THE H.B,. TRIBUNE TUESDAY, SEPTEMBER 11, 1934 NAVAL DISARMAMENT.

Hawke's Bay Tribune, Volume XXIV, Issue 230, 11 September 1934, Page 4

THE H.B,. TRIBUNE TUESDAY, SEPTEMBER 11, 1934 NAVAL DISARMAMENT.

The Disarmament Conference, whose protracted sittings at Geneva have now stretched over nearly two years without very great practical result, has hitherto concerned itself almost exclusively with land and air forces. The early expiry of the Washington and London Naval Treaties, of 1922 and 1930 respectively, has now necessarily forced the question of their revision into the forefront of international discussion. For some months now bilateral “conversations” have been in progress among the bigger Nava! Powers with a view to reaching tentative understandings prelim inary to a general conference to be held next year. As yet no very definite announcements have been made as to the outcome of these diplomatic talks, although it seems to be accepted that, as between themselves, something like broad agreement on general policy has been reached between the United Kingdom and the United States. The main difficulty that has been foreseen is to be found in the demand put forth by Japan for a status of parity with each of these Powers in place of the ratio of three to five allotted to her by the expiring treaties. Next in importance comes the strong feeling of jealousy as between France and Italy as to their relative positions in the sphere of naval armament.

Up till quite recently it did not appear as if there was any very great hope of reconciling the aspirations of these three nations, and it began to look as if the conference would prove abortive and that a new and unrestricted race in naval armament would be begun. However, cable messages received during the last few days lend a more hopeful aspect to the position. In the first place, we were told that a much more friendly spirit has developed between France and Italy, so much so, indeed, as to cause considerable apprehension in Berlin. It is said that among other points of difference that of naval parity is being discussed, and seemingly with some chance of agreement being reached. Then, to-day we hav« from Tokio a message embodying a strong general pica from Japan in favour of- limitation. It is not, of course, at all safe to attach over-much importance to these certainly as yet rather vague intimations, but they at least indicate an atmosphere that is much more favourable than it was even as lately as a month or so ago. As against this we have, of course, the rather ominous facts that America and Japan have set out construction programmes up to the limits allowed them by the existing treaties. Not only this, Italy lias announced the forth-

coming construction of two battleships of 35,000 tons each, though obviously one of the chief purpose of next year’s conference would be to consider a possible reduction in the size of battleships, while France, too, has important additions to her naval strength in declared contemplation. It ipay be possible, however, to regard these intimations as being in the

nature of the “bargaining weapons” of which we hear so much, in these days of intense nationalistic realisation. It is something to the good, too, that Japan, though claiming the right to parity with the strongest of the other Naval Powers, has admitted that she does not expect to achieve it at the coming conference. The objection she takes for the present is to the principle of a ratio of any kind, which her Prime Minister, Admiral Okada, has declared to be “incompatible with national self-respect.” Unfortunately, however, he has not indicated an alternative that would give assurance of effective limitation.

Apart from the avoidance of war, the economic importance of limitation in naval construction is *well illustrated by Lord Strabolgi, father of the well known M.P. Commander Kenworthy, in an article contributed to the “Christian Science Monitor” of Boston. He points out that, if the Washington and London treaties were extended and the signatories did no more than take full advantage of their respective construction and replacement allowances, then the aggregate yearly expenditure would amount to somewhere about £BOO million. This little annual bill, too, would have no regard to the ordinary cost of maintenance, repairs, the training of personnel, and administration. The London “Tinies” discussing the prospects as they appeared some four or five weeks ago, did not appear to be at alt sanguine as to the outcome of the 1935 conference, and perhaps all that may be said now is that the nations chiefly concerned do not seem to be quite as much at arm’s length as they were then.