THE H.B. TRIBUNE WEDNESDAY. JULY, 13., 1927. NAVAL ARMAMENTS

Hawke's Bay Tribune, Volume XVII, Issue 178, 13 July 1927, Page 4

THE H.B. TRIBUNE WEDNESDAY. JULY, 13., 1927. NAVAL ARMAMENTS

7TVHE tripartite conference on the further limitation of naval armaments, which has now been in progress at Geneva for some weeks, seems to be labouring badly in all sorts of cross currents of individual interest among the nations directly represented at it—Great Britain, the United States of America, and Japan. From time to time we have word that the negotiations have broken down hopelessly, only to be followed the next day by Suggestions that n way out may be in view. That applies precisely to the cable news to hand so far this week. From it we gather that the chance for prolonged discussion and, through that, for an ultimate agreement depends very largely upon some fresh basis of adjustment which Mr. Bridgeman, First I<ord of the Admiralty and leader of the British delegation, proposes submitting during the next day or two. The ostensible purpose of conference as called by President Coolidge is a dual one—first, the maintenance of the world’s peace, and, second, reduction of expenditure to the relief of the taxpayers of all the countries concerned. With regard to the first of these we may fairly assume that al] three are on the same footing, are anxious to prevent a development of naval strength that would prompt to acts of aggression. With regard to the second ground it is just now obviously of much less intrinsic importance to America than fo Great Britain. America’s financial resources are almost unlimited and her scale of taxation relatively light. Great Britain is only now struggling nut of the depths of financial involvements due to the Great War and her people are already hard pressed to meet out of taxation the penodic obligations under which they lie—including, of course, a very substantial one to America herself. Thus, if on the ethical ground America and Britain nitty be taken to stand equally concerned, on the economic ground Britain is the much more deeply concerned of the two to see the conference prove fruitful. This is a view that is not to be lost sight of when we find America so steadfastly

insistent upon the cut-and-dried programme she has submitted to the conference. Britain’s comparative poverty for the moment is obviously America’s opportunity for Imposing her will.

So far as may be judged from the cable. reports received the mair question at issue between the too bigger Powers—Japan is, of course, not to be ignored—is upon the subject of cruisers. Great Britain, having an immense but scattered territory requiring protection and the maintenance of sea-borne communication, is desirous of having an adequate number of cruisers of the lighter type to carry out the work. America, with but scant anxieties of this kind—she is, of course, not altogether without them — wants liberty to build a smaller number of big cruisers that would give her an immense advantage in actual naval warfare. Britain’s aim is to prow'de protection for the many sea routes that are vital to the existence of herself and her far-away dominions. America’s is apparently to constitute herself the arbiter in a possible naval war. It is to this attitude that the British delegation has raised objection. Having agreed upon an equal aggregate of cruiser tonnage for each, they desire that the special requirements of the British Empire should have some special consideration in derjing with the tonnage and gun-weight of the units making it up To this representation of the case, which to us of an isolated Britis' dominion must seem an entirely reasonable one, the Americans have seemingly turned an entirely deaf gar. \That in these discussions, which are being held at the express invitation of her President, America is always quite alive to the fact that she has financial resources far beyond either, or perhaps both, of the other big naval Powers may be guessed from the tone of the American press We may take a sample which Is all the more significant because it comes from a journal that, both before, during and since the war, has shown itself as consistently friendly to Great Britain and anxious to promote cordial co-operation between the two nations Writing just upon the dispersal of the American fleet which had been exercising in New Englani waters, and in contemplation of the early sitting of the conference nt Geneva, it first of all says: “The fleet now being broken up has been the most powerful naval force assembled since the days of the World W’ar. Naval authorities declare that no other nation could today bring under one control so prodigious an array of fighting craft There are nations possessing one two battleships superior in power to the greatest in the American fleet. There are other nations bettor provided with battle cruisers, with submarines, or with bombing ’planes. But the authorities agree that, for well-rounded and symmetrical power, the fleet which to-day disperses can have no present equal on the face of the waters.” Then, having with apparent fairness recognised the necessity for Britain’s maintenance of a navy adequate to the Empire’s needs, it goes on: “But if there is to bo a steady contest between these two nations as to which one shall be the more powerful on, the ocean, it will mean simply the constant and lavish expenditure of money drawn from the people by taxation in the construction of great battleships and auxiliaries which the one nation can eclipse as fast as the other constructs them. In such a race the United States, with its tremendous wealth and constructive 4 power, need have nothing to fear except the sense of the utter futility and wastefulness of the expenditure.’’