NAVAL RIVALRY

Grey River Argus, 30 April 1932, Page 5

NAVAL RIVALRY

REVIVING IN EUROPE Anglo-French Reaction (Aus. & N.Z. Cable Assn). (Received April 29 at 10 p.m.) PARIS, April 29. It is reported that France has not the least objection to Britain’s proposal for increasing the British Navy. There would only be French opposition when, in order to maintain a British preponderance, Britain tries to reduce the French Navy, instead of strengthcuing her own navy. France’s sole preoccupation is to maintain a sufficient force to protect her two coasts and the communications with her colonies. For this, she desires a fleet at least equal to the combined German and Italian navies. She seeks to have purify with Italy in the Mediterranean, and a margin with which to face attack from the north and to defend her overseas possessions. Italy’s Attitude TO REACH UNDERSTANDING. ROME, April 29. Italian official circles declare that Italy has done all that is possible to reach a naval agreement with France. A distinguished authority asked: What can Italy do in the face of a neighbour who demands absolute total armed security against every possible combination of spectres? GENEVA, April 28Mr Stimson is leaving on April 29, as will probably also Mr MacDonald. American circles declare that Mr Stimson is greatly disappointed over his visit to Europe, and cannot avoid the conclusion that European Governments, especially the uncompromising attitudes of France and Germany, are still a great obstacle in the way of a satisfactory settlement of international problems. LONDON, April 28. “Large costly conferences like Geneva generally fail to agree. Instead of promoting peace and goodwill they are apt to aggravate the existing difficulties,” declares the “Daily Mail.” ‘ • They differ altogether from family affairs like Ottawa. The Government ought to get on with the job of home economy and debt conversion instead ot dissipating energy discussing seemingly insoluble international questions.” Australian Delegate MR. LATHAM’S COMMENTS GENEVA, April 28. Mr Malcolm MacDonald, on behalt of/his father welcomed the Commonwealth Attorney-General, Mr Latham, as the Australian delegate to the Disarmament Conference, expressing satisfaction that his arrivel would strengthen the Empire delegation. Mr Latham found the General Disarmament Conference in a state ot suspended animation, due mainly to the reluctance of the French representatives to commit themselves to any concrete proposals pending the genera! elections. Therefore activities were transferred to French deliberations by the various technical commissions set up under the resolution directed towards qualitative disarmament. These are very busy discussing ways and means reconciling the varied and sometimes conflicting views of the different nations.

Mr Latham said that, even yet, cer tain viewpoints only are partly defined. Until certain fundamental principles have been decided, real progress is unlikely. Illustrations of this were the French proposal for the internationalisation of specified weapons, |and thc establishment of an Inter ‘national force; also the German claim ifor equality of treatment. The proposals for qualitative disarmament, largefly British, and supported by all tho 1 Dominions proposals, made real coniiribution towards a solution of the : general problem. Commissions are now examining matters and doing useful necessary work. These proposals could not be considered apart from the more general principles, the real dicussions on which are postponed by the French elections, upon the result oi which France’s policy depended. Mr Latham hoped the commissions could expediate their work and that fundamental consultation# would be continued between the heads of the delegations in order to facilitate prompt resumption of the <onference. Mi Latham was optimistic as to the progress of the conference, which he characterised as not so static as it might seem.