THE NAVAL CONFERENCE

Otago Daily Times, Issue 20901, 16 December 1929, Page 11

THE NAVAL CONFERENCE

A POSSIBLE PROPOSAL. ABOLITION OF BATTLESHIPS. (United Press Association.) (By Electric Telegraph—Copyright.) LONDON, December 13. The Washington correspondent of The Times says: London despatches, reporting on a possible British proposal for the abolition of battleships, have aroused discussion, but though President Hoover’s views on this subject are not known, it can be said that the chief American naval officers will vigorously oppose the idea. They still regard battleships a.= the backbone of a fleet. Their views are supported by Captain Van Keuren, chief naval constructor, who will he among America’s professional advisers at the London Naval Conference. NO TRUTH IN SUGGESTION. DESCRIBED AS STUPID STORY. LONDON, December 13. Not a single London newspaper has wasted space on the Chicago Tribune’s stupid story that Mr Ramsay MacDonald would provide the initial sensation at the Naval Conference by proposing the entire abolition of battleships. It is officially declared that there is not a semblance of truth in the suggestion. FRANCE AND ITALY. DIFFICULTIES TO BE OVERCOME. ARTICLE BY SIGNOR MUSSOLINI, LONDON, December 15. (Received Dec. 15, at 5.5 p.m.) In view of the general idea that the chief problem of the Naval Conference will be the overcoming of the Italian and French difficulties, which have already been complicated by Italy’s decision to support the abolition of submarines, special interest attaches to Signor Mussolini’s article, “ Italy and the Sea.” He classes Italy and France as small sea powers, the needs of which are different from those of others. Italy will go to the conference ready to accept in principle the lowest figures, provided they are equal to those of any other Continental Power. Few countries are so wedded to the sea as Italy, which is virtually the drawbridge of Europe on the African side. A fourth of her population lives on the sea coast, and to her the sea is a stern necessity. Not only is the navy a question of defence, but of keeping open the lanes of food supplies and establishing contact with her colonies. She needs a navy entirely different from that of Britain and the United States, so a mere reduction of class for class does not settle Italy’s maritime needs. “It is our imperative duty to protect our vigorous nationals, who are disseminated in the four corners of the world. It suits us to have as many fighting units on the seas as possible, instead of capital ships, of which we have built none since 1912. The luxury in which capital ships have to live is too much for us to bear. The fact that we have not built any for 17 years is a noteworthy protest against their great expense of construction and maintenance. To give a lesser Power a certain limited tonnage of capital ships is scarcely any use, therefore why should the available tonnage he allotted on a basis of capital ships? Italy is interested in only three out of five categories—namely, cruisers, destroyers, and submarines. * We need ships of medium tonnage, therefore the fixing of the limit should be on general or global tonnage, so that we can build the type fitted for our peculiar problems. It should bo sufficiently elastic to permit us to choose the type. Our only outlet to the world is through Gibraltar, which opens the Atlantic to us, this being indispensable to Italy for supplies of raw material, and because 10,000,000 Italians live abroad. A small force can block nine miles of straits and on I’;at day the very existence of Italy’s 42,000,000 people will be at stake. These considerations create the necessity for her possessing a navy assuring her of an indispensable minimum of free navi gntion of the seas.” EIGHTS OF NEUTRALS. STATEMENT BY SENATOR BORAH. WASHINGTON, December 15. (Received Dec. 16, at 0.15 a.m.) Senator Borah, who has long been a champion of codification of sea laws and freedom of the seas, vigorously contended that acceptance of Mr MacDonald’s argument that, under the Kellogg Pact, no issue of neutral rights in time of war can arise would interpret, the pact as “war pact,” for if “The Kellogg Pact means that henceforth there shall be no neutrals it necessarily follows that we and all other signatories become belligerents.” Senator Borah’s reference to the White Paper received more than ordinary interest. He stated: “I did agree with Mr MacDonald’s construction with reference to neutrals. As I stated when he was in the United States, I am at a loss to understand why we are maintaining and continuing huge navies. If the past settled all matters with reference to_ the use of the sea I think the best evidence of the belief that the pact removed all question of the rights of neutrals would be a drastic reduction of armaments.”