NAVAL PROBLEMS

Evening Star, Issue 20255, 16 August 1929, Page 9

NAVAL PROBLEMS

CONFERENCE PROBABLY THIS YEAR LONDON SUGGESTED MEETING PLAGE Pres* Association—By Telegraph—Copyright. NEW YORK, August 14. The Washington correspondent or the ‘New York Tunes’ states that a confernnee to-clay between President Hoover, Mr Franklin Adams, Mr A. M. Stimson (Secretary of State), and members of the General Naval Board brought to light - certain important facts—-namely, that there is an encouraging prospect that a formal disarmament conference will occur, probably in December, in London. It was indicated that there would probably bo harmonisation of conflicting views concerning 6,000 and 10 } 000-ton cruisers by giving a low valuation to cruisers that would bo employed mainly ‘ for policing the seas, as compared with cruisers effective in offensive warfare. .The so-called '‘yardstick,” moreover, will-be applied to as few categories of vessels as possible—namely, cruisers and aeroplane carriers.

The fundamental aim, on account or the popular sentiment in the United States and Britain against the actual scrapping of effective warships, will be to establish a basis for bringing about a curtailment of sea power by not replacing ships that have reached a noneffective fighting state. It is understood that the British, under this heading, contemplate building only 30,000 tons of new cruisers to replace the, 70.000 tons which are approaching the age limit. Moreover, nineteen American cruisers in the same condition are to be sold and eliminated from the valuation discussions. Mr Ramsay MacDonald will visit Washington prior to the formal naval conference being., called.—Australian Press Association. THE FREEDOM OF THE SEAS. BRITISH AND AMERICAN DIFFERENCES. NEW YORK, August 14. ; “The United States and Great Britain are heading for a collision on the question of sea power, unless they agree on the real meaning of sea rights,” said Mr George Young, a member of the British Parliament, when he was speaking before the Arms Limitation Conference at the Institute of Politics at Williamstown (Massachusetts). He further said; “Two fundamentally different attitudes mark the policies of the two nations. If it is to the command of the seas that the British owe their national existence and their colonial Empire—in other words, our daily bread—it is to freedom of the seas that you Americana owe your national independence. To say > that a_ collision over the issue is mitninkable is equivalent to saying, ‘We don’t think ’ Since the Great War I have bfeen aghast on realising how far and fast the United States and the British ships of State have come athwart each other’s course and to-day are heading for a collision.” As a solution he advocated British renunciation of command of tho seas in respect to the right to declare a private blockade against a private enemy, and American renunciation of the freedom of the seas in respect to the right to supply sinews of war to a public enemy.—Australian Press As-sociation-United Service. THE PRELIMINARY DISCUSSIONS. PROCEEDING SATISFACTORILY. (Britiih Official Wirelesi.) Press Association—By Telegraph—Copyright. RUGBY", August 15. (Received August 16, at 11.30 a.m.) Ju regard to the naval disarmament question, it is understood that the preliminary discussions between London and Washington are proceeding satisfactorily, and it is presumed that further progress will be made next week when the Prime Minister meets General Dawes at Elgin (Scotland) for a continuance of their conversations.

Mr MacDonald hopes to bo able t visit America during October, and it is likely that while ho is there the advisability of proposing a conference of the five naval Powers towards the end of the present year will be considered.

MR WINSTON CHURCHILL'S VIEWS RIGID AGREEMENT NOT ADVISABLE. OTTAWA,. August 15. (Received August 16, at 12.40 p.m.) Addressing the Canadian Club to-day Mr Winston Churchill declared that it had been the aim of every British Government to remove all the stumblingblocks from the path of Anglo-American friendship, and success had crowned their efforts. The only_ live issue remaining was the question of naval agreement. He declared that the 1921 Washington Conference was a great decision, which he had looked on with faith and hope. He added; “ But on looking back I begin to wonder if it did not do as much ham as good to Anglo-American relations.” Pointing out that the Washington Treaty dealt only with battle fleets, the sneaker said a new agreement would be a more complicated affair. Ships varied as much from one another as human beings. “It seems to mo,” he said, “ that we are opening up fields of infinite technical discussion with immense possi bilities of misunderstanding if we try to regulate the whole of the minor con struction of the two countries in accordance with some rigid treaty instrument.”

Mr Churchill declared that, while Britain was dependent for food and raw material on her seaborne trade, theUnited States was self-contained. The Continent was separated by thousands of miles from any potential danger, while Britain was only one hour away from Europe, with its animosities and quarrels. “There can be no parity of circumstances,” he stated. To apply rigid numerical equality to conditions so markedly unequal, whatever the yardstick may be, would be to run a great ■fid: si aot arriving at the true goal, which is that the United States and the British Empire shall be equal Powers upon the seas.” Mr Churchill continued: “ I wondei if this great diversity of conditions is understood by the American people, and whether it will receive fair;recognition in the proposals they have to make to ns. If not, then a fair agreement will be hard to reach, and, if reached on paper without the real as sent of the public opinion of each conn try, then in years to tome there_ may again rise up those difficulties which it is our object to sweep away. I doubt if a rigid agreement will lead to an effective reduction of expenditures.”— Australian Press Association-United Service. • .