FRANCE AND BRITAIN IN COMMON UNDERSTANDING

Manawatu Times, Volume LIII, Issue 6677, 2 August 1928, Page 7

FRANCE AND BRITAIN IN COMMON UNDERSTANDING

A New Entente Cordiale May be Fruit of Disarmament Compromise Speculation on Both Sides of Channel ■ United Press Association—Electric Telegraph—Copyright. Eeceivcd Wednesday, 7.5 p.m, LONDON, August 1. There is much speculation on both sides of the Channel concerning the nature, of the Anglo-French compromise on disarmament matters. It is understood the proposals ■will most probably he submitted at the next Disarmament Conference* ' , ■ ‘ ■ ■ ■ ■ ..'i • , A French Foreign Office statement declared that it was in order to allow the reopening work of the Preparatory Conference, which ended In a deadlock that France and Britain sought a compromise. It Is expected Frahce will delay laying down the two ships permissible; under the Washington Treaty. •’ There is no leakage in London, but the French press and officials profess to know a lot about the proposals. There, is much talk of a revival of the Entente Cordiale. A hlghy-placed personage who describes It as a return to the close alliance existing before the war, says;— “The scheme can be considered a sort of unified command of the naval and military forces of both countries on a basis of the principle that Britain and France will henceforth act in co-operation. France . will communicate to the British Admiralty the details of her, navy programme. Any idea of war between them is absolutely out of the question. Britain, in return, will not object to French military reserves, and will not accuse France of militarism and possessing the strongest army in the world, a point on which France has always been sensitive.”

HOUSE OP COMMONS IS COMPLETELY SURPRISED > '• /, ;• British Official Wireless, RUGBY, July 31. Much Interest has been aroused. : hy the announcement in the House ; of commons last night by Sir Austen Chamberlain regarding the result of the Rranco-British conversations undertaken with a view to facilitating the progress of the work of the Preparatory Commission on Disarmament, The Commission, it will bo recalled, has been sitting for two years. .Its purpose is to prepare for a Disarmament Conference. Britain and France put forward for consideration by the Commission two draft conventions and the discussions ofjthe Commission have been based upon-texts of these drafts. As regards naval disarmament the main divergence in the Commission was on tho question of whether limitation should be by total tonnage or by number of ships. A Compromise of Principles. Early this year, at Geneva, Lord Cushendun, the leading British delegate, announced that conversations had boon begun between thi French and British naval experts. This was taken at tho time as a hopeful sign, and it is the result of these conversations to which Sir Austen Chamberlain referred in the House of Commons last night. ■ At the present the Preparatory Commission is not in session, but Sir Austen Chamberlain said that ho was about to communicate to the other principal naval Powers the compromise arrived at with the hope that it might be acceptable to them also and that this 1 great obstacle to progress would have been removed and another stop made in advance. \ Until those proposals have been communicated to other Governments Sir Austen Chamberlain said that he did not like to say more about them. He imagined that the first serious discussion on them would take place in the Disarmament Committee itself. . It is understood that tho compromise is one of tho principles, which, if accepted by the other great Naval Powers, could bo adopted by tho Preparatory Commission for submission to the Security and Disarmament Conference. A Complete Surprise. , An earlier cable from London was to effect; . . vi:’’. Sir Austen Chamberlain’s ~warmly applauded announcement that an An-glo-French compromise had boon reached on naval disarmament completely surprised the House of Commons. No official hint had previously been given of tho fruits of tho five months’ negotiations, which, while primarily concerning tho resumption of the deliberations of the League of Nations’ Disarmament Commission, had had a direct bearing upon those Anglo-Am-erican negotiations which broke down at Geneva. , * Some'Speculations. It is believed hero that tho AngloFrench compromise may lead to n formula of naval limitation agreeable to Britain and America, although tho type of warship Britain and France have been considering is the submarine, and the bono of contention in the AngloAmerican dispute was the cruiser. Britain, dependent bn a large number of cruisers for the protection of her long trade routes, did not like the idea of the bulk of American tonnage under the tonnago limitation schema going into capital ships any more than she liked the thought of Franco utilising practically all her tonnage in the construction of a great submarine fleet. A GENERAL AGREEMENT PROBABLY FACILITATED, WASHINGTON’S OPINION. Australian Press Association. WASHINGTON,, July 31. Officials declared that the conclusion of a naval agreement between Britain and Franco would probably facilitate

a general agreement for the limitation of auxiliary naval vessels. , , .Details of tile British and French agreement have not yet reached. Wash*; ington, but, ■whatever the' actual arc, it is declared that the American l naval armaineht policy will not be; altered hqr will the XJnited States be; likely to consent to a new naval coiif ference before 1931, the date of the meeting set by the Washington Treaty of 1921. . ■ ■ / , t • C OMFEOMISE ( PEEGNANT WITH POLITICAL AND FINANCIAL POSSIBiLmS ——. 1 5 Eecoived Wednesday, 7.10 p.m ■ PAEIS' July 31.Official. silence is maintained regard*, ing the terms of the naval agreement; •Le Journal states that; in the com* promise -reached, Franco receives satisfaction- of her claims respecting land forces, making counter-balancing concessions to British naval claims, agree; ing to limitation by a category of five classes—battleships, cruisers, auxiliary cruisers,., surface vessels and submarines. Britain has been advocating certain abolitions since the 'Washington Conference in 1922, France, insisting that submarines and light-armour; ed vessels were for: her defence.This difference whs,primarily responsible; for France and Italy not particilating in: the Genova Conference of 1927. . The compromise is therefore prognant- with political and financial possibilities. ; However, wc have not reached the end of the Geneva .divergence;: in dimensions and, armaments of cruisers Lo Matin says the, discussion centred on* each Power’s liberty to choose' types of ships within tonnage limits. :;