NAVAL TONNAGE

Southland Times, Issue 20667, 24 April 1929, Page 5

NAVAL TONNAGE

SCHEME FOR REDUCTION NEW POLICY OF UNITED STATES FRENCH IDEA FAVOURED (United Press Assn.—By Telegraph—Copyright.) Geneva, April 22. The morning's session of the Preparatory Commission on Disarmament transcended all its predecessors in importance by the fact that Mr Hugh Gibson outlined the new policy of the United States. He said the United States adhered to- the view that a limitation of naval tonnage by categories was the simplest and fairest way. It had proved practical and satisfactory- in the Washington Treaty, which allowed each' Power to utilize its tonnage in accordance with special needs. However, as that method was unacceptable to the others the United States sought a new method likely to lead to a naval compromise which would be. generally acceptable. Therefore, the United States was disposed to accept the French proposal, the idea of which was a specified tonnage for each class with the right of increasing any class by the transfer of the tonnage from another. This allowed greater elasticity in the distribution of the tonnage. It must be understood that this involved an agreement upon the methods alone, not upon the quantative tonnages or the actual percentage to be transferred from one category to another. M. Litvinoff claimed that Mr Gibson's statement enumerated some of the Soviet principles, therefore he was gratified with it. His pessimism was incurable, however, unless concrete proposals were followed. Mr Loudon declared that the speeches would impart fresh energy to the committee's work. General Marinis (Italy) pledged his Government to co-operate cordially in disarmament. The British View. Replying to the statement made by Mr Gibson, Ixird Cushendun, the British delegate, said that while it was impossible to deal adequately at this moment with the declaration, it struck him as being so important that he would make one or two observations upon it without tielay. No one could fail to have been struck with the friendly, conciliatory and helpful spirit of the declaration, and he would say that it was in that spirit that the British Government also desired to approach this very complicated and difficult question. He could not commit himself at the present to any- specific proposition contained in Mr Gibson’s declarations. As far as any general principle was concerned, there was nothing Mr Gibson had said with which he could not express agreement. He welcomed particularly Mr Gibson’s allusion to the Kellogg Fact, adding: “Having had the personal privilege of signing that great instrument on behalf of the British Government, I certainly am not disposed to belittle its importance. I Eeileve it is most profoundly important with regard to the whole outlook of the world. I believe the signing of the Kellogg Fact has done more to promote security than any other event. I do not think that it has even yet been fully realized how important it is.”

In regard to Mr Gibson’s statement that in naval matters the United States desired not only limitation, but reduction, Lord Cushendun said that it was also the desire of the British Government which, like the United States, desired limitation and reduction to be applied to all classes of vessels. “If, in some negotiations, we have, provisionally at all events, consented to a scheme of reduction which left any classes of vessels outside, that was not because we considered that the ideal solution of the problem, but merely because, in the interests of agreement, we were willing to forego some part of our ideal in order to get an agreement upon others,” he said. “We have never concealed the fact that we desire if we can have an agreement upon it, limitation and reduction as applied to all classes of vessels.” Abolition of Submarines. He reminded the commission that twelve months ago he had publicly'stated that the British Government would be glad to sec further reductions of these categories covered by the Washington agreement and also a prolongation of their life. That was to say, a longer period before they could be replaced. The British Government had also indicated readiness, if their colleagues would agree, to the total abolition of submarines. Therefore the British Government had already shown a willingness to carry further the principle of reduction, of which the foundation had tentatively been laid, and were anxious to promote it to the fullest possible extent. A very important matter laid down by Mr Gibson was that of arriving at some system of equivalent values based upon other factors besides mere tonnage, such as speed. He did not like to say very much upon that point until he had further information, but he entirely agreed that it was along those lines, that the problem ought to be solved. He thought that the British Government had also to some extent been investigating the possibility of arriving at an equivalent value, taking into account other factors besides tonnage, but obviously this was a matter which was extremely technical and which the British Government would only examine in conjunction with expert advice. He was, however, quite certain that any suggestions of the sort by the United States and any information as to their study of this subject would be most carefully and, in a friendly spirit, examined and considered by the British Government. He could not, of course, commit his Government in any way to the result that might follow from that examination, but he certainly welcomed the whole spirit of Mr Gibson’s statement which had such close . bearing upon the whole of the naval question that it must profoundly affect the work on disarmament at Geneva.

Common Sense Agreement.

Mr Gibson said the United States would give full and friendly consideration to any supplementary methods of limitation which he recently discussed with President Hoover, who felt that nothing would be effective unless it embraced all classes including destroyers, cruisers and submarines. He added that a common sense agreement was what was really wanted, based on the idea that they were going to be friends and settle tbeir problems by peaceful means. The reduction of armaments alone would be ineffective unless it was preceded by a change of attitude in regard to the forceful settlement of disputes, and permitting them to dispense with armaments which hitherto seemed essential.

’ Lord Cushendun, replying, said ha was in complete agreement with Mr Gibson, whose limitation statement would be most important and would affect the whole work of the commission.—Australian Press Association.

INTEREST IN WASHINGTON.

IMPORTANT NEW POINTS.

(Rec. 9.30 p.m.) Washington, April 22. Interest here in Mr Gibson’s naval armament proposal turns towards a realization that the effect of America’s plans cannot be determined until Europe’s reaction is known. As official circles state Mr Gibson’s outline contains three important new factors, namely, that there is necessity for reductions in the light of the multilateral anti-war pact;, that the United States for the first time approves of the French proposal of a flexible category for warships; and that the United States wants an estimate of naval values by other standards

than by displacement tonnage alone. Lord -Cushendun's reported agreement with Mr Gibson is believed here to mark the final disposal of the Anglo-French naval accord, but whether Mr Gibson’s suggestion will lead to another three-power naval conference or an effort to reach a naval agreement through the machinery of the Preparatory Commission is not yet clear.