THE New Zealand Herald AND DAILY SOUTHERN CROSS WEDNESDAY, MAY 14, 1930. A CASE OF NAVAL PARITY.

New Zealand Herald, Volume LXVII, Issue 20563, 14 May 1930, Page 10

THE New Zealand Herald AND DAILY SOUTHERN CROSS WEDNESDAY, MAY 14, 1930. A CASE OF NAVAL PARITY.

Tnr new Naval Treaty has come up for trial before the Foreign Relations Committee of tiio American Senate. What Congress will do with it no man knows, not even President Hoover or his Secretary of State, Mr. Stimson. The latter, as head of the American delegation to the conference, speaks well of it as "a fair and honourable agreement," and applauds its bringing parity to Britain and the. United States and its preparation of the way to further limitation of naval armaments. In particular, lie emphasises the fact that Britain is not building against America and describes as "very fine" Britain's readiness to reduce her cruiser strength. Of course, he is morally bound to plead for tho ratification of the treaty, and his plea naturally presents its advantages as the United States will bo inclined to view them. This is shrewd advocacy, but. Mr. Stimson earns no blame on that account, for what he says about parity is true. He and his colleagues did-their work very well at London. Even. Mr. Borah, sitting at tho head pf the Foreign Relations Committee, must own that he could have done no better, had he consented to go. What is fairly clear now, and will be clearer still ere long, is that America has come out of tho bargaining with a good deal to show. There was bargaining, and it so displaced the spirit in which the conference was ostensibly summoned that, in the end, no pains were taken to hide it and 110 real reduction of fleets was achieved. Discussion was restricted to limitation, and in the reaching of agreement about this each Power had its eyes upon one or more of the others; with this difference, however, that the British Government of the day was prepared to go to reckless lengths in order to promote what, in its opinion, was a new order of things destined to give peace a surer footing in the world. It is to be doubted whether the immediate outcome in the scrapping of a few capital ships and an agreement about relative cruiser strengths, on the part of three of the five Powers in consultation, will do all that is anticipated. In the claim for American approval of th® treaty because it brings parity to Britain and the United States is a reference to a weak point of the agreement, not its strength. The American delegation went into the conference determined to achieve this parity, and Mr. Stimson assures the Foreign Relations Committee that the treaty gives the United States what has been sought. Quite possibly, the committee may believe this and recommend the ratification of the treaty. But, should it do so, and continue to use the blessed word "parity," it will be hypocritical. There can be no such thing as absolute parity.. Were the conditions of the naval Powers equal—these conditions including the length of their seaboard and ocean trade-routes, and all that can be generally described as maritime needs—there might be some force in the advocacy for equal naval strengths, ton for ton, ship for ship, gun for gun, and man for man. Even this way of looking at things is somewhat falla-. cious, for it is impossible to measure out seamanship and technical efficiency in precisely corresponding doses; but let that pass. It is fundamental to note that the conditions of the various naval Powers are not equal and cannot be made so. The device of ratios, which has regard to diverse national needs, does to an extent make allowance for them, yet only in a rough-arid-ready way and one likely to be upset by circumstances in a quickly changing world. That device, how-j ever, does not enter into the com-; parison of Britain and America, fori the London Treaty, following the example of Washington in capital ships, provides for a semblance of equality between these two Powers, j The equality is not real, because of! 1 ho immense difference of national ' needs. The British Empire depends for its existence on the in-: violability of its sea comrnunica-: lions, which are 80,000 miles in length. It has been estimated that, | on any typical day, 0,500,000 tons' of British shipping will be found at sea in vessels of over MOO tons, and that a dozen foreign cruisers, coneenf raf ing al a given point, could work utterly ruinous havoc with our trade. Memories of the Linden's exploits make ihis opinion incontestable. America lias no need comparable with that of 11ri tain, and 1 lie demand for socalled parity has never been other limn a, demand ("or supremacy. , 'J. his may seem harsh comment, but ifs reasonableness must lie evident when all factors are taken into account. When the specific figures of cruiser strength as set out in the treaty are considered, America is seen to be given a preponderance of cruisers carrying guns of more than 6.1 inch calibre—lß to the British Empire's 15 —although the

total tonnage of »ii'tdner« below this category favour;* Britain by 102,000 tons to A morion I tons, .this <d\ v es a st raieipe advantage to America in tho poHnUile coucentiation of heavy oriiMe-rrf at a chosen point of British communications. To dismiss thin eoieuderat ion on the score of the unlikelihood of war between Britain and America is to evade the meaning of tho American demand for parity and its conceding by Britain. The demand and iis concession are meaningless apart from tho possibility of war between these two Bowers. Why talk about parity at all if they are for ever to be in' closest friendship? As a matter of fact, the demand for parity was clearly, in this instance, only a polite way of asking Britain to step down to the. naval level of America. No wonder Mr. Stimson is pleased fo be able to make a report so calculated to win the approval of the Foreign Relations Committee and thus to pave the way to the treaty's ratification. There may be many British folk ready to applaud the British "cut" he praises as "very fine." Others will be given furiously to think, and to ask themselves whether, on a calm review of fhe whole position arid faking the different national needs info account, America will be ready to abandon, in a similar spirit of chivalry, fhe advantage gained by her delegation to the conference.