DISARMAMENT

Southland Times, Issue 20228, 13 July 1927, Page 5

DISARMAMENT

GENEVA CONFERENCE REFUSAL TO ACKNOWLEDGE DEADLOCK EXPERTS HOPEFUL OF SOLUTION (By Telegraph—Press Assn.—Copyright.) London, July 11. Semi-official information received in London leads official circles to refuse to consider that the Geneva Conference has reached a hopeless deadlock. ■ They believe that the postponement of the plenary session will give the experts an opportunity of making a new line of approach to the cruiser question which it is possible may take the form of an alternative tonnage basis when fixing the ratio of the various navies. The Australian Press Association correspondent at Geneva says that the Hon. W. C. Bridgeman stated that the exchange of views on the new British thesis led him to believe that the postponed plenary sitting might be held on Wednesday or Thursday. The thesis was not previously fully considered owing to an American suggestion that she wanted to be free to build 25 Washington type cruisers. It was the latter suggestion that almost caused the deadlock. Continuing, Hon. W. C. Bridgeman said: “I do not believe it is generally understood that 10,000-ton ships, armed with 8-inch ■guns, are two and a half times more powerful than any cruiser afloat armed with 6inch guns. The American position is the result of the so-called Disarmament Conference increasing the aggressive power of the navies. The American proposition is that we should first bind ourselves to a total tonnage, leaving the .United States to fill the class with whatever size cruisers she cares. It seems to me like asking Britain to close her eyes and open her mouth and take whatever America likes to give her. Our new proposal is simple and straightforward. Each party is to agree not to build more than a fixed number of the various types of cruisers within a given period of years. The United States would be able to build up to our strength in the largest type of cruisers, using the remainder of her tonnage for whatever other types she may desire. We simply want to know what the other Powers are planning in order to cut our cloth accordingly. Britain is prepared to accept a total aggregate of 400,000 tons for cruisers and destroyers, provided the number of cruisers of 10,000 tons is fixed for all three Powers.” Hon. W. C. Bridgeman’s statement was made to the British Press exclusively as a protest against misrepresentation of the British case in a section of the American Press.—A. and N.Z. SIR AUSTEN CHAMBERLAIN’S VIEWS. London, July 11. Sir Austen Chamberlain stated that he did not share the gloomy views expressed in some quarters and he did not abandon hope that substantial reductions in naval armaments would result from the conference now in session. Obviously he could not enter into a detailed exposition of the British case now being discussed at Geneva, but the British delegation had gone out with a carefully thought-out plan for further limitation of naval armaments. The extent of the proposals might be measured by this single fact that for years to come they would, if adopted by others, mean a reduction of naval expenditure which Britain would otherwise have to incur of a sum nearer £50,000,000 than £40,000,000. The question of total tonnage loomed large in the Press, but in the mind of the Government that question by itself was insignificant and would be ineffective in checking armaments unless some further limitation were put upon the number of ships which have a most aggressive character. It was unthinkable we should enter into & competitive union with the United States in any race for armaments. “We do not attempt to suggest that in any class of vessels they may not enjoy parity without criticism or objection from us if they think their needs require it. For our part we seek only to secure the special protection which is vital to the British Empire on the lowest scale that we can arrange with other naval Powers so that our burdens and theirs may be lightened and the menace of war automatically reduced. I jiope and believe that from the Coolidge Conference may come proposals which will mark a real step forward in the limitation of naval competition, and that, encouraged by that example, a new stimulus may be given to a larger international conference which is to consider not merely naval but land and all armaments.”—A. and N.Z.