WORLD PEACE

Otago Daily Times, Issue 20022, 12 February 1927, Page 11

WORLD PEACE

NA’YL DISARMAMENT. AMERICA TAKES INITIATIVE. THE PRESIDENT’S PROPOSALS. LIMITATION OF SMALLER WARSHIPS. CPtm* Aa»ooi»tlon—Bj Telegraph—Copyright.) WASHINGTON, February 10. President Coolidge in a Message to Congress announced that Notes had been sent to Britain, France, Italy, and Japan suggesting that they should empower their delegates to the Geneva Prepar tory Commission on Disarmament to negotiate and fconclude at an early date, an agreement further limiting naval armaments covering the classes of vessels not cover by the Treaty of Washington. THE PRESIDENT’S MESSAGE. President Coolidge, after outlining the instructions given to the Ambassadors for transmitting a copy of the memorandum to the Powers, said, in part: “I wish to inform Congress of the considerations which have moved mo to take this action. The support of all measures looking to the preservation of peace in the world has long been established as a fundamental policy of this Government. The American Government and people aje convinced that competitive armaments constitute one of the most dangerous contributing jeauses of international suspicion and discord, and are calculated eventually to lead to war. Recognition of this fact and the desire, as far as possible, to remove this danger led the American Goyernment in 1921 to call the Washington Conference. At that time we were en gaged In a great building programme, which would have given us first place on the sea. We felt then, however —and we feel now—that the policy we then advocated of deliberate self-denial and limitation of naval armaments, by the great naval Powers, promised the attainment of at least one guarantee of peace, and would end in a worthy mutual agreement and concession. At the Washington Conference we found the other nations animated by the same desire as ourselves to remove naval competition from the list of possible causes of international dls|Bord. “Unfortunately it was not possible to french agreements at Washington covering all classes of naval sliips. The Washington Treaty provided a specific tonnage limitation upon capital ships and airship carriers, with ccrtaip restrictions on other Vessels. Every nation has been at complete liberty to build any number of cruisers, destroyers, and submarines. Only the size and armament of cruisers have been limited. The signatories to the Washington Treaty have fulfilled their obligations faithfully. There can be no doubt that the treaty constitutes ian outstanding success in operation. It has been the hope of the American Government, constantly expressed since the Conference, that a favourable opportunity might present itself to complete the worn begun here by the conclusion of further agreements covering cruisers, destroyers, and submarines. The desirability of frnch an agreement is apparent, since it was only to be expected that the spirit of Competition, stifled as regards capital ahips and aircraft carriers by the treaty, would sooner or later show itself regarding unlimited vessels. Actually I do not believe that the competitive building of those classes of ships has begun. Nevertheless, far-reaching programmes have been laid down by certain Powers, and there has appeared in our country, as abroad, a sentiment urging naval conetruction on the ground that such is taking place elsewhere. In such sentiments lies the germ of naval competition. “I am sure that all Governments of all peoples will choose a system of naval limitation in preference to consciously reverting to competitive building. Therefore, in the hope of bringing about an opportunity for discussion among the principal naval Powers to ascertain whether further limitation is practicable, I have suggested that negotiations should begin as soon as possible. The moment ■eems particularly opportune. The earnest desire of the nations of the world to relieve themselves in as great a measure as possible of the burden of armaments and avoid the dangers of competition is shown by the establishment of the Preparatory Commission for a Disarmament Conference which met at Geneva last May, and which is continuing the work in view of preparing agenda for a final general conference. Representatives of a score or more nations for more months have examined all points of view of the problem of the reduction and limitation of armaments. These discussions chowed very clearly that a number of nations felt that land, sea, and air armaments were interdependent. It would be difficult, if not impossible, to agree to the limitation of one typo of armament without simultaneously limiting the others. A consequence to be feared is a deadlock, should even partial progress in reduction be conditioned upon the acceptance of a universal plan covering land, eea, and air forces together. If the prospective deadlock cannot bo broken, it is probable that little progress will be made for the time being. “It appeared to me that it was the duty of this Government, which has always advocated limitation, to endeavour to suggest an avenue by which concrete results may be achieved, though short of the ultimate ideal of a solution for the threefold problem. Our delegates at Genova have consistently expressed the view that under conditions as they exist in the world to-day the problems of land and air armaments are most susceptible of a solution by regional agreements coverthe regions within which the Ittnd and air armaments of one country would Constitute a potential threat against another country. Geographical continents have been suggested as the regions appropriate for land and air limitation agreements. The American land and air forces constitute a throat against no one. They are of minimum strength, and their reduction is suggested by no one as a necessary condition precedent to a general arms limitation. This reduction is rendered possible by our favoured geographical position. I realise that the problem of armaments of land and air in Europe are beset with difficulties which we must recognise. and although this Government will always he ready to lend assistance in any appropriate way to the efforts on the part of European and other Governments to arrive at regional agreements, limiting the land and air forces, it would hesitate to make specific proposals on this subject to European nations. “The problem of the limitation of naval armament, while not of a regional character, or susceptible to regional treatment. has been successfully treated in part by an agreement among five of the leading naval Powers, and my opinion is that it can be definitely dealt with by further agreements among those Powers. It will be a contribution to the success of the preliminary work now going on at Geneva should the great Naval Powers there agree upon definite limitations of naval armament. It is my intention that American representatives at Geneva should continue to discuss with, the representatives of the other Powers there a programme for a general limitation of armaments conference. T f such a conference should be possible in the future

