NAVAL CONFERENCE

Greymouth Evening Star, 25 June 1927, Page 7

NAVAL CONFERENCE

BRITAIN TAKES INITIATIVE Americans "cut no ice” (Australian and N.Z. Cable Association.) (By Cable —Press Assn. —Copyright.) GENEVA, June 23. The more one learns of the events behind the scenes, the more obvious it becomes that Britain has entirely taken over the initiative and driving force from the United States, though the latter is the convening Power. It is no secret that the American naval delegates, in their talks with the American, British and foreign pressmen, separately or collectively, have 'cut an indifferent figure compared with Lord Jellicoe, Admirals Field and Eggerton. They are Britain’s “Big Three,” and the full detailed grasp they have shown of every aspect of the naval positions, present and future, of all three Powers, has created a most favourable impression upon publicists and journalists. The plain fact emerges that Britain had the most complete and thorough study of the problem in readiness for a Navy Disarmament Conference of her own .'‘ailing before President Coolidge issued his invitations. On the other’ hand, the United States came here with ill-prepared and undigested schemes. Nobody, therefore, was surprised to learn that Admiral Field was immediately appointed chairman of the techili cal committee. An unfortunate comparison as between the calibre of the American naval personnel as against that of Britain is shown by the former’s support of a red herring that somebody raised that Britain, with her vast mercantile marine, can most quickly acquire the equivalent of an increased cruiser strength by mounting guns on her liners. '

Though the Americans will not admit it. the real issue behind the United States’ , desire for cruiser strength is her lack of naval bases, throughout the world, and her consequent feeling that she must have a wider range of ships than Britain with her bases in every ocean.

At present the conference is sectionally carrying on conversations at various hotels. Specialists are dealing with cruisers and other technical questions affecting the destroyers and submarines. The technicians are exuected to report on the basis of agreed facts almost immediately, when the Powers will be'in possession of information as to the position of each regarding the auxiliaries built, building, or authorised. Britain’s policy is frankness. Her ultimate desire to induce France and Italy 'to join the convention is shown by the fact that observers of those nations have been admitted to the proceedings of the technical committee. So far. however, this has not modified the sarcasm of the French Press “Le Temps” is moderately critical. but the more popular newspapers do not hesitate to congratulate themselves on not joining in the Geneva farce. The French papers are cynically declaring “When the end comes we know what to do !”

AMERICAN PRESS BOOST. NEW YORK. June 23. The “New York World,’’ in a remarkable leading article on the Geneva Conference, says : “The economic position and the growing power of the United States render it certain that Britain cannot maintain in the 20th century the same relative predominance in the world which she enjoyed in the 19th century. All that statesmen can do is to take up the measures which will render peaceable Britain’s descent from supremacy to parity, and America’s ascent to an equal share in world affairs. The Washington Conference was the first phase, and the present Geneva Conference is the second of that great transition. God willing, other phases will be as reasonable as these. The supreme test of statesmanship in this generation will turn on whether the parity of the United States and Britain, which is inevitable, is to become, an equality of •co-operating partners, or a conflict of rivals. That it ought to be an equality of co-oneration goes without saying,' for rivalry between Englishspeaking peoples so equally matched in power would be the worst disaster which could befall mankind.’’

SUBMARINE TYPES. LONDON, June 23. The “Morning Post’s” Geneva correspondent states : The experts, in searching for a common ground from which to begin building up an agreement, have followed the line of least resistance by tackling submarines, whereon an agreement is likely by the week-end on the basis of decreeing two types. This compromise is the result of the tact and skill of the British experts. The next step will be the destroyers. INTERCHANGE OF VIEWS. A NOTE OF OPTIMISM. GENEVA, June 24. Yesterday was devoted to exchanges of. views. Mr Gibson (America) lengthily interviewed Mr W. C. Bridgman (Britain), concerning the main lines of the British and American schemes, and the planning of the work of the Conference. There is a note of optimism in all three camps. British official circles intimated that a plenary session is expected early next week. Mr Gibson, interviewed, said: “There is no cause for pessimism. We are trying to find a common denominator. There are still many dumplings to,swallow, but we are sure to arrive at an agreement concerning auxiliary ships.” Inside the Naval Experts Committee the Japanese are persistent questioners. The British experts have answered their inquiries asked about the proposed lengthening of the lives of warships. The British experts replied that experience had shown that a cruiser’s hull remained in good condition much longer than the present replacement periods. With two overhauls and new sets of boilers, they would last nearly a quarter of a century. This was one of the most effective ways of reducing the taxpayers’ burden. The same applied to the

lengthening of the periods of service of destroyers and submarines. Admirals Field and Egerton vigorously championed the British suggestion for further reductions in the size and gun power of cruisers, on the ground that every Power had built up to the Wasinghton maximum cruiser limit. They emphasised that the balance would not be charged because the Washington ratios were maintained, though the maximum size and power of -cruisers were reduced. The \merican experts, in answer to the Japanese inquiries, admitted they were proposing to exempt from the purview of the present Conference, firstly, surface naval vessels under six hundred tons ; secondly, surface combatant vessels between six hundred and three hundred tons and under 17 knots; thirdly, all vessels not built as fighting ships, provided they did not mount guns over five and a-half inches. This is clearly aimed at the British war-time practice of mounting six in. guns on their liners. The object of considering the cruiser and destroyer tonnage totals together was to prevent scrapping comparatively good ships of one class and replacing them with others of a different class. Mr W. C. Bridgeman (Britain) entertained at dinner the American delegation for the purpose of enabling them to meet the Dominion representatives, who are working, in the closest combination with the Admiralty experts.

JAPANESE OBJECTIONS. QUESTION OF SINGAPORE BASE. TOKIO, June 24. A high naval officer frankly gave the naval view of the Geneva proposals. He described the British plan as a noble plan, but he did not conceal the Japanese dislike for many of its provisions. The chief objection is the long age limit for ships. Japan considers a cruiser 24 years old of little fighting value. Japan does not object to a reduction in the size of capital ships, but she sees no reason for a reduction in their gun calibre. Japan, he said, could not accept the five-five-three ratio in 10,000-ton cruisers and the limitation of the other cruiser armaments to six-inch guns. Japan does not question Britain s right to build a Singapore base, and she certainly does not expect war with Britain. Nevertheless, Singapore brings the Third British Battle Fleet to the Western Pacific, and it greatly increases the British Fleet s mobility, which factors cannot be excluded in calculating the naval strength of Britain. Japan will not make the Singapore Base an issue, but .it is impossible to ignore it in the discussions.