NAVAL AGREEMENT.

Waikato Times, Volume 107, Issue 17995, 14 April 1930, Page 5

NAVAL AGREEMENT.

FIRST LORD’S STATEMENT. GRATIFYING DEFINITE ADVANCE. MILLIONS OF POUNDS SAVED. (Official Wireless.) RUGBY, April 11. The First Lord of the Admiralty, Mr A. V. Alexander, in a speech at Sheffield reviewed the results of the Naval Conference. While regretting that a complete flve-Power agreement had not been achieved, he said a gratifying and definite advance had been made. The Minister recalled the fact that, in 1527 it was desired that the Naval Disarmament Conference at Geneva should comprise all the five Powers gathered at the present conference. France and Italy, however, had felt unable actually to participate in that conference.

» Moreover, after many weeks of earnest negotiation the United States, Japan and Britain had failed to arrive at an agreement. It was useless to disguise the fact that for the time feeling between the United States and Britain was not as happy as they desired. Cruisers, Destroyers, Submarines. Taking cruisers, destroyers and submarines together, the total figure of the British Empire and the United States proposed in 1927, was 590,000 tons each, plus a 25 per cent, average, which gave a total of 727,500 tons. This total was to remain in force until 1936.

The agreement now readied with the United States for these categories of auxiliary ships was to be a total of 541,700 tons by 1936, showing a reduction on the Geneva proposals of 195,500 tons. The United States figure now was 526,200 tons, as compared with 737,500 tons proposed Geneva, showing a reduction of 211,300 tons. The small extra reduction in total tonnage in the case of the United States was a recognition of the large number of heavy 8-in. gun cruisers which the United Slates may build.

Another great achievement, continued Mr Alexander, had been the rectification in (his agreement of the world tendency to build the largest sized cruiser permitted under the Washington Treaty. When the Government entered office last year the American authorised programme in 8-in. gun 10,000-Lon ships was not less than 23.

in the case of Britain there were 17 8-in. gun ships built and building, and one further ship authorised in the total programme which, if carried to its completion, would have been not less than 20.' As Japan might quite naturally have been expected to build pro rata even these figures might not have been the maximum.

Now it had been definitely agreed among the three Powers that the maximum number of ships of this class should be 18, 15 and 12 respectively.

Avoidance of Expenditure.

The most important thing for Britain was the avoidance of expenditure which would have to be incurred in laying down new replacement battleships under the Washington Treaty. This would involve an expenditure of at least £50,000,000 up to 1936. In addition Britain would save more than £4,000,000 in maintenance charges in respect of the five battleships to be prematurely scrapped.

In the case of cruisers it was not possible to give the figure, but Mr Alexander indicated the general position by saying that when the Government came into office last year it found G 3 cruisers built, building and authorised in connection with the programme, which aimed at the general goal of 60 under-age cruisers and 10 over-age, or 70 in all.

Under the present agreement the maximum number of cruisers would be 50 during the whole of the period of the agreement. Up to 1936 the savings would certainly be millions of pounds. In the case of destroyers Britain at present had 190,000 tons built, building and authorised while the agreement stipulated for 150,000 tons. In the case of submarines the fixing of the maximum tonnage in the agreement with the United States at 52,700 would mean that compared with the programme which would otherwise have had to be followed Britain would save in construction up to 1936 about £3,400,00 and in maintenance about £450,000, or a total saving in this category of £3,850,000. It was safe to estimate that up to 1936 the saving involved by the threepower treaty would be at least between £60,000,000 and £70,000,000. Mr Alexander said he thought that in such circumstances the conference must be described as a tremendous advance on the road to disarmament. He hoped that the continuance of the conversations between France, Italy and Britain would result in as happy an agreement between the European naval Powers as had been consummated between the oceanic naval Powers, which might be fitted into the general scheme of the treaty. It should, of course, be recognised that each of the parties to the threePowers agreement would have to be covered by the terms of the treaty in such a way that they might adjust their position if the construction programmes of the other Powers outside the agreement should make that necessary. For example, Britain's destroyer tonnage would be materially affected by an increase of submarine tonnage. It must also not be forgotten that the conference had achieved much in the other direction. It had been moved in the plenary session, on behalf of the British Government and with the support of the United States, that submarines should be abolished and the First Lord confessed disappointment at not having secured this. Regulation of Submarines. Nevertheless, complete agreement had been reached on the regulation of the use of submarines, and that agreement, while it did not go so far as some people desired, was a very distinct advantage, bearing in mind the fact that the treaty which Britain signed on this matter at Washington never came into operation because of the failure lo secure an all-round ratification. Another important point had been the extension of Hie recognised life of different classes of ships, which would secure economy in replacement. In conclusion Mr Alexander expressed gratification at the unanimous recognition accorded by the delegations to the ability, patience and goodwill of the Prime Minister, Mr MacDonald, which had enabled much to be achieved. The Jananese figure proposed at

Geneva was 481,250 tons, and four auxiliary ships, while the provisional figure agreed to at this conference was 367,050, showing a saving of 114,200 tons. In auxiliary tonnages, therefore, the reductions of the three Powers combined, compared with the proposals on which the conference broke down in 1927, was 521,300 tons. , This constituted a very significant indication of the progress of public opinion in the direction of disarmament.

