DISARMAMENT PROPOSALS

Greymouth Evening Star, 9 July 1932, Page 7

DISARMAMENT PROPOSALS

LONDON PRESS COMMENT [BY CABLE —PRESS ASSN. —COPYRIGHT.] LONDON, July 8. “The Times,” in a leading article emphasises that the British plan would involve the sinking of nearly three hundred thousand tons of warships, whereas the plan of America, after allowing the right to new buildings, would lose half of that figure. It says: —The Hoover plan, however, does not affect the size of ships, which is the main difficulty in reconciling the proposals. It is obviously impossible to reduce the British Navy below a certain point, owing to widespread responsibilities. Even in recent years police duties in South America, China, the East Mediterranean, and the Red Sea might be required simultaneously. If President Hoover’s police policy regarding land armaments were to be applied to the navy, it should not be impossible to reach an understanding. The “News Chronicle” says: What makes the proposals a mere sham is that as regards the navy,* they involve no disarmament at all. It is only a scheme of disarmament for our grandchildren!” The “Daily Express” says: The English speaking nations have given a new lead to the rest of the world. The whole trend of civilisation depends on the welcome accorded thereon. U.S.A. RECEPTION NEW YORK, July 8. The “New York Times’s” Washing ton correspondent states: U.S. administrative circles have accepted the British disarmament proposals as “in line with the spirit of Mr. Hoover’s proposal,” but they consider that the British proposals require extensive study and negotiation before they could be adopted by the United States.