DISARMAMENT

Southland Times, Issue 20226, 11 July 1927, Page 5

DISARMAMENT

Geneva Conference BREAKDOWN APPEARS INEVITABLE AGREEMENT ON CRUISER QUESTION UNLIKELY AMERICANS UNWILLING TO FACE ISSUE (By Telegraph—Press Assn.—Copyright.) (Rec. 5.5 p.m.) Geneva, July 9. When the Executive of the Disarmament Conference met to-day for the first time in the week, there was a gloomy feeling regarding the cruiser question. After the meeting, however, there was a happier note. It was apparent that Japan had attempted to provide a compromise by suggesting that cruisers and destroyers be classed together when estimating the maximum tonnage. It was very doubtful whether this will be helpful, but after tunch Hon. W. C. Bridgeman announced that, he was more hopeful than a few days ago. He emphasised the absurdity of Britain being forced to build cruisers of a type she does not want just to suit America. “We have never been in favour of an offensive 10,000-ton, 8-inch gun cruiser class. It was adopted at the Washington Conference against our will. Real disarmament can only be achieved by fixing the lowest sizes and longer aces for ships compatible with security. Britain’s proposals would save £1.000,000 on each large cruiser, and £500,000 on each smaller vessel. There has never been any question of cruiser parity between Britain and the United States. Each country can state its own needs.” The Pressman asked: “If the United States accepts a 7500 tons maximum for cruisers would you scrap your 10,000 tonncrs?” Mr Bridgeman: “I will wait till the proposition is seriously made. Of course, it sounds an attractive proposition for those who have 10,000 tonners to scrap.” After Mr Bridgeman’s statement a general impression prevailed that while an agreement on cruisers was impossible, the Conference will try to launch a treaty regarding destroyers and submarines. Another leading British delegate summing up the situation said: “The Conference is continuing because the Americans are slow to face the real issue. In other words President Coolidge is unwilling to permit a breakdown of his own conference and face the music of American responsibility therefor.”—A. and N.Z. AMERICA HOPEFUL OF ULTIMATE SUCCESS. (Rec. 55 p.m.) New York, July 9. The latest reports from Geneva indicate that there is now a possibility of reconciliation of the British and American views on cruisers when the Conference resumes on Monday. American opinion, both official and unofficial, is swinging towards a renewed hope that the gathering will accomplish its purpose. Generally speaking, the attitude in this country is intraneigeant. Hon. W. C. Bridgeman’s statement yesterday brought forth deep opposition. It is termed belligerent and irreconcilable with the pronouncements of the British delegates at the Washington Conference, which agreed with a maximum tonnage of 450,000 tons for all auxiliary surface craft both destroyers and cruisers. The State Department to-day reiterated the belief that it would be useless to enter into any limitations treaty with a cruiser tonnage in excess of 400,000. The State Department even went further, showing that it had not yet abandoned the expectation that America’s original proposals for a cruiser tonnage of 250,000 to 300,000 would be accepted, although 400,000 tons had been informally suggested by the American technicians as a basis for discussion. A Geneva report states that the new' British proposal to limit the age of cruisers to 24 years would bring the British cruiser tonnage to approximately 443,740 and this may permit of new grounds for discussion on Monday. This has strengthened the belief among those with pro-British sentiment that the difficulties may be overcome. They point with approval to the views of Lord Lee, printed in the London Times, that the question of Anglo-American relations is far too serious to be left to naval experts.—A. and N.Z. DISCUSSION WITHOUT PREJUDICE. (Rec. 5.5 p.m.) London, July 10. An official statement issued at Geneva says that the executive resumed the discussion on cruisers. The Japanese suggested that the British battleship proposals be discussed after the limitation of auxiliaries was settled. America stated that she would not object to an informal exchange of views on the British proposals covering battleships and aircraftearners after the agreement regarding auxiliaries, but without prejudicing the decision of the participants in the 1931 conference, also recommending that if the Conference was successful, then the Washington signatories should hold a conference early in 1931 instead of August, 1931, to determine the affects of the Geneva decisions on the replacement programme beginning in November. Britain reserves the right to raise the capital ship question at Geneva, irrespective of the decision on auxiliaries.—A. and N.Z. DESTROYER TONNAGE AGREED ON. (Rec. 5.5 p.m.) Geneva, July 9. The Conference has agreed that destroyer leaders shall be 1850 tons and destroyers 1500 with 5-inch guns and an age limit of 16 years. Agreement has not yet been reached on the total tonnage.—A. and N.Z. and Sun Cable. EDITORIAL COMMENT IN UNITED STATES. (Rec. 5.5 p.m.) New York, July 9. As concerns editorial opinion, the Chicago Tribune says—“ Any concrete benefits to be expected from the Conference in respect to expenditure and stable relations seem at this stage doubtful, but there is a very real danger that the Conference will have the deplorable consequence of increasing international irritation and distrust.” The leader then bitterly attacks the British point of view. The New York Times is one of the few newspapers which strongly supports the British contentions. It stresses that the American delegates have swung from economy to parity* in naval strength, and adds that a purpose of the Conference was to secure economy. It explains that the British proposals means the saving of £150,000,000 to the Powers concerned, and expresses a fear that the rush for parity will prove expensive.— A. and N.Z. EARNEST DESIRE FOR SETTLEMENT. Rugby, July 8. The United States delegate, Mr Gibson, in an interview with the Press, frankly admitted that differences on the cruiser question were causing anxiety, but added that there was among all delegates an earnest desire to find a way out, and he was hopeful that this would result. He denied that the Americans were preparing to return home. On the contrary, their passages had been booked for August 9, but even that date, if necessary, could be altered. Mr W. C. Bridgeman, First Lord of the Admiralty, in a statement to-day to journalists attending the Geneva Naval Conference, said in regard to breakdown rumours

