The Daily News SATURDAY, JANUARY 18, 1930. BRITISH NAVAL POLICY.

Taranaki Daily News, 18 January 1930, Page 8

The Daily News SATURDAY, JANUARY 18, 1930. BRITISH NAVAL POLICY.

The authoritative statement regarding the British Government s attitude on the eve of the FivePower Naval Conference does not embrace any new matter, but merely summarises the views the British Prime Minister had already made public. Whatever may be the outcome of that conference, it must be recognised that Mr. MacDonald has taken infinite pains to facilitate the discussion of this very important problem and to create a favourable atmosphere for it. There is, however, some justification for the criticism offered by the ex-First Lord of the Admiralty, Viscount Bridgeman, to the effect that “calling the conference one for reduction when it is for a reduction of the British Fleet alone is a misuse of language.” Without doubt Mr. Macbonald in the course of his naval conference campaign has “scattered beautiful rhetorical bouquets,” but whether he has materially aided the solution of the various problems surrounding the whole subject has yet to be proved. His latest statement emphasises that the British Government is determined to do everything in its power to show the world that it is prepared to proceed step by step to a satisfactory solution of the disarmament problem, but that everything depends upon an international agreement being arrived at, for Britain can only move on condition that the other nations move correspondingly along the lines of an international policy. It has to be remembered that no two nations are likely to approach the consideration of all the matters affecting naval policy from the same viewpoint. Each Naval Power will primarily be guided by its particular requirements, though there are certain general principles applicable to all. Probably on that account, Mr. MacDonald has put on record the contention that if the points of view of the individual nations are unduly stressed then the chance of valuable results may be destroyed. That pronouncement is, however, not likely to prevent the delegates from pressing their views with vigour and determination. Quite likely there may be bargaining on more points than one, but so long as that process is reasonably equitable it may facilitate agreement on the more important issues, which appear to be capital ships, cruisers and submarines. With regard to capital ships it may be contended that if warfare is really to be abolished battleships costing about seven millions each can be allowed to cease to exist. To extend the life of these floating fortresses'by another five years would certainly entail considerable expenditure, so that if they are to be abolished eventually the less spent on them the better. As to cruisers it is very easy for Mr. MacDonald to 'say that an agreement relative to size, number and distribution would represent a mest valuable advance towards the proposed goal, but the special needs of the British Empire demand .special consideration, so there may be, as was found at the last naval conference, differences of view, which, if persisted in, will again prevent agreement. It is unthinkable that Britain may be led to make concessions on this head and thereby imperil the safety of the Empire and its trade, for on this point there is no room for bargaining of any description. As to submarines, they are absolutely the weapons of bitter and ruthless hostility. To retain them would be to nullify in spirit all the peace gestures that have been made. They may be regarded as the acid test of sincerity in peace efforts. There should be universal endorsement of the British Prime Minister’s contention that any change for the better in naval policy must be international. Whether such changes shall be large or small, gradual or otherwise, they must be international. It must .not be forgotten that the real objects of limitation of

armaments are to reduce wasteful expenditure, to ease the burdens of the taxpayers and to divert the funds thus saved to the promotion of the arts of peace and prosperity. All the same the question of security has to be the first consideration.