LONDON CONFERENCE

Otago Witness, Issue 3972, 29 April 1930, Page 27

LONDON CONFERENCE

SIGNING OF DRAFT TREATY.

ARRANGEMENTS COMPLETED.

RUGBY, April 21.

The plenary session of the Naval Con ference will be held at St. James’s Palace. Mr MacDonald will open the proceedings with .a short speech, then will call on the delegates to sign the agreement in the names of their respective governments. Signor Grandi was unable to attend to-day’s meeting owing to indisposition.

DRAFT TREATY APPROVED OF.

LONDON, April 21.

The delegates of the five Powers, at an hour's meeting, approved of the draft: treaty, which was sent to tl\c printers in preparation for signing at to-morrow's plenary session. FINAL PLENARY SESSION. LEADERS’ CLOSING SPEECHES. LONDON, April 22. At the opening of the final plenary Session of the Naval Conference, Mr MacDonald explained that the original draft treaty contained a part dealing with the method m relation to computing tonnages from the statements submitted some time ago by France and Britain at Geneva, where agreement had not been possible, but it had been reached at this conference. It was felt tlrat further consideration was the best way to deal with that part of the (Iraft treaty, and it would be for him as chairman to transmit it to the Secretariat of the League of Nations and ask that the special attention of the Preparatory Commission should be drawn to it as the finding of this conference. It would be accompanied by an explanatory letter. The conference agreed to the suggestion.

Mr MacDonald said that the Washington Treaty provided for a further conference within eight years of its signature or in 1931. As a matter of fact, this conference had anticipated the 1931 conference, which, therefore, would not be held. The work of this conference would be carried on, and the next conference would be held in 1935 unless events of such a happy character as to make it unnecessary took place in the nieantime.

This was agreed to. Mr MacDonald said that the heads pf the delegations had decided that the most convenient titles would be the “ London Naval Conference ” and “ The London Naval Treaty of 1930.” This was approved. In his final address as chairman, Mr MacDonald said: “We have gone as far as we can at present. We met to gather points of agreement and embody them in a treaty. Compared with Washington and Geneva we have progressed far, but compared with our desires we are still short. This is but another stage, and the work will have to be continued of tackling problems ■which have baffled us. On one thing we can congratulate ourselves—everyone in the conference knows how again and again a mistaken word or awkward handling could have created a troubled situation which would not have been allayed speedily, yet .we part in a spirit of active goodwill, determined to make this the beginning and to use every means offering to make a five-Power treaty a reality. The conference has done great woik, and we have secured a three-Power agreement. Differences of opinion hitherto accompanying attempts to settle relative strengths have disappeared. The public probably docs not appreciate how much has been effected in the reduction of building programmes, which is almost ns valuable as scrapping. We have found navies at the point of dangerous expansion, the nations being at the fatal moment when, by a process of mental delusion, they were again reducing antiwar security by increasing armaments. While that will o’ the wisp is followed conferences must fail or only partially succeed. We must strengthen the new mentality towards peace and apply it to further reductions. Such progress should be possible by 1936, to which the treaty has been extended. Britain has achieved a security pact with America and Japan but until the European situation, which is harder to settle, is resolved by agree incnt, every bond of limited scope must have the protection of a safeguarding clause. Such a clause was not inserted as an easy way to get round the treaty and it would be used only after every effort had been made to avoid it. Only when it was apparent that Britain’s naval position was so affected by ships being built or contemplated by other Powers would recourse be had* to the protection clause.”

Mr MacDonald, speaking with the utmost earnestness, went on: “ Britain will strive with might and main to prevent this from arising and has every hope that an understanding will result from conversations after the adjournment oi the conference, making any use of the protection clause unnecessary. I appeal to public opinion in Europe to range itself behind those who are conducting these negotiations. No one nation can take the way towards disarmament, which is possible only, by international agreement.” After paying a tribute to the friendship and mutual understanding engendered by the conference, Mr MacDonald thanked the delegates and the experts

for their forbearance and helpfulness, and said that the Americans had been enthusiastic colleagues, as had the Japanese, though nevertheless stoutly defending their national needs. The French, despite their political distractions, had given unstinted assistance and had demonstrated that they were fully enlisted in the cause of peace and would continue negotiations directed towards success. .Signor Grandi’s illness precluded the presence of the Italians, who, despite their difficult part, had helped in every other way apart from discussing the actual figures. They would depart determined to find means of producing general agreement towards European disarmament.