titx a haul* generally acceptable, this Government would, of course, be highly gratified. Pending the formulation of a plan for such a general conference, however, I believe that we should make an immediate and sincere effort to solve the problem of naval limitation, the solution of which would do much to make the efforts towards more general disarmament successful.” THE PROPOSALS APPROVED. Both leading Democratic and Republican Senators heartily approved of President Coolidge’s disarmament proposals. Senator Borah said: “I am thoroughly in sympathy with what the President would achieve.” Senator Curtis said: “We should encourage all nations to join In effective limitation.” Senator La Follette said: “The President’s programme will meet with tho approval of the large majority of people.” Senator Caraway said: “I favour any conference on arms limitation.” The Chairman of the Senate Naval Appropriations Committee (Mr F. Hale), however, pointed out that President Ooolldge’s proposals would have no immediate effect on the proposed cruiser construction, He said that the building of the now cruisers contemplated would improve the position of the United States at such a conference. He understood that Mr Gibson, the newly-appointed American Ambassador to Belgium would be the United States delegate to the new conference if it could it could be arranged. OUTLINE OF MEMORANDUM. The memorandum itself which the American Ambassadors handed to tho Powers goes into much greater detail concerning the armament situation than President Coolidge’s Message to Congress. It outlines the reasons actuating tne American Government in making the proposals, but generally covers the same ground. The memorandum stresses the fact that it would be impossible in the near future to expect all the world to agree to a comprehensive plan covering all classes and types of armament, but failure to agree upon a definite, even if only n partial agreement, for limitation would constitute a set-back. The cause of international peace was too great for a setback to deserve serious contemplation as a possibility. The memorandum hten points out that the final Geneva Conference will probably not be able to meet during the Present year, and the coming into effect of the agreements reached by it might be delayed for a considerable period for a milltitude of reasons. The American Government therefore believes that those Powers, which are in a position to engage in further limitation now, would not be justified in postponing their efforts in that direction, —A. and N.Z. Cable. DOCUMENT RECEIVED IN LONDON. LONDON, February 10. (Received Feb. 11, at 5.5 p.m.) The United States disarmament memorandum has been presented to the Foreign Office." —A. and N.Z. Cable. INTEREST IN LONDON. THE ADMIRALTY’S VIEW. PROTECTION OF BRITISH TRADE ROUTES. LONDON, February 11. (Received Feb. 11. at 11.50 p.m. President Coolidge’s message is given prominence in the newspapers, but there is little serious comment as yet. Members of the House of Commons showed the keenest interest at Westminster when the news came off the tape machines. Mr MacDonald, watching the message being ticked out, said it was a most significant event with far-reaching consequences. So far as the British attitude is concerned successive Governments have always welcomed an extension of the principle of the limitation of armaments. It is understood, however, that the Admiralty argues that a higher ratio should be allowed Britain owing to the fact that she has longer trade routes to protect than any other Power. Tho Daily Chronicle says: President Ooolidge’s proposal to separate naval disarmament from the larger issues comes at an opportune The Preparatory Commission of Inquiry has ser\ed to reveal the infinity and perplexity of the problem. If five Powers can give an example of self-denial as regards suomarines and cruisers, may we not hope that the next step will soon follow and a plan be devised limiting aeroplanes and suppressing poison gas? ~, The Daily Express says Mr Coolidge, “speaking from the calm security of the United States, gives the world an idealis tic exhortation. We appreciate the sentiments. but what is really wanted is a formula that will permanently cure the nations of their warlike intentions. A. and N.Z. Cable.