U.S.A.'s REJECTION

Greymouth Evening Star, 1 October 1928, Page 5

U.S.A.'s REJECTION

ANGLO-FRENCH TREATY

REASONS OUTLINED r ——n.i. . , (Australian Press Association.) (By Cable—Press Assn.—Copyright.) WASHINGTON, September 29. The American Note states that the basis of the Anglo-French proposals are the “limitations which the Disarmament Conference is to determine, and will deal with four classes of naval vessels, viz., first, capital ships of over ten thousand tons and with greater than eight-inch guns; second, aircraft carriers of over ten thousand tons; third, surface vessels of ten thousand tons or less with over six and up to eight-inch guns; fourth, ocean going submarines over six hundred tons.”

, The first two classes have been rei gulated by the Washington Naval Con- • ference, and the British and French ■ propose to limit only the cruisers of ■ ten thousand tons or less and submarines of over six hundred tons.. The United States holds that limitations, to be effective, must apply to all combative vessels. The Note says that none would deny that modern cruisers or destroyers armed ‘ with sixinch guns would have a very high offensive value, especially to any national possessing well distributed bases over the world. The AngloFrench suggested restrictions would affect the types peculiarly suited to the United States’ needs. The Note points out that the restrictions proposed on cruisers Qf ten thousand tons or below, armed with six to eight inch guns, “would only add enormously to the comparative offensive power of the nation possessing a large merchant tonnage, on which preparations may be made in peace time for the mounting of six

inch guns.” The reply also recalls that Britain at Geneva made proposals to divide the cruisers into two classes, and it adds: “This same proposal is now presented in even a more objectionable form, which limits the large cruisers suitable for American needs, but frankly places no limits whatever upon the cruisers carrying six-inch or smaller* guns.” The Anglo-French agreement is unacceptable, not only because it discards the principle of limitation as applied to important combatant type of vessels, but also as regards submarines. The reply points out “that the United States cannot accept limitations of the six hundred ton submarines while leaving those of less tonnage unrestricted, since the latter ones have an equal destructive force, and can be armed with five-inch guns.” The United States “would gladly abolish submarines in conjunction with all nations,” but hold that otherwise they should be limited to a reasonable tonnage or number. “The American Government has no objection to any agreement between France and Britain which those countries think will be to their advantage, and in the interests of a limitation Of armaments; but, naturally, the United States cannot consent that such agreement should be applied to the United States.”

Specifically the American objection to the Anglo-France accord was based on the contention that this would restrict the only types of ships that are “peculiarly suited to the needs of the United States,” and would leave unlimited the ships that are of great value to any nation having widelydistributed fuelling bases, or a great merchant marine tonnage. « The American Note is marked throughout by a sharpness of tone and a frankness in stating the American viewpoint, thus plainly indicating the irritation existing in Washington over the Franco-British procedure.

' THE NEXT STEP. (Recd. October 1, 10 a.m.) NEW YORK, September 30. The New York Times’s Washington correspondent states: Officials here are pleased to-day at the first reactions in England and France to the American reply to the Anglo-French naval proposals. It is intimated that the next step is now up to those two Governments. It is made clear, meantime that the United States stands ready to continue the effort for armament limitation before the Preparatory Commission, and will consider sympathetically any proposals that are offered. Gratification was felt that the British Press quite generally commended the tone and clarity of the American note, although it. is admitted that Britain and the United States, for the present, appear officially to be as far apart on the naval question as at the time of the breakdown of the Geneva tripartite conference. It is understood that the Coolidge Administration realises that some time may be required before a definite approach can be again made to naval limitations, subject, and is planning vigorously to support the Bill now pending before the Senate for the construction of fifteen cruisers, and one aeroplane carrier, and on the fate of this measure, and the efforts that may be made to bring the Naval Powers closer together on the limitation issue, depends whether renewed efforts will be made to obtain the adoption of the ambitions programme.

NO EARLY REPLY.

LONDON, September 29.

Neither in London nor in Paris is it regarded as likely that an early reply to the American note 'will be sent.

The French Foreign Office, especially, emphasises that there is no need for any haste. It declares the French naval experts have already many months’ work ahead.

The British Foreign Office explains that the matter must be considered by the Cabinet, while the subject matter concerns not merely one, but a number of Departments. Nor are there any signs of the publication of the text of the Anglo-French naval agreement. Paris affiirms that publication of the agreement is delayed owing to a British objection to publication.

LONDON PRESS OPINIONS

LONDON, September 29.

The “Daily Telegraph” commenting on the American Note, points out: Firstly, no copy was supplied of the original Note that was addressed to the United States Government, to which a reply has now been issued. This is contrary to the usual procedure. An inquiry at the Foreign Office last night elicited that there is no intention of publishing- the Note, at

any rate at present. It was added: "The American Note contains all the facts. Secondly, the United States has never received the full text of the Anglo-French Agreement, but only a summary of it, and America twice has asked for elucidations which might not have been necessary had they been supplied with the full text. It may be added that the United States Embassy in London has issued the Note here on its own initiative. The U.S.A. Note was not issued from the British Foreign Office.”