VIEWS IN AMERICA. BIG CRUISER PROGRAMME. SOURCE OF OPPOSITION. United Press Assn. —Elec. Tel. -Copyright. WASHINGTON, April 12. The curtailment of the big cruiser programme already approved by Congress is foreseen as the principal source of any opposition to the new agreement that may arise in the Senate. The accord is interpreted as meaning that of 23 vsesels of this type authorised five are not to be built. The '■ big navy ” group in the Senate has insisted that all the vessels authorised are essential for adequate national defence. In general that agreement is regarded as one which will effect a great saving in expenditure on capital ships and large cruisers, but will necessitate a large outlay on small cruisers if parity with Britain is to be obtained. A message from New York says American reaction to the naval decisions in London is curiously mixed. It cannot he said that, popularly, the three Power agreement lias aroused much interest chiefly because of trie ingrained insularity and provincialism of the great hulk of American people. Mr Hoover's explanatory statement, moreover, caused hardly a ripple of excitement. The international meaning of the work of the London conference does not seem to he generally understood.

A few American observers point out that the British are " world minded ’’ and must regard European troubles with clear eyes and as a result must express some dissatisfaction with the announced agreement. These observers do try to make it clear that without a definite assurance of limitation of the French and Italian forces Britain must always see at least a strategic threat to her vital lines of communication in the Mediterranean.

The fact that only a limited comprehension exists as to trie true state of affairs in connection with tnc London naval agreement can bo seen in certain kinds of editorial opinion. Avoiding any discussion of the important elements of the situation this belabours the parity issue. The fate of Ihc treaty in the Senate, however, receives more detailed treatment in the press. Mr IV. E. Borah, chairman of Hie Foreign Relations Committee, who would not represent Ihc United Slates as a delegate so that lie might maintain his freedom of action, has not yet spoken. As the Senate was not sitting when the news of the agreement was received its attitude cannot he accurately stated. However, it seems to he indicated this evening that owing to [lie Congressional elcclions this year the President will make every effort to keep the treaty out of politics until early in 1931. What the fate of the treaty would be if the Republican majority in the Senate were seriously reduced it is impossible to predict.

SCHEME FOR SCRAPPING. THE DOOMED SHIPS. FRANC O-ITALIAX RESERVATIONS. \ United Press Assn.—Elec. Tel.—Copyright. LONDON, April 12. The flrst Committee of the Naval Conference unanimously adopted the experts’ report of the disposal of the war vessels in the three Powers — Britain, the United States and Japan—and agreed upon a detinilion of Hie characteristics of destroyers. The committee also adopted rules for a draft agreement regarding the replacement of capital ships and lor the delinition of aircraft-carriers. It is officially explained that France and Italy reserve the right to build Hie capital ships to which they are entitled by the terms of the Washington Treaty. Under the battleship scrapping agreement the United States will scrap the Florida and the Utah within two years of its ratiilcation. The British Empire will scrap the Marlborough, Emperor of India, Benhow and Tiger, two within two years and the oilier two within two and ahalf years. The following battleships are lo he retained for training purposes only:— United Stale, Arkansas; Britisn Empire, Iron Duke; Japan, Hiysi. Japan raised the question of transference upward and downward of 15 per cent, of light cruiser and destroyer tonnage. This was referred to the heads of the delegations. Following are the principal details of the United States and British battleships lo be scrapped and those to he retained for training purposes as stated in the cablegram:—Year Main

FORM OF THE TREATY. SIGNATURE ON THURSDAY. The British spokesman says the Drafting committee is making quick progress and lias practically agreed upon the form of the treaty. It’s principal lines are practically ready, but it is too early to say whether its signature will be possible on Thursday. HARIS, April .12. The decision lo end Die Naval Conference is greeted with relief by the French newspapers. They blame Italy for the failure of the conference to conclude a five Powers pact, but emphasise the fact that France lias emerged with her naval programme intact and her freedom of action unimpaired, especially in submarines.

Completed Tons Guns United States: Florida 1911 23,700 10 12 in. uta it 1911 23,700 10 12 In. Arkansas 19 1 2 27,900 12 121n. British Empire: .Marlborough 1014 25,000 10 13.5in, Emperor or India 1014 2 5,000 10 13.5 i n. Benbow 1 0 1 4 2 5,000 10 13.5in. Tiger 1 9 1 4 2s, 500 8 13.5m. iron Duke . 1 9 1 4 25,000 10 1 3.5 in.