Poverty Bay Herald PUBLISHED EVERY EVENING GISBORNE, THURSDAY, NOV. 14, 1929. 1812—1929

Poverty Bay Herald, Volume LV, Issue 17108, 14 November 1929, Page 6

Poverty Bay Herald PUBLISHED EVERY EVENING GISBORNE, THURSDAY, NOV. 14, 1929. 1812—1929

"After more than a century of intermittent controversy on the subject of naval affairs between Britain and the United States, the goal of an ultimate solution is in sight. The time is opportune to glance briefly over the whole story. The controversy had its origin in the Napoleonic wars over the question as to whether the British Navy should have the right, to visit and search American vessels and to ‘‘impress'’ mew to man the slaps in order to maintain the blockade of Europe. Britain at the time regarded herself as lighting on behalf of human freedom in general and claimed the right under international law to interrupt neutral trade within the areas under the control of Napoleon. The United States held that Britain had violated the rights of neutrals, and .the controversy culminated in the war of 1812. A curious reversal took place during the American Civil War. The United States imposed a blockade upon the Confederacy, justifying it on the ground that she was blockading a port of her own territory. Britain did not at all agree to this, but the argument went; no further than words. On the outbreak of the Great War, the Napoleonic situation recurred. Again Britain was convinced that she .was fighting for the good of humanity; again she used htw navy to the utmost of her power to interrupt neutral trade with the enemy, and again the United States took up the cudgels on behalf of the rights of neutrals and protested against, any violation of .them. One outstanding difference in the situation was, however, that, while on the former occasion Britain had been incomparably more powerful than the young country across the Atlantic, now the United States' was the richer of the two, although, because of her isolation from the rest of the world, her navy was not, nearly so powerful. The naval controversy never led to an open rupture, but American resentment at, Britain's interference with her trade was so great that in 191 fl President Wilson obtained authority from the Congress to build a new navy of sixteen superdreadnaughts for the stated purpose of making it impossible in future wars for any country to interfere with American shipping. This programme

was entered upon, but was not completed because America came into the war in 35) 17. Near the close of the war, President Wilson brought forward his famous fourteen points, one of which proposed that, in war and in peace the seas should be free except when they were closed by international law for the enforcement of an international convenant. Britain's attitude was that British public opinion was not ready even to discuss such a proposal. President Wilson, therefore, on his ieturn to America, recommended the completion of the sixteen-bat-tleship programme which had been suspended. During 1920, it became increasingly clear that there was in existence a considerable amount of naval competition amongst the nations who had been allies during the war. Britain, in order to keep her place, was forced to build four battleships and Japan inaugurated its programme for eight, battleships in eight years. This was the situation which led to the summoning of the Washington Conference of 2921-22. At that conference, agreement was reached on all the questions save one. The basis was that British and American battleship fleets were in future to lie equal, blit, no agreement could be effected as to the limitation of cruisers, destroyers and submarines, except that, it was agreed that cruisers should not exceed 10,000 tons nor carry guns of greater calibre than eight inches. After the conference the atmosphere of competitive suspicion continued. Britain began .to replace old cruisers by those of the new typo, and other powers began to build according to their needs. In 1027 President Ooolidge called another naval conference at Geneva to stem the rising tide of competition. Prance and Italy declined to attend, and only Great Britain, the United States, and Japan were represented. The conference lasted a month and broke up wilhout, any agreement having been reached. It is commonly recognised now that the Geneva conference failed because there was not sufficient political preparation for if, so that each party went forward knowing very little of the needs and aspirations of the others. The discussions in consequence were apt to be heated at times, and when, a year later, Britain, with the best, of intentions tried to pave the way for larger agreement by settling some of the preliminary difficulties between herself and France, the situation, far from being mended, was made worse. In the meantime the Kellogg Pact had been accepted very widely. It, created a broad basis upon which larger discussions could take place, for its slogan was .the absolute renunciation of war. It is obvious that while war is lawful, disarmament is absurd. The Kellogg Pact thus reached down to the fundamental preliminary to any kind of world-wide discussions of disarmament. Then it happened that two men of similar ideals — President Hoover and Mr. ,T. Ramsay MacDonald—came into power in the two great countries almost simultaneously, so that the way was opened up once more for a fresh start. The personal intercourse which has recently taken place between these two men should have gone a long way towards clearing up misunderstandings and doubtful issues, and although the final details will probably not be known until the naval conference that, is to include Japan, France and Italy, as well as Great Britain and .the United States,, meets in January, the outlines are already becoming clear. Both Britain and America are prepared to accept the principle of parity. Britain is to bring down her cruiser requirements from seventy ships, totalling over 7)00,000 tons, to fifty ships of about 040,000 tons. The American figures have not yet. been completed, the difficulty being to find a formula whereby the large eight -inch gun ships which me,et American requirements can lie balanced against the smaller six-inch gun ships which are more suitable to Great Britain. It is pointed out. that, on the one hand the eightinch gun ship can destroy six-inch gun ships before the latter's guns come within "range, while on. the other hand largo numbers of smaller ships operating from na\btl bases all over the world have the greater power to destroy commerce. The solution is worked out on common sense lines. The United States is to have a larger number of the more powerful vessels, but not so great as to give her unquestioned battle supremacy. Britain is to have a larger total tonnage, but of smaller ships armed with smaller guns. A naval agreement,, however, can be regarded only as a beginning. It does not solve the long-standing question of the freedom- of the seas. It is therefore the more interesting to notice that President Hoover’s message, cabled on Saturday, indicates his intention to broaden the basis of the discussion at the Five Power Conference in January so as to include this question.