVANCE TOWARDS AGREEMENT Details of the compromise plan being considered by delegates to the Naval Conference are given in the following message from London. It is considered that a great advance has been made towards the agreement of the na(United Press Association.—By Electric Telegraph.—Copyright.) (Rec. January 81, 10.25 p.m.) London, January 31. Briefly put, the compromise plan which is clumsily called the French transitional proposal, put before the Naval Conference, provides that each Power shall specify the maximum figure of' its total tonnage, which it will undertake not to exceed. Each Power also is to submit figures for the categories of ships, the tonnage of which must not exceed the total tonnage. The transference of a certain agreed percentage, say 10 per cent., will be allowable from one category to another, but only with notice, ami a number of safeguards. Any increase in tonnage in one category must be accompanied by a corresponding decrease in another. The categories remain fixed for the duration of the treaty, and thereafter will be alterable only by twelve months’ notice to the League of Nations. The French want a deviation among all categories, but this is not likely to be agreed to. The categories suggested are:— (1) Battleships of 10,000 tons and oyer, or* ships carrying Sin. ' guns and over. (2) • Cruisers carrying guns above 6in. calibre. (3) Surface craft carrying less than 6in. guns, including destroyers. (4) Aircraft carriers. (5) Submarines. (6) Minesweepers and various small craft. It is hoped that this division of the cruiser categories will help to solve the problem outstanding between Britain and the United States, while the grouping of light cruisers and destroyers will meet the French naval requirements. Whether the categories will stand as here detailed remains to be seen. It is known that the original British list distinguished between battleships and Bin. gun cruisers. A great advance towards the agreement of the nations lies in the fact that while the French hitherto have argued that limitation was only possibly to be achieved by total tonnage, leaving any State to allot its tonnage according to its own requirements, and Britain held that limitation could best be effected within the categories, now the first method approved is combining both ideas. ATMOSPHERE OF HOPE MR. MACDONALD OPTIMISTIC London, January 30. To-day’s proceedings at the Naval Conference leave an atmosphere of considerable hope. Mr. MacDonald’s optimism in speaking to pressmen after the session, when he indicated that they were approaching a settlement of a question which had hitherto defied solution, was regarded as expressing a feeling in existence throughout the Conference. The big turn in the tide seems to be that England, France and America are much closer together than before, while Japan has always been anxious for the utmost co-operation. Thus many now consider that not only is there an extremely promising outlook, but that the general question of naval disarmament has reached a stage well beyond anything hitherto achieved. Italy appears to some extent to be the impeding agent, with a strong desire to settle the parity problem with France. The impression is fast growing that it is already a four-to-one Conference, on the face of which Italy will hardly hold up progress. The admission of the Press to plenary sessions must not be construed that the journalists nre in the Conference’s full confidence. Undoubtedly had the plenary sessions been private, there would have been much more open speaking, and delegates do not disguise the fact that straight speaking, which alone removes misunderstanding, will strictly be confined to private meetings. METHODS OF ACHIEVING LIMITATION GLOBAL TONNAGE OR CATEGORIES? COMMITTEE TO REPORT (British Official Wireless.) Rugby. January 30. A further stage in the business of the Five Power Naval Conference was reached to-day, when at a plenary session it was decided to appoint a committee to examine and report on the methods and procedure for achieving limitation, whether by global tonnage or by categories, or on the intermediate system, such. as that suggested by the so-called French "compromise” proposals.