Mr Stimson, speaking on behalf of the American delegation, said: “I wish to congratulate you on the successful conclusion of the conference, and thank you for the sterling qualities of .your leadership, which contributed so effectively thereto. I cannot refrain from a personal word to tell you how deeply I appreciate the unwearying patience, skill and tact with which you have Fed us through difficult weeks. We are also grateful for the, hospitality of your Government, which was by no moans perfunctory, but the expression of a genuine desire to make us feel at home. We sign this treaty with the realisation that it fixes our naval relationship with the British commonwealth of nations on a fair and lasting basis, c-d •'

equally advantageous to us all. It also establishes our naval our good neighbours across the Pacific and ensures a continuous growth of friendship with a nation to which we have come to look for stability and progress in the Far East. We are happy to have participated with France and Italy in the solution of some important general problems and are glad to know that, it is their purpose to continue discussions in the hope of soon completing a five-Power agreement on naval restric° tion. The fundamental purpose with which the American delegation came to London was to help in the promotion of good relationship between the nations. It is our belief that the limitation of armaments by mutual agreement is one of the most effective methods of increasing each nation’s confidence towards the others’ pacific intentions. As we believe that limitation increases security we look forward to periodically recurring conferences and are confident that we shall obtain ever-increasing security with ever-de-creasing armament.”

M e believe that naval limitation Is one of the most accurate measures in the world’s belief in the possibility of settling all international matters by pacific’ rational means. And experience here has strengthened that belief and has increased our hope that civilisation will be able to form the habit of settling peaceamy questions and controversies. We have found great encouragement in the sincerity and spirit of fair dealing with which we were met by the other delegations, from whom we received the utmost consideration. In departing we pledge for the future, as we did upon our arrival, our utmost co-operation towards the great ends that brought us here.” THE SINGAPORE BASE. MUST BE DISCUSSED SOON. LONDON, April 21. Mr Fenton (the Australian delegate at the conference) expresses the opinion that the Singapore base will be the subject of most important discussion at the Imperial Conference. “ One of the results of the Naval Conference has been the continuation of the Washington Treaty guarantees concerning the Pacific,” he states. “ This pact extends the guarantees for five years. If the construction of the Singapore base continues according to the previous lavish plans this will create justifiable distrust in the minds of friends. Mr Alexander informed me that the base must shortly be discussed. Experts express the opinion that the original scheme has been rendered unnecessary. It is proposed to utilise the present section for the docking of merchantmen, which I consider sensible. Australian anxiety is unnecessary. If modification of the base is criticised, I ask from where are we to obtain the money. ’ Commenting on the results of the inference, Mr Fenton said: “ I, like many, expected greater results, but what has been achieved beneficially affects twothirds of the world’s population. The conference shows that the nations are not yet willing to beat the implements of war into peace purposes, but international conferences show progress towards peace. I am of opinion that the subsequent Geneva Conference will further cement this pact. After this morning’s conference I congratulated Mr MacDonald. Peace lovers should declare that they thank God for MacDonald.” THE LONDON CONFERENCE. FULL TEXT OF TREATY. RUGBY, April 22. The full text of the Naval Treaty, which was signed at St. James’s Palace tc-day by rhe plenipotentiaries of Great Britain and the Empire, the United states, Italy, France, and Japan, consists of five parts and twenty-six articles. Of these, eight articles comprise part 3 oi the treaty, which it the three-Power pact, and which is not signed by France and Italy. In the five-Power agreement the parties agree not to exercise their rights to lay down the capital ship replacement tonnage during the years 1931 to 1936 inclusive, as provided in the

Washington Treaty. This provision is without prejudice to the disposition relating to the replacement of ships accidentally lost, nor does it prejudice the right of France and Italy to build the replacement tonnage which they were entitled under the Washington Treaty to lay down in 1927 and 1929.

