ARMS OF THE NATIONS.

New Zealand Herald, Volume LXIV, Issue 19606, 7 April 1927, Page 11

ARMS OF THE NATIONS.

DISCUSSION AT GENEVA. NO AGREEMENT REACHED. DIFFICULTIES' OF PROBLEM. By Telegraph—Press Association —Copyright. (Received April 6, 5.5 p.m.) A, and N.Z. GENEVA, April 6. The complexity and difficulties of the disarmament problem were revealed when the Preparatory Commission on Disarmament began a discussion on naval armaments. Viscount Cecil (Britain) contested the French point of view, as expressed in their plan, that if armies were numerically limited so must naval personnels be limited. He said the view of the British Government was that the proper way to limit the strength of a fleet was to limit the number, size and power of its ships. This Britain was prepared to do, drastically and very completely, but she saw no necessity for .limiting effectives,, which would occur automatically with a decrease in tonnage. The French proposal would complicate the convention and render its ratification less likely. Navies could not be made more formid-' able by increasing their man-power beyond the actual needs. The Possibility ol Deception. Finally, Lord Cecil sprang a surprise on the conference bv saying he was not prepared to discuss the point further as lie had telegraphed to his Government asking for fresh instructions. M. Paul Boncour (France) rather sarcastically remarked that this was the second time the discussion had been suspended owing to Lord Cecil's necessity for obtain- j jng instructions. He proceeded tq argue that naval, military and aerial strength, coastal defence and expeditionary forces were inevitably bound up together. If a single category were ignored wholesale deception would bo possible by camouflaging the nature of certain forces. M. Boncour recalled the part played in wartime by sailors, who were not merely employed as crews but as members of landing parties. The American and Japanese delegates supported Lord Cecil's viewpoint, but the German Dutch and "Swedish delegates approved thai of M. Boncour. Empire Trade Communications. Pending receipt of instructions about | effectives, Lord Cecil proceeded to discuss other aspects of the problem. He said the whole existence of the British Empire depended on the security of its com munications A cessation of the sea-borne commerce of the Empire would mean starvation for Britain.Therefore, the question was of vital importance. . The British programme envisaged an agreement which would in the first place forestall naval competition, and in the second place secure the fullest publicity, so that every nation would be aware oi the naval strength of its neighbours. Thirdly, an agreement wjis desired which would strengthen the psychology of security by eliminating "the surprise element." Lord Cecil contended that a limitation of the number of ships was more important than a limitation of the tonnage, numbers being an essential element in the strength of a fleet; (The French proposal is for a limitation of the total gross tonnage.) Britain was convinced that the only effective measure was to fix the number of ships in each category, said Lord Cecil. Unless that were known competition would be inevitable and surprises possible. Swedish Compromise Scheme. Mr. Sato (Japan) favoured limitation by categories. He was opposed to fixing the size of ships in each category. M. Boncour said France was in favour of a limitation of the gross tonnage, because she wished to retain the right to dispose of the smaller classes of ships according to her special needs. The Swedish representative made the following suggestions: — (1) A limitation of the total tonnage of all nations. (2) A categorical limitation of the tonnage of the Great Powers. (3) Publication in advance of all naval programmes. This appeared to evoke a spirit of compromise, a fid the commission adjourned on M. Boncour promising to submit the riew proposal to his Government. NAVAL MSAKMAMENT. FRENCH REPLY TO AMERICA. PRESIDENT DISAPPOINTED. A. and N.Z. WASHINGTON, April 5. The President, Mr. Calvin Coolidge, is disappointed at the refusal of the French Government to participate even unofficially in the Naval Disarmament Conference at Geneva. Nevertheless the President intends to proceed with the Conference, as Britain and Japan have agreed to participate, and there is still hope that Italy may also be represented. Italy's reply to Mr. Coolidge's memorandum on naval disarmament was handed to the United States Ambassador in Rome on February 21. While Italy did not accept the American proposal, she gave with her refusal a full analysis of the reasons which animated her decision. Signor Mussolini, who personally dealt with the question, was the author of the text, and he explained the geographical and economic conditions of Italy in the Mediterranean that prohibited acceptance of proposals which referred to limitation of smaller naval craft than those specified in the present Washington treaty. It was pointed out that it was impossible—in view always of Italy's geographical position—to adopt a system which would arrest and limit the defences of one State while leaving full liberty of eventual means of offence to othfir States. Unlike the United States, it wast pointed out, Italy could not consider the question apart from that of the interdependence of armaments generally. With a territorial frontier as important us her maritime frontier she could not cut down one category of armaments without considering others without running danger.