NAVAL CONFERENCE

Gisborne Times, Volume LV, Issue 6274, 30 December 1921, Page 5

NAVAL CONFERENCE

HITCH AT BIG CONFERENCE.

FRANCE WILL NOT ACCEPT LIMITATION OF SUBMARINES.

UNITED STAND BY BRITAIN, ITALY, AND JAPAN.

(United Press Association—Copyright,.) (Special to Australian Press Assn.) (Received December 29, 5-5 p.m.) WASHINGTON, December 28.,

French action to-day destroyed all chance of an agreement being reached at tlia conference on the submarine issue, said an American delegate, after this morning’s ineetifig of the committee. France demanded the right to build 90,000 tons of submarines, and 330,000 tons of auxiliary craft. The demand was made positively, without any spirit of concession,, the impression left being that finality was reacted, and that there would be no reopening of the question at this conference. After expressing regret at the French stand, Mr Balfour notified the committee that if France, would not agree to a reduction in submarine tonnage, Britain would insist on freedom to build as many subamrines and auxiliary craft as she thought she wanted. Italy and Japan followed Britain’s lead. This leaves the capital ship ratio practically the sole result of the conference on naval limitation. Even here, France suggests she is entitled to special consideration, and wants permission to start building in 1927, though the ships would not he lint into commission till the end of the naval holiday. There remain for consideration subsidiary matters such as the size and gun-poiver of cruisers, and other minor matters which the committee is now dealing with. Undoubtedly the French, judging by various propaganda cables reaching here last week, hope to use their wrecking of the Conference on the submarine issue, to force Britain to consider an Atlantic pact, and, perhaps, an even greater guarantee to their security in Europe.

At the opening of the meeting of the committee on the limitation of naval armament, M. Sarraut announced that as a token of the goodwill of France, the French Cabinet had resolved to accept a reduction to 175,000 tons of capital ships, but suggested a qualification of the naval holiday, through liberty to lay down, at the beginning of 1927, ships intended for the replacement of twentv-year-old vessels. The French Cabinet Supreme Council on National Defence, however, concluded it was impossible to'accept any limitation ex submarines and auxiliary craft below 90,000 and 330(000 tons respectively without imperilling the vital interests of the country. The French delegation lias been instructed to consent to no' concession on these figures. Re gret was expressed that France cannot carry out- entirely tho American proposals for reductions and limitations.--Special rep. A. and N.Z.C.A. BALFOUR’S STRAIGHT TALK TO FRANCE. BIG SUBMARINE FLEET PLANNED TO DESTROY COMMERCE. GREATEST MENACE TO FRANCE’S , NEIGHBOUR. •‘BRITAIN WILL BE EQUAL TO IT.” WILL BUILD WHAT AUXILIARIES SHE THINKS FIT. , ■ (Received December 29, 7.55 p.m.) WASHINGTON, December 28Mr Hughes accepted the French statement as the definitive final expression by the French Govei'nment. He said he was greatly gratified at the decision to limit capital ships. This should not be minimised. If the Conference succeeded in this direction it would do much to reduce taxation. He confessed he was disappointed af~ the submarine ana auxiliary statement from France. If submarines were to be availed of as defence Ileets, it was evident they should bear come relation to the size of the fleets. France’s demand meant, therefore, that Britain and the United States should greatly increase their tonnage. This could be hardly called limitation. Moreover, an increase in submarine tonnage meant an increase in anti-sub-marine tonnage. It was therefore a serious question whether there was hope of accomplishing anything like limitation.

Mr Balfour said lie was profoundly disappointed, though he rejoiced that France was prepared to agree to capital ship limitation. This, he agreed, would immensely relieve taxation, though lie-did not feel that the sacrifice on tiie part of France was of an overwhelming character, seeing that her allotment allowed her actually to increase her present fleet, but the French proposed to increase their submarines threefold. The French announcement was a singular, contribution to a conference called for the diminution of armaments. Considered ill conjunction with the refusal of the French to discuss land disarmament, the position must cause anxiety and disappointment. Furthermore their proposals regarding replacement would seriously interfere with plans for a naval holiday. He was perfectly unable to conceive how the French programme was regarded as a defensive policy. Mr Balfour continued:—

"If the submarines were to be used as a strictly military weapon How could a fleet of 175,000 tons need 90,000 tons of submarines? It was perfectly obvious a submarine fleet of that size was intended to destroy commerce. It therefore appeared that when all assembled to discuss limitation Prance proposed to 'build instruments of illegitimate warfare to an extent equal in numbers and superior in efficiency to those legitimately required by any other fleet in the world. The effect on British opinion was perfectly clear. If at their very gates was a huge fleet of submarine's of the newest typo no limitation of any kind on, auxiliary vessels could be admitted by the British Government. Public notice had now been given in the most formal manner that this great fleet was' to be built on the stiore-s nearest Britain, and would necessarily be of the greatest menace. He did not doubt if occasion ever arose Britain would be equal to it, But Britain reserved her full right to build any auxiliary craft she considered neces-