he was more hopeful to-day than a week ago. With the goodwill of everyone concerned he was sure that the results already obtained would prove useful, and that a step forward was possible even as to capital ships. He maintained that the only way of preventing competition and reducing armaments was tn limit the size of vessels in all categories, because every nation would always build up to the maximum size. In the same way the offensive power of the navy could only be reduced by decreasing the size of ships and their guns. If the British proposal were accepted they w’ould mean a saving of £1,000,000 on the cost of each battleship and £500,000 on a cruiser.— British Official Wireless. GLOOM PERVADES CONFERENCE CIRCLES. (Rec. 12.30 a.m.) Geneva, July 10. If heed were given to smoke-room gossip, the Conference is doomed to failure, but Geneva is so notorious for taradiddles that it is foolish yet to prophesy an absolute breakdown. The Executive Committee in the forenoon briskly re-discussed the cruiser difficulty, the communique setting out three viewpoints on capital ships, and then adjourned* to a date not fixed. The week-end was devoted to private conversations on cruisers and preparations for Monday’s plenary session. Nothing yet has happened to bring within sight an acceptable cruiser compromise. The delegations’ opinions are still far apart and are apparently irreconcilable, but it is learned definitely from the delegates present at the morning’s meeting that nobody is preparing to face an actual abandonment of the Conference. Mr Gibson, after the meeting said: I refuse to be discouraged. We are at the moment no nearer a solution, but all sincerely want naval limitation and I believe we will eventually find a way out. We are determined to keep on trying till we do. British circles to-day state that the new Japanese proposals are not acceptable, chiefly because they are based on Japan’s short age limit of warships, which throws an unnecessary burden on the taxpayers. The application of the British age limits to the Japanese figures gives a total tonnage not far short of Britain’s own proposals.—A. and N.Z. BRITAIN WILL NOT GIVE WAY. (Rec. 12.25 p.m.) Geneva, July 9. “Britain will not give way to pressure and model her navy to suit American ideas,” virtually declared the Hon. W. C. Bridgeman, who recalled that America’s insistence at the Washington Conference forced Britain to build 10,000 ton cruisers which she did not want. Nevertheless Mr Bridgeman was most confident that some result would be achieved here. The executive adopted the technicians’ report, setting out the points of the agreement, but could not agree concerning vital questions of tonnage, size, and guns of cruisers and small submarines, the whole question of ratios and the reopening of the capital ships problem. The executive has decided to convoke a plenary session on Monday when the fate of the conference will be decided.—A. and N.Z. POSSIBLE SOLUTION OF DIFFICULTY. (Rec. 1.30 a.m.) London, July 10. The Observer’s Diplomatic correspondent hints that the Geneva impasse may be ended by an agreement to divide cruisers into two categories, offensive and defensive in order to meet Britain’s special needs for the protection of trade routes. —A. and NJZ.