The Waikato Times. With which is Incorporated Tho Waikato Argus. WEDNESDAY, MAY 21, 1930. LONDON NAVAL TREATY.

Waikato Times, Volume 107, Issue 18025, 21 May 1930, Page 6

The Waikato Times. With which is Incorporated Tho Waikato Argus. WEDNESDAY, MAY 21, 1930. LONDON NAVAL TREATY.

Mr Winston Churchill has been making a virulent attack on the London Naval Treaty, and in his case it is fair to say that his attitude is not dictated solely by party considerations. He has always been opposed to any attempt to lessen the building of war ships by agreement with other nations. When the Geneva Conference was held with America in 1927 it failed to come to an agreement largely because of cabled instructions from Mr Winston Churchill, who was then a leading member of the Cabinet not to accept some of the American proposals. Mr Churchill declares that Britain will hot have a navy for war purposes, to say nothing of trade protection. He complains also that Japan is to have a navy which is 70 per cent, of Britain’s strength. He says that America is making the greatest expansion that any country has ever done, and that Britain is the only country which is disarming. All this expressed with the force and fluency of which Mr Churchill is a master seems to have created some excitement amongst the Conservative party and a motion has been tabled that part three of the Treaty dealing with cruisers, destroyers, and submarines should not be ratified by the House of Commons. It is unfortunate that Mr Churchill should be carried away by his own eloquence. There are no doubt portions of the Naval Treaty which are open to criticism, but in making the charges which he has done he is flouting the opinion of the Admiralty Lords, with whom the Government have worked. The real value of Mr Churchill’s attack can be .seen by turning to the evidence of the American admirals of the Naval General Board. While 'Mr Churchill asserts that Britain has no war navy, the American admirals say they have not obtained parity with Britain, but that Britain has still an advantage. One admiral went so far as to say that Britain might take advantage of the safeguarding clauses and build beyond the treaty limits. The public will think that if the experts in Britain and America are equally convinced that the other has the advantage, it is probable that the agreement is a fair one for both sides. The Americans, however, are greatly alarmed at the increase in Japan’s naval strength fiom 60 per cent, of that of America to 70 per cent. Admiral Bristol says that in the event of a conflict between America and Japan the United States would have to carry the war to Japan, and would be worsted in the fight. This has been the general opinion of military and naval experts for some years before Japan secured the treaty rights to enlarge her navy, and it betokens a singular want of discretion for an officer of high rank to make such statements. The arguments of the American admirals do not inspire respect for their judgment, but they certainly form a strange commentary on Mr Churchill’s speech. We cannot say what effect the American