WILL IT FIZZLE?

Grey River Argus, 23 June 1927, Page 5

WILL IT FIZZLE?

NAVAL CONFERENCE. Varied U.S.A. Views. (Australian and N.Z. Cable Assn.) (Received June 22 at 7.40 p.m.) NEW YORK, June 21. The New York Times Washington correspondent states: —With a further opportunity to study the naval proposals submitted at Geneva, it may be said that, on the whole, the Washington opinion is fairly optimistic relative to the prospects of practical accomplishments by the Disarmament Conference. There are, however, diverse views, with some comment indicating the belief that the fundamental proposals of the participants cannot be reconciled. Then there is also the view that Britain and Japan are up to some skulduggery, with the intent to make the United States their victim; but it is. significant, perhaps, that men who have had experience of international conferences are inclined to sec a brighter outlook.

Senator Borah has confined his com inent to denying reports that if this conference should fail, the United States would start an intensive and comprehensive naval building programme. He said:—We have some things which we must take care of. such as the flood situation and other domestic matters, which will be more important than the putting of a large amount of money into naval armaments.

Representative Brittan, of the House Naval Affairs Committee, predicted that the conference would end in a “fizzle,” and that the United States would build ten 10,000-ton cruisers; but the general view in Washington is rather in accord with that of Senator Borah. British Proposals. , FOR SMALLER SHIPS. PRAISED BY LORD JELLICQE. GENEVA. Juno 21. Earl Jellicoe, interviewed, offered the following comments on the British proposals, which ho said, were not only his personal opinions, hut those of the whole British delegation:— “The essence of the British propo sals is extreme frankness. T cannot conceive a better method of arriving at a good result than each nation saying definitely what it wants and why it wants it. All the delegates should place all their cards on the table, and show each other the exact position of their naval defence. We must be prepared to defend our demands for various numbers and types of vessels. The whole world knows that for Britain, the navy is a matter of defence of trade routes; without, which Britain could not exist, and the Dominions and Colonies could , not market their products. Britain in this respect is in a different position from other countries. Japan is the nearest to our position in her dependence on imports. We can and are willing to I show the world what, we nesd to defend the sea routes. We. believe that if others do the same, according to their own requirements, it should eventually provide a basis for agreement. “It seems obvious to me that when we come to details, our first effort, should be to reduce the size of ships in different classes. Wo propose to reduce battleships by five thousand tons and cruisers, except those of ten thousands tons built under the Washington Treaty, to 7500 tons. Anybody who recollects pre-war competitive ship building must be convinced that the British proposals contain the germ of an agreement. -The system of reducing the size of warships was recognised at Washington. It seems most logical to use to pursue the method, and try to reduce other classes as well as battleships. For instance, most nations claim the submarine is a defensive weapon. As such it should bo considerably reduced in size. Nobody can possibly call a submarine of twelve hundred or two thousand tons a defensive weapon. For coastal defence submarines do not need to be anything approaching these sizes. ’ ’

AMERICAN VIEW OF BRITISH PROPOSALS. WASHINGTON, June 21. The British proposal is regarded as unsatisfactory, insofar as it affects .questions decided at the Washington Conference, which the Administration feels should not be discussed by the .present Conference, because of the absence of two signatories to the 1922 treaties. JAPANESE PROPOSALS. FAVOURABLE. WASHINGTON, June 21. Tho Japanese naval limitation proposals are favourably received by officials, as displaying a conciliatory spirit satisfaction with the present strength of her navy, and willingness to remain in a position of comparative inferiority in all classes of ships to Britain and the United States.

Singapore to be Left Out. WIDE DIFFERENCES EVIDENT. (Australian and N.Z. Cable Assn.) (Received June 22 at 11.16 p.m.) GENEVA. June 22. The Australian Press is authorised to state Japan does not intend to raise the question of fortifications in gene- ( ral, and of Singapore in particular. A Japanese expert, interviewed, said it was understood from the beginning that the question of fortifications was outside the scope of the Conference. “True,” he said, “it is intimately connected with naval defence, and may be referred to in the course of the conversations, but we certainly at present have no intention of raising this question.” The Association also gathers that the American view is that, while they admit at present there is a wide divergence between the American, British, and Japanese schemes, they insist there is no reason for pessimism about the possibility of- an agreement, because there is such a wide range in the American scheme that it affords a basis of discussion.