RIVAL NAVIES

Gisborne Times, Volume LXV, Issue 10377, 7 April 1927, Page 5

RIVAL NAVIES

HOW SHOULD THEY BE LIMITED BRITAIN DISAGREES WITH • FRANCE AN INTERESTING DISCUSSION (United Press Assn.— -Copyright.) (Received April <3, 10 p.m.) GENEVA, April 6. The complexity and difficulties of the disarmament problems were revealed when the Preparatory Commission began its discussion on naval armaments. • Lord Cecil, opening the debate, contested the French viewpoint, as expi'essed in their draft plan, that if armies are numerically limited -so must the naval personnel be limited. He said the British Government’s view was that the proper way to limit the strength of a fleet was to limit the number, size and power of ships. This Britain was prepared to do "drastically and very completely, but she saw no necessity for limiting effectives, which would occur automatically with the decrease of tonnage. The French proposal would complicate the convention and render ratification less likely. He added that navies could not be made more formidable by increasing the . mail power beyond the actual needs. Lord Cecil finally sprang a surprise by saying that he was not prepared *o discuss the point further, as he had telegraphed to his Government for fresh instructions. '

M. Boncour rather sarcastically remarked that this was the second' time a discussion had been . suspended owing to Lord Cecil’s necessity for getting instructions. He proceeded to argue that naval, military and aerial strength, coast defence and expeditionary forces were inevitably Ifcmpd up apd if a single catagory were ignored, wholesale deception would be possible by camouflaging the nature of certain forces. He recalled the 'part played in war time by sailors who were not merely employed as crews but as landing parties.

The American and Japanese delegates supported Lord Cecil’s vie.vpoint, whilst the German and Swedes approved of M. Boncour’s. Pending the receipt of instructions regarding effectives Lord Cecil proceeded to discuss the limitation of material. He emphasised that the whole existence of the British Empire depended on the security of communications. The cessation of sea borne .commerce would mean Britain’s starvation. Therefore the ques tion was of vital importance to the British .whose programme envisaged an agreement which would: —

(1) Forestall naval, competition; (2) secure the fullest publicity, so that every nation would be aware of the naval strength of its neighbours ; (3) strengthen the psychology of security by eliminating “the surprise element.”

Lord Cecil contended that the limitation of the number of ships was more ’important than the limitation of tonnage ,numbers being the essential element in the strength of a fleet (the French proposal is the limitation of the total gross tonnage.) Lord Cecil added that Britam was convinced that the only " effective measure was the fixing of the number of ships in each- category. Unless such was known, competition was inevitable and surprises sibleMr Sato favored the limitation by categories and he opposed the fixing the size of ships in each category. M. Boncour said France favored the limitation of gross tonnage, because she wished to retain the right of disposal of smaller classes of ships, according to her special needs. .The Swedish representative suggested, firstly, the limitation of the total tonnage by all nations; secondly the categorical limitation of tonnage by the Great Powers; thirdly, advance publication of all naval programmes.

This appeared to evoke a spirit of compromise and the Commission adjourned on M. Boncour’s promise to submit a new proposal.—A. and N.Z.C.A.