NAVAL ARMAMENTS

Otago Daily Times, Issue 20959, 24 February 1930, Page 9

NAVAL ARMAMENTS

A BURDEN AND A MENACE. PROGRESS OF CONFERENCE. COMMENT BY THE TIMES. ' ■•••; (British Official 'Wireless.) (United Press Association.) (By Electric Telegraph—Copyright.) RUGBY, February 21. It is understood that M. Briand will return: to the London Naval Conference as head of the French delegation. His principal colleagues are expected to be M. Albert Sarraut (who attended the Washington Conference), M. Pietri, and M. Dalieloh (who is president of the Briand group in the Chamber of Deputies). * Although .the conference stands adjourned until Wednesday, the experts, are daily continuing thei examination of the question of special ships not belonging to any clearly-defined, category, and expect to be able to complete the report for the .First Committee by the time the confer- '■ ence resumes. Commenting on the conference, the Times to-day says: “The British and American memoranda made it clear that if those two - Powers alone : were concerned, there vould be little trouble in fixing programmes for the next five years, which would substantially reduce tho burden and menace of naval armaand open up the way for further reductions at a future conference, but this is a five-Power. conference, and what it has been set to achieve is a five-Power agreement to reduce the naval programmes of all five, and capable of being made the basis of an all-round agreement at the General Disarmament Conference* which it f is proposed to summon as soon as the circumstances are favourable. A study of the different memoranda submitted shows that this is going to be an even more difficult matter than was expected, especially as some of -the figures, if they were translated into actual tonnage, would involve a very considerable increase in theimogrammes contemplated by Great Britain and the United States, but while no Power can be expected-to make any concession really imperilling its security all the Powers may. fairly be asked to consider whether an international agreement for five years, does not justify a greater readiness to reduce their armaments than some of them have yet shown, and whether either their security or their navies and ports will really be accepting compromises which, if they should prove unsatisfactory, can be reviewed at the next conference in 1936 in the light of the situation as it then presents itself. Great Britain, by suspending the work on the Singapore Base,' and by many drastic cuts in her constructive, programme, has already- gone to an extreme length in the way of deduction. During the adjournment of the conference, the other Powers rtught usefully ask themselves whether they cannot come some way in the same ; direction.” . . SUBMARINE WARFARE. , QUESTION OP HUMANISING. ' . . ■ . » . ' - LONDON, February 21. ■ A committee representing all the delegations inet at the Foreign . Office and discussed the humanising, of submarines , but not their abolition or their size. The committee on unc’ ssified craft is finalising its report. ■ , Mr MacDonald will go to Chequers this afternoon. THE FRENCH CLAIMS. - WATERING DOWN ESSENTIAL. ' . LONDON, February 21. (Received Feb, 23, at 5.5 p.m.) When M. Chautemps composes his difficulties, not the least of which is the un- , compromising unfriendliness 6f the Rehe is expected to entrust M. ■ Briand with the mission of 'returning to London to lead the delegation at tho Naval Conference. Thus it will iot mean a new beginning, but a resumption of the threads of last week’s .Uecjsslods! Not one party or newspaper in France has ventured to suggest the watering down of French demands, which, therefore, will be again the pivot upon which the deliberations will turn, with the will- . o’-the-wisp guarantee idea , dancing in tie . . background. In this connection the first ray of hope •of some form of palliative * French fears appears. A highly placed icrsonage with the American, Delegation, /hile unequivocally rejecting the idea ’ of" signing any pact of Mediterranean security said that the idea of a consultative agreement not implying obligation of action would possibly be discussed by America if it would in any way help Prance to make more moderate claims. This could take the form of an addendum to the' Kellogg Pact. CANADIAN NAVAL POLICY. QUESTIONS IN PARLIAMENT. /t» , OTTAWA, February 21. (Received Feb. 23, at 5.5 p.m.) . naval policy debate of more than passing importance in view of the forthcoming dominion diction within a year was indicated in the House of Commons to-day mth the question of Mr T. L Church (Con., Toronto): “Will "the Government, for the sake of -promoting world;peace, sink Canada’s navy?” He asks what the navy costs annually, what it consists of, and where it : 3 located. Mr Church for many years had been a stron gadvocate of a substantial Canadian contribution to the British Navv ana an ardent Imperialist. On a number of occasions in the House A mens he has ridiculed the Canadian nav™, ! 0l S th n at :t , Was not either to defend Canada or to be of material assistance to the Empire fleet.