DISARMAMENT

Feilding Star, Volume 5, Issue 1032, 17 February 1927, Page 5

DISARMAMENT

COOLIDGE INVITATION THE FRENCH REPLY ] 1 . PREFERENCE FOR GENEVA By Telegraph—Presg Assn—Copyright (A nst. and N.Z. Cable). 0 ' .Paris*, Feb* lo* M. Bijiand, FuejieU Foreign Minister replying to President, C'o.oiidge entphas.ises bis appreciation of, the lofty aim and gerous idealism. of the American Note, which was in.'figreement with French views, bnt, said that. the. proposals risked compromising tile success of; the wo.rk commenced at Geneva, which. Amei'ica" was supporting. Whereas at, the time of the Washington Conference the League was not working, it was now the duty of the League, to secure the general limitation of; armaments. A special conference in which only certain Powers participated, and which sought only a, partial solution, might prejudice the complete, problem, and also weaken the League’s authority throughout the world. , Moreover, all the world’s navies had the right td be associated in the lim.i" tatjon of light vessels. . The French delegates a-fc Geneva had ..secured the acceptance of certain general principles:— Firstly, it was impossible to limit .navies without considering land and air forces..

Secondly, the limitation of; navies Was only achievable by the allocation to each Power of a. total tonnage f Or division according to requirements. The American proposals ignored these principles. France held that the. Preparatory Committee, as. the result of recently debates, may enable a Disarmament Conference to have serious chances of success. Therefore, in. view of bis duty, as a member of the League of Nations, and in view of the fact that lie also was; convin.eed. that durable work could be built up by the Powers’ joint assent, h,> believed the proposals could be efficaciously studied by the Preparatory Committee.

JAPAN ACCEPTS PROPOSALS

PUT NAVAL BILL NOT TO PE POSTPONED Tokio, Eeh.. 15. If, is understood that the .1 apa.ncsp Cabinet. has decided to reply to America accepting the proposal for a disarmament conference, 1 subject- to Tm.peria I sanct ion. Replying to interpellations.* in the Upper House, the Premier stated that the. decision to paricipatc yv the pro])Os;ed conference did hot- warrant 'the postponement of the Naval Pill, as it was impossible to Jforetell the result of the conference. THREE-POWER, TREATYAMERICA’S NEXT AtOYE COMMENT ON FRENCH REFUSAL (Received Feb. 17, 0.25 a.m.) Washington, Fob. 15.

Prance’s- • rejection ol President Coolidge’s proposal for a naval conference lons turned, the hopes of the Administration to the alternative of a, Three-Power Treaty with Britain ap.d Japan, particularly a* Italy not expected, to agree to the limitation especially with France refusing. / Air Kellogg, commenting on the French refusal and referring to fhe charge, that the plan would nmlormyte the League of; Nations, said it was true Article 8 of the Covenant entrusted' the problem of disarmament to the League, Nothing had been' done, ’however, except at the Washington Conferences If naval, land, and air armaments wore to. he considered, a.s one problem applying to all the nations of the world, a solution would hardly be reached for years to come-

Air Kellogg farther claimed the French, the memorandum, He reiterated, that the United States intended to continue to participate in the League disarmament Commission regardless of the outcome, q{ President Coolidge’s proposal. Other, officials declare they are unable to take seriously the French counter-proposal that the American plan- .should he submitted to the League Commission, since it has already been submitted repeatedly and, rejected with the votes of the small non-naval States.

It is intimated at the AVhite House that President Coolidge will await formal replies from all powers before determining the results of the proposal a.nd thq, next steps to take.