The Italian delegation agreed to participate in the work of this committee, but Signor Grandi said that it could not commit itself on special points until two fundamental questions of the determination of ratios and of the maximum levels of global tonnage had been settled. The American delegate, Mr. Gibson, in supporting the resolution, remarked that while the United States favoured the British scheme of limitation by categories, which Japan also supported, the Americans recognised that countries with smaller building programmes might find advantages in the global system, and were therefore prepared to discuss the French scheme thoroughly. French Compromise Proposal. ■ M. Tardieu said that the French had put all the goodwill in their power into their compromise proposal on global tonnage, and he hoped the committee would very carefully consider the scheme, and in relation to it would examine what classification of ships was to be adopted and the amount and conditions of transfer tonnage to be allowed. The First Lord of the Admiralty, Mr. A V. Alexander, one of the British delegates, repeated that, in complete agreement with America and Japan, Britain believed the system of limitation in various classes of ships was best calculated to prevent competition, to increase the feeling of security, and to ensure economy. Britain, - however, did not object to the principles of transfer of tonnage between the less powerful classes of ships. But most careful regard must be paid to the results of any specific measure of transfet, as such results might conceivably impair the confidence and stability at which the Conference should aim. The resolution was adopted. Mr. MacDonald announced that conversations would be continued between the delegations and from those further business would arise. When that business had arisen, a plenary session would again be summoned. After the Conference had adjourned, Mr. MacDonald, in conversation with Press correspondents, said :— I think that we are now within measurable distance of a solution to the problem that up to now has defied solution. lam sure the committee we have appointed to deal with the question will reach an agreement. DIFFERENT SYSTEMS PROPOSALS OF THREE POWERS NEED OF EXCHANGE OF VIEWS (British Official Wireless.) Rugby, January 30. In opening this morning the third plenary session of the Five Power Naval Conference at St. James's Palace, the Prime Minister, Mr. Ramsay MacDonald, who presided, said that it was called to deal with the agenda which had been circulated. The only item on the agenda was that of the consideration of general questions affecting the work of the Conference. Under this heading, I< rance, Britain and' Italy had each given notice of proposals which they wish to advance, as follow: — France —(1) System of global tonnage and the French delegations transactional proposal. (2) What classification is to be adopted. (3) Transfer, amount and conditions thereof. Great Britain —System of limitation by categories. Italy—(1) -Determination of ratios (2) Determination of levels of total tonnages of the several countries. Gratifying Results of Conversations. Mr. MacDonald said that two things had 'been going on since the Conference began. This was a Conference of five Powers and, consequently, the different interests and different relationships between the Powers were exceedingly intricate. It was quite impossible to take them straight away and deal with them in -open conference. The various delegations must exchange views with each other in order to remove misunderstandings and to pave the way for compromises and agreements. That process had been going on daily since the Conference started. Although to those Who had not been engaged in them the results might appear very slow in coming, nevertheless to those who understood the difficulties the results were regarded as most gratifying. Parallel with these consultations, the heads of delegations had met daily. As a result of these two parallel operations, the questions on the agenda had been drawn with the proposal that they should be referred to Committee. Italy regarded the two points mentioned opposite her name as dealing rather with principles than with methods, and Signor Grandi desired to make his position clear regarding the inclusion of those two points. Question Raised by Italians. Signor Grandi said that the three French points and the British point dealt practically with the same problem —that of determining whether the limitation of naval armaments should be based on a system of global tonnage or on that of limitation by category or on an intermediate system such as that suggested by the so-called French transactional proposal. All these were questions of method. On the other hand, the Italian delegation raised the question _of principle, namely, the determination of the ratios of strength between the navies and the question of fact, namely, the determination of the .maximum levels of the total tonnages for the five Powers. In placing these two points on the agenda, Signor Grandi' continued, the Italian delegation wanted the Conference to determine the general principles and political criteria of disarmament. Italy agreed, however, that questions of method and of procedure on the agenda should be examined in the meantime. While the Italian delegation was prepared to take part in these discussions, it did not see its way to commit itself on any of the restrictions of method or on any special points of the disarmament problem until the two fundamental questions in the determination of ratios and the maximum levels of global tonnage had been settled. Mr. Stimson’s Proposal. Mr. Stimson moved that the questions of method and procedure on the agenda, including particularly the suggestions of thg French and British Governments as to limitation by global tonnage or by categories and including the methods