sary," Mr Sehanzer said he did not dispute the importance of capital ships, and would not attempt to hide the fact that the French announcement gave Italy serious preoccupation from the viewpoint of economic, and political consequences alike. Mr Haniahera stated that Japan regarded it as a misfortune that there had been ‘failure to agree regarding auxiliary craft, and supported the American proposals of limitation rather than the. claim of freedom to build sncii craft. ' ... Mr Hughes said he gathered it \yas not deemed practicable to reach ‘an agreement. Apparently the Powers desired freedom of action m regard to construction of auxiliary craft.. M. Sarraut said he was not there to make comment on the decisions of his Government. He found certain suggestions were wholly inacceptablo to. the French Government which was inspired by a conception -of the true needs of Prance and her. colonies. They did not take exception to the size of the British navy. -France had no desire to ■ destroy merchant vessels, but she must defend coast lines and her colonies. He objected to the statement that France's submarine pro-

gramme could be considered as a menace to any of her friends.—A. and n.zic.a.

(Received December 29,'8.45 p.m.) WASHINGTON, December 28.

Mr Balfour pointed, out that M. Sarraufc quite misinterpreted the Britisli attitude. Centuries had shown that France would not be seriously threatened by Britain on land and if the incomceivable happened and the friends became enemies, Britain's superiority in capital ships would not harm France’s life, but with the largest submarine fleet in the world, France could utilise them for commerce destruction against Britain. It was difficult to believe that in the stress of war she would not do so. There was no doubt that submarines were powerless as protection for lines of communication. They were useless for that purpose. They were only powerful for one purpose, the destruction of commerce. It was reasonable for Britain, seeing the establishment of a vast fleet a few miles from her coast to say candidly that she did not look with indifference on the situation created. .Lord Lee proposed a limit on tfto gun calibre to airplane carriers as well as to cruisers.—A. and N.Z.C.A. WASHINGTON, December 28.

There is no- doubt the British delegation are most disappointed at the French attitude, and have no hesitation in expressing their opinions. Mr Balfour’s remarks are characterised as very pointed by the American spokesman, immediately after the conference the British spokesman said it was a deplorable thing for any nation to take the position we had seen taken to-day. He did not anticipate the French position would be so extraordinary. Italy advanced the proposition that if France is allowed to break the naval holiday, she (Italy), wants permission also.— Special rep. A. and N.Z.C.A.

RULES FOR SUBMARINE WARFARE.

PROTECTION OF NON-COM-

BATANTS

PASSENGERS MUST BE PLACED

IN SAFETY

(.Received Dec. 29, 9.15 p.rn.) WASHINGTON, Dec. 28. An official message stales: — At this afternoon’s session the discussion of the resolution regarding the individual tonnage of ships and' the calibre of guns thereon was postponed, after the delegations had expressed approval, as they wanted to consult their Governments. The chairman asked Senator .Root to read the following resolutions dealing with the rules of warfare governing submarines: — (1) The signatory Powers desiring to make more effective rules to be adopted by civilised nations for the protection of lives of peutrals and non-combatants at sea during time of war, declare that among those rules the following shall be deemed established as part of international law:— (1) A merchant vessel must be ordered to stop for visit and search to determine its character before it can he captured; a fherchant vessel must not be attacked unless it refuses to stop. fur a visit and search; a merchant vessel must not be destroyed unless the crew and passengers are first placed in safety. (2) Belligerent submarines are not under any circumstances exempt from the rules above stated. If a submarine cannot cap- . ture a merchant vessc-l in conformity with those rules, the existing' law of nations requires it to desist from attack. The signatory Powers ihvite the adherence of all other Powers thereto. (2) The signatory Powers, recognising the practical impossibility of using submarines as commerce destroyers without violating the requirements universally accepted by civilised nations, declare their assent to the. prohibition of such use. (3) The signatory Powers further declare that any.person in the service of any PoV.cr adopting these rules who shall violate them, whether under orders or not, shall be liable to be tried as a pirate. The delegates expressed sympathy with the resolutions, 'consideration whereof was postponed. Resolutions governing tonnage, character of armament and airplane carriers, were then submitted, suggesting that the maximum for each ship be 27,000 tons, and guns not larger tlian eight-inch. Lord Lees’ proposition that no warship carry a gun of greater calibre than sixteen-inch, was imaiiimosuly accepted, and the meeting adjourned. —A. and N.Z. C.A. WANTS TO PUT FRENCH CASE BEFORE PUBLIC. SARRAUT TIRED OF BEING ATTACKED. (Received Dec. 29, 11.5 p.m.) WASHINGTON, Dec. 29. M. Sarraut announced to-night that he was joining with the British in asking for an open session to discuss submarines. He said lie was tired of being attacked, and wanted-to put the French case before the public. France’s colonies had reserves of men required for submarines and auxiliary craft to protect their transportation in the event of another war in Europe. It is understood there will be an exchange of notes between the United States and Japan, excluding the homeland of Japan from the operation of the 'Four-Power treaty. Developments in both countries since the. signing have convinced the respective Administrations that there is a strong sentiment against its inclusion. It is understood that China will he given an effective 5 per cent, tariff only, amounting to about 7-t per cent., with a proviso that, when the likin is abolished, this will be raised to 121 per cotit.— A. and N.Z. C.A.