The “Daily Telegraph” editorially, expresses the opinion that the AngloFrench proposals have been killed by Mr Kellogg’s latest reply, as they wei;e certain to be kicked.” The “Times” says: “The motives of Britain are evidently not yet fully understood in America, but the Washington and Geneva Conferences, and all that has happened since,, are in the nature of a preliminary investigation into the big question of the relation between naval armaments and security in the modern world. This inquiry will bear fruit in time. The absence of any immediate result is not a condemnation of the sincere efforts that have been made to achieve them.”

The “Daily Express” points out that the first precise details of the AngloFrench naval compromise appeared in a New York newspaper, and now the' United States has again become the channel through which the British people learn of the engagements entered by the British Government. Meanwhile, th© Government itself remains obstinately silent.

SETTLEMENT DEMANDED.

LONDON, September 30

The Sunday Press confirms that no development is likely at present in connection with the American note. It is agreed that the matter must simmer awhile. The American suggestion to vary the percentage of tonnage within the total will certainly be exploreded.

The “Sunday Times” hopes that the Foreign Office will never again place the country in the humiliating position of receiving important diplomatic information from the Hearst Press.

The “Observer” says the Note opens a new avenue for negotiation. We stand by the principle of equality , and welcome the proposal of a floating percentage. British people will sweep away a government which does not itself sweep away all obstacles to a final settlement.

LABOUR LEADER’S DEMAND.

(Reed. Sept. 30, 1 p.m.) LONDON, September 30.

Mr Ramsay MacDonald, speaking at Birmingham, demanded that Mr Baldwin officially publish both the French and British agreement, and the correspondence comprising preceding negotiations, and that the Government must also act vigorously at the next meeting of the Disarmament Preparatory Committee, making positive proposals for the Disarmament Conference as quickly as possible.

FRENCH PRESS COMMENTS

PARIS, September’ 29.

The newspapers are divided on the American reply. Some express the opinion that the Anglo-French naval agreement will survive -what is called “Mr Kellogg’s anaesthetic.” Others are inscribing it with an epitaph. “Le Petit Parisien,” “Le Journal,” and “Le Petit Journal” favour further exploration as hinted in the U.S.A. Note’s last paragraph. M. Jules Sauer Wein in “Le Matin” urges a joint Anglo-French reply to ensure American participation. M. Pertinax writing in “L’Echo De Paris” expressed the opinion that the United States objection is directed at the British advantage. He says if the United States uses her available cruiser tonnage to build ten thousand tonners, then Britain will be faced with either renouncing equality, or abandoning her proposed seventy smaller cruisers for Empire routs. He adds: The Anglo-French secrecy as to the terms of the compromise, which has nourished a hostile press campaign, is inexplicable. “Figaro” blames Moscow’s and Berlin’s opposition suggesting that they are currying favour with America. “Le Petit Parisien” understands that the United States Note regrets it cannot endorse Franco-British naval compromise, as it does not meet the American needs. The Note emphasises that the Navy Department cannot agree to the limitation of large cruisers being offset by a corresponding limitation of light cruisers, submarines and auxiliary craft. The Note makes no concrete suggestions, but leaves the door open to further conversations for a reduction.

GERMAN ESTIMATE

BERLIN, September 30.

The political papers are keenly interested in the American Note which they belivxe may lead to a new conference, on naval disarmament. “Berliner Tageblatt” says: The United States built a golden bridge for England. The Conservatives should be glad to be let off so easily, in view of the forthcoming general election.

M. BRIAND’S VIEW

PARIS, September 29

The American Note was received at Quai D’Orsay just as M. Berthelot and M. Briand were departing for the Spanish Embassy to lunch with King Alfonso. M. Berthelot took the note and translated it while in a motor-car to M. Briand, who is reported to have remarked: “Then the naval compromise is dead!” This is the general opinion here.

MR. HEARST INTERVIEWED.

iAustralian Press Assn.—United Service.)

(Received October 1, 2.30 p.m.) LONDON, September 30.

‘William Randolph Hearst, before his departure for America, made a statement to the effect that the secrecy of the Anglo—French compromise had aroused suspicion in the United States, which had always been averse to secret diplomacy, the elimination of which was one of the reasons for America’s entry into the war. It was perfectly natural that the United' States should expect a compact including her, to consider her interests, but the disposition of the United States to limit or abolish the submarine was incomprehensible from the viewpoint of American welfare, because although she wanted merely defensive armaments, nothing -was more important, considering her extensive coast lin°, than the submarine. “If in addition to an extensive air force, which we should have, actually must have, and will have, we had an extensive submarine fleet, the United Stated would be practically immune from successful attack, even if the Army and Navy were not com-

‘parable with those of other nations. The Americans’ objection to the submarine is purely sentimental, due to horror of war aggravated by a me-> thod with which they are not yet familiar. Nevertheless, Americans must realise that while exercising every effort to prevent war, they must be prepared to make the country invincible.”

“WAR A DIRTY BUSINESS”

(Recd. Oct. 1, 9 a.m.) LONDON, Sept. 30

“War is an ugly disgraceful dirty and objectionable business,” said Sir Oliver Lodge, in a Presidential address to the Brotherhood at Southampton. “We ought to be ashamed of it. Digging ourselves into mud, pretending to be civilised people, crawling about under water and sinking one another. It is no occupation for gentlemen. War does not settle disputes. It leaves them to be settled.”