The United States, the United Kingdom, and Japan shall dispose of the following capital ships:—United States, the Florida, the Utah, and the Arkansas or M yoining; United Kingdom, the Benbow, the Iron Duke, the Marlborough, the Emperor of India,, and the Tiger; Japan, the Hiyei. Of the ships to be disposed of the Arkansas or Wyoming, the Iron Duke, and the Hiyei may be retained for training purposes, but all the others must be rendered unfit for warlike service within 18 months, and be finally scrapped within 30 months of the coming into force of the treaty. In the articles devoted to aircraft carriers it is laid down that no capital ships in existence on April 1, 1930, shall be fitted with a landing platform or deck, and that no aircraft carrier" of 10.000 tons or less displacement mounting a gun above G.lin shall be acquired or constructed.

Part 4 of the treaty sets .out certain rules which are accepted as those established by international law. These, after ratification, will be communicated by the I British Government to the signatories of I the treaty, who will be invited to accede to them. These rules ire (1) that, in their action with regard to merchant ships, submarines must conform to the rules of international law to which surface vessels are subject; (2) in particular, except in the case of persistent refusal to stop on being duly summoned, or of active resistance to visit or search, a warship, whether a surface vessel or a submarine, may not sink or render incapable of navigation a merchant vessel without having first placed the passengers, crew, and the ship’s papers in a place of safety. For this purpose ships’ boats are not regarded as a place of safety unless the safety of the passengers and crew is assured in the existing sea and weather conditions by the proximity of land or presence of another vessel which Is in a position to take them on board. The treaty will remain in force until December 31, 1936, except that there' is no time limit for part 4, and that ths aircraft carrier provisions remain in force for the same period as the Washington Treaty.

The details regarding the limitation of the naval combatant vessels of the United States, the British Commonwealth, and Japan are set out in part 3. Cruisers are divided into t-wo categories—those carry .ng guns above G.lin and those carrying guns not above that calibre. The completed connage in the cruiser, destroyer, and submarine categories, whien is not to be exceeded, on December 31, 1936, is as follows:—

Cruisers with guns over G.lin : America 180,000 tons, British Commonwealth 146,800 tons, Japan 108,400 tons. Cruisers with guns of G.lin and less: United States 143,500 tons, British Com mon wealth 192,200 tons, Japan 100,450 tons.

Destroyers: America and the British Commonwealth 150,000 tons each, and Japan 105,500 tons.

Submarines: Each of the three Powers 52,700 tons.

The total tonnages embraced by theso tables are: America 526,200, .he British Commonwealth 541,700, Japan 367,050. The maximum number of cruisers with guns of more than G.lin calibre is fixed for tne three signatories as follows:— United States 18, British Commonwealth 15, Japan 12.

Vessels which cause the total tonnage in any category to exceed the figures gi\en in the table are to be disposed of gradually’ during the period endin" December 31, 1936, and the details are incorporated of the percentages of tonnage transferable in the destrover and submarine categories, etc. The special safeguarding clause incorporated in part 3 reads as follows:— “ If during 'he term of the present treaty the requirements of the national security of any party in respect of vessels of wa*r limited by part 3 are, in the opinion of that party, materially affected by the new construction of any Power other than those which have joined in part 3 that party will notify the other parties to part 3 as to the increase required to be made in its own tonnages, specifying particularly the proposed increases and the reasons therefor, and shall be entitled to make such increase. Thereupon the other parties to part 3 shall be entitled to make a proportionate increase in the category or categories specified, and the said other parties shall promptly advise with each other, through diplomatic channels, as? to the situation thus presented.”

The rules for replacing, disposing, scrapping, or converting vessels of war are contained in annexes to the treaty. Part 5 provides for a further conference, unless otherwise agreed, .in 1935 to frame a new treaty to replace and carry on the purposes of the present agreement. THREE-POWER PACT SIGNED. LONDON, April 22. The three-Power pact W’as signed at 12.40 p.-m., Mr Stimson appending the first signature.