of procedure suggested by the French Government, be referred to a committee to be composed of representatives to be appointed by the nations represented in the Conference, witii directions to examine carefully the possibilities and probable effect pf such methods with reference to the fleets of the respective nations and to report their views to the Conference through the chiefs of the respective delegations. Sir. Stimson added that in putting forward the motion he was. not proposing in any way to suspend informal. discussions between the various delegations. Experience of Earlier Conferences. Mr. Hugh 'Gibson, who was chairman of the Three-Power Naval Conference of 1027 and chairman of the American delegation to the Preparatory Commission on Disarmament, reviewed the progress made at the earlier conferences in the examination of the questions which would be before the Committee proposed by Mr. Stimson. He pointed to the progress made since 1920 and expressed the belief that this past experience would prove of great value in assisting the Committee to close the gap between those lesser Naval Powers who favoured limitation of global ton-, nage and those who favoured limita-

tion by categories, which had the support of Britain, America and Japan. The resolution was adopted and the plenary session then concluded. After the conference Mr. MacDonald expressed the view t 6 Press correspondents that they were within measurable distance of a solution of the problem of category tonnage versus global tonnage and that the committee would present an agreed report. ATTITUDE OF POWERS ITALY’S PROBLEM London, January 30. Explaining Italy’s position, at the plenary session, Signor Grandi said, that Italy’s problem was essentially political, as it concerned the acceptance of a restriction on the fundamental rights inherent in national sovereignty. They were therefore present to solve first ana foremost what was the basis of reciprocal and relative strength each 1 ower was prepared to accept in limitation of Its freedom of action in the matter of armaments. For Italy it was no question of procedure, but of substance, but as some thought it more prudent at present to refrain from discussing the two points, Italy was prepared to agree to await the examination of procedure and methods. . „ . . ~ Mr. Hugh Gibson (United States) said that America had consistently favoured the category method ns best calculated to reduce international competition and feelings of mistrust and suspicion.' By the categories method nations knew exactly what others were contemplating, but the global system would leave an unknown situation, causing fear, anxiety and ultimately competition in building. M. Tardieu (France) said that categorical limitation was more satisfactory for Navai Powers, but global tonnage better for those who navies were not so important. The French proposals are -understood to be that each Power shall submit a maximum total tonnage by categories, which it will not exceed during the duration of the treaty. Thereafter each Power will be permitted to deviate or transfer a certain agreed percentage as between these categories after informing the other Powers. MR. GIBSON’S SPEECH COMMENT OF “NEW YORK TIMES” (Kec. January 31, 5.30 p.m.). a New York, January 31. The “New York Times’s” Washington correspondent, commenting on Mr. Gibson’s speech in London, says: “The system of limitations by flexible categories within the total or global tonnages is one which meets with favour here, although it is evidence that caution will have to be exercised in applying it if trouble is to be avoided among big naval men in the United States and their' sympathisers in the Senate. The percentage of transfers from one class of ships to another must relatively be small if the general purpose of eliminating competitive naval programmes is to be achieved. There would be great difficulty in obtaining the consent of the Senate to any naval treaty with over-wide latitude.”

DOMINION DELEGATES CONFER London, January 30. Mr. MacDonald confers with the Dominion delegates at No. 10 to-morrow morning. Mr. Fenton says that nothing affecting the Australian fleet has yet been mentioned. Nothing has been decided ns to who will represent the Dominions on the Agenda Committee. JOURNALISTS’ LUNCH London, January 30. Journalists of over thirty nationalities gave a lunch to the naval delegates, in; eluding Mr. Wilford. Mr. Wakatsuki responded on behalf of the delegates. BRITAIN’S CONSTRUCTION PROGRAMME REDUCTIONS MADE British Official Wireless. (Rcc. January 31, 5.5 p.m.) Rugby, January 30. The modifications which Britain has introduced into her programme of naval construction are referred to in a written rcplv to a Parliamentary question by Mr. A. V. Alexander, First Lord of the Admiralty. . Mr. Alexander said that the British naval vessels deleted from the programme of 1929 approved by Parliament were two cruisers, including the 8inch gun ship, four destroyers, one netlayer and target towing vessel, two sloops, and three submarines. Whether the three remaining submarines m the programme would be proceeded, with would be decided after the conclusion ot the Naval Conference. Mr. Alexander, in replies to other questions, said there were at present 54 British Empire cruisers built, and four in an advanced stage of construction. Asked to state the saving to the naval estimates in each of the years 1930 to 1936 if the replacement of battleships as provided by the Washington Treaty was deferred until 1936, Mr. Alexander said that assuming the ships were of . the maximum displacement allowed by the treaty namely, 35,000 tons, the estimated cost of building them, which would be saved if none were laid down until the beginning of 1931. would be: Next year, £1,030,000; in 1932, £6,065,000; in 1933, £10.050,000; in 1934, £11.873,000; in 1935, £12,035,000; and in 1936, £10,0<0,000.