NAVAL TREATY LIMITS.

Taranaki Daily News, 9 February 1931, Page 4

NAVAL TREATY LIMITS.

The cabled report last week of a question and answer in the House of Commons may have suggested that even Britain is anxious concerning the Treaty of London, which was the outcome of the naval conference a year ago. Asked whether Franc© and Italy had not increased their navy building programmes while Britain was reducing hers, the First Lord of the Admiralty, Mr. A. V. Alexander, replied that the Government was doing its best to get France ajid Italy to adhere to the principle of limitation, but if it was unable to do so it would have to reconsider Britain’s position. This admission need not be taken as an indication that the treaty is likely to be scrapped, for the three European Powers, together with the United States and Japan, seem to be of one mind in regard to the general necessity for limitation. The difficulty at the London conference was the obviously strong jealousy existing between France and Italy, by reason of which it was impossible to persuade France to consider the curtailment of her Mediterranean fleet. Italy, though she adhered to the general principle, and though her economic position rendered it desirable that she should avoid a costly building programme, argued that she could not allow herself to be outbuilt by France. Since Italy was already the weaker Power in the Mediterranean and could not possibly hope to build a sufficient number of ships to rival the French strength, Britain took the view that there was no cause for serious alarm on the part of Italy, but the Italian delegates insisted on their right to maintain freedom of action. Finally the treaty was made and signed in full by Britain, the United States and Japan, France and Italy being left with free hands, but subject to their obligations under the earlier Treaty of Washington. Four or five months ago fresh ellorts were made to induce the two Powers to agree to further limitation, but they refused. Their rivalry in the Mediterranean is not, of course, a matter of immediate concern to America and Japan, but it is of the utmost importance to Britain on account of her large trade with the East and the value of her means of communication through the Mediterranean with India, Australia and New Zealand. It has been said that the British Empire is more vulnerable in the Mediterranean than anywhere elsfe except the English Channel, and it is claimed that Britain cannot afford to look on while her neighbours build up a possible menace. Critics of the Labour Government, whose pacifist leanings are undoubted, have been complaining that Ministers are unduly patient in their outlook and urging that fresh steps must be taken to protect thb/interests of the Empire. Hitherto such criticism.has gone practically unanswered, but Mr. Alexander’s latest statement suggests that even a Labour Government may find it necessary to be more careful of the Empire’s first line of defence.