LEADERS’ CLOSING SPEECHES. LONDON, April 22. Whatever disappointment was felt that France and Italy were not encompassed

within the whole of the treaty provisions it found no expression at the final plenary session at St. James’s Palace. The speeches were full of optimism everyone giving a word of hope for a renewal of the Franco-Italian negotiations, of which Mr MacDonald afterwards gave a hint. Each delegation signed the treaty en bloc in a vellum book. Mr Stimson used his own gold pen, and others one which was later presented to Mr MacDonald. Mr Wil ford, however, chose a plain business-like black penholder which was lying on the table. Hie full text of the treaty was circulated immediately after the signing. Mr MacDonald concluded: “I iTelieve that we have done work which will follow us, and that the conference has laid foundation stones on which others will build. We can suspend our labours and bid each other good-bye, carrying away not only a signed treaty, but, most precious of all, the factors of international peace and goodwill, and a mutual friendly understanding and respect.” M. Briand said that France’s whole external policy had been a ceaseless effort towards the organisation of world peace. 1* rance had never asked nor sought guarantees for herself alone, but always had in mind the security of all the nations which might be called on to lend each other mutual assistance in order to pre vent war, or to strive against it. France always thought that such a mutual gua rantee would bring about a simultaneous reduction of armaments differing from former alliances of groups—alliances which actually led to an increase of armaments. France had shown a keen desire to find means for an effective improvement of international security in all the possibilities of a wide agreement for a general reduction in naval armaments. Quite naturally the views of the countries represented at the conference showed that they were not equally ready to pursue such a wide debate to its logical conclusion. M. Briand concluded-. “ France specially congratulates the three-Power pact signatories on their achievement, but regrets that agreement was not more general. France will do her utmost to overcome this relative impasse.”

Mr Wakatsuki warmly praised, the statesmanship, kindliness, and forbearance of Mr MacDonald. Japan had always followed a policy of minimum naval strength for defensive purposes, fulfilling the obligations for the maintenance of peace.

Mr Wilford said he regretted that the conference had not found a formula for a five-Power Treaty. Though the threePower treaty fell short of his hopes, it would restrain competitive building. New Zealand regarded the safeguarding clause as all important. It should halt the naval construction race.

Signor _ Sirianni regretted Signor Grandi’s inability to be present. He voiced the satisfaction of the Italian delegation with the agreements reached. He pleasurably anticipated that a resumption of the Franco-Italian negotiations would result in an agreement, completing the three-Power pact. Mr Fenton (Australia), Sir Atul Chatterjee (India), Mr Te Water (South Africa), and Mr Philip Percy (Canada), the latter in the absence of Mr Ralston, expressed pleasure at the result of the conference, which then adjourned.

MR MACDONALD’S SPEECH.

BROADCAST IN BRITAIN

LONDON, April 22. Mr MacDonald broadcast a speech throughout Britain, saying: “We have done something to improve the prospects of peace on earth. Now that it is all over I can say with the firmest conviction that if what we have done is immediately used to prepare the public mind to do more the conference will prove a great landmark, showing how the nations are approaching an abiding peace.”

ONE RESULT OF TREATY.

SAVING TO THE TAXPAYER

LONDON, April 22. The Daily Express says the naval reductions in battleships mean that 4000 fewer officers and men will be wanted for the active fleet in the next two years. The result of the naval treaty will mean a saving to the taxpayer totalling £100,000,000 in building costs and £66,000,000, spread over a decade, in maintenance. On the contrary, there will be less employment in the dockyards and in shipbuilding. The reductions in the personriel will fall most heavily on officers now aged 35, 4000 or 5000 of whom will have no chance of promotion. The men will be reduced by restricted entries.

The Daily Herald, commenting on the conference, says it has achieved limitation, not a reduction of armaments. The satisfaction at the limited success must be chastened by the consciousness of wider failure because the task to which the Powers pledged themselves at Versailles has not yet begun. The conference and the treaty must not be regarded as the goal,'but as the starting point.

The Daily Express, in an editorial, states that the conference was a success compared with the previous failures, and failure compared with some._pf the hopes it inspired. That must be the final judgment on this “ambitious and memorable venture, but to the principal actor, Mr MacDonald, there can be nothing but laurels.” The Paris Temps says that Italy’s demand for parity made a general agreement impossible, but the conference ended better than was supposed a few

weeks ago. France retains liberty m action and the right to watch over her own defences.

•‘W-'fi dcs Dcbllts states: Without Italy s demands the a<’rechln"? ■ W ? ul x bave been more compreensne, but these were not of a nature cans? a complete breakdown. The in inT Ca m. be Settlecl elsewhere than allow H ° n ‘ i The ’ nain th!n ° is not to r,.* ' t i? n, 1 . to cause an estrangement in 11anco-Italian relations.”

RATIFICATION BY AMERICA. T>- -1 , X X ASHIXGTOX ’ A P ril 22. iiesiuent Hoover announced that the qonnl a 7 reeme »t would be sent to the Semite for ratification immediately it aimed m Washington. DELEGATES LEAVE FOR HOME. Ar n • i RUGBY, April M. Briand and M. Dumesnil, the I eneh delegates, left London for Paris *1 4 r ’r OOn i Tbe A »'erican dele-p,.-e e /J. f . O] ? lo " l( ' this evening. The I nine Munster will fly to-mo Prow to I hoHday’ rCSU,ne 11 is ’ nte, ' n, pted FRANCE SATISFIED. HER HANDS UNTIED. p . PARIS, April 23. lieneh comment is practically unanimous in expressing the opinion that the treaty marks the end of a period in histoiy in which it may be said in truth that Bn tain ruled the waves, though the ilatin softens the bitterness of the thought by the reflection that the United States, having obtained the right to build up to the British standard, will refrain from doing so, being content with an acknowledgment of her equality The other outstanding idea is*'that . lance has done well for herself bv coming out of the conference with her*hands untied. GRATIFICATION AT GENEVA. GENEVA, April 23. League of Nations officials profess gratification at the signing of the treaty believing it to be a step towards re;H disarmament. . Moreover, it leaves the question of disarmament once more m the hands of the League. It is expected that the League of Nations’ Preparatory Disarment Commission will meet in October, and with agicement already reached on many military and air questions the commission should quickly complete a convention that will permit of an early convocation of the world’s first general disarmament conference. BRITISH PRESS COMMENT. “ SOMETHING ACHIEVED.” LONDON, April 23. The Morning Post congratulates Mr MacDonald, on achieving something substantial without forgetting, as he said, that “ the navy is us.” The three-Power pact reduces the tyranny of the 10,000 ton cruiser, but the admiralty must keep the question of the renewal of cruisers and destroyers constantly in mind. The Times says: “Each step in the limitation and reduction of armaments breeds an increase in mutual confidence. Hie value of the three-Power agreement is enhanced by the fact that it is not exclusive, but is one which the signatories hope to see extended by the adhesion of other naval Powers. All the speakers paid a tribute to the unfailing tact and patience pf Mr MacDonald, but more than any other single factor the success of the conference was due to the improvement of Anglo-American relations, for which Mr MacDonald, and Mr Baldwin before him, have striven on one side of the Atlantic and President Hoover and Mr Stimson on the other side.” The Daily Herald says: “ What the Conservatives failed to achieve in 1927 the Labour Government has achieved in 1930, and the danger of competitive shipbuilding has been averted. Moreover, the Washington limitation of capital ships has been so extended that there is good ground to hope that no more costly giants will be launched. It is a cold fact that a year ago the possibility of an AngloAmerican war was being seriously discussed, but frank talk, mainly diplomacy, has dissipated that nightmare. This may prove the most important success of the conference.”

NEW ZEALAND’S VIEWPOINT.

MR WILFORD COMPLIMENTED.

LONDON, April 23. Mr Wilford says he has no comment to make on tne result of the Naval Conference. The Daily Telegraph compliments him on his most forceful expression of the Dominion’s real viewpoint.

JAPANESE ADMIRAL DISPLEASED. TOKIO, April 26. Admiral Kato, Chief of the Naval Staff, is resigning. He contends that the naval strength provided by the London Treaty is insufficient for the defence of the country.

Hay fever is quickly relieved and soon remedied by the use of “ NAZOL.” Acts like a charm. Get a bottle: Is 6d buys 60 doses at any chemist.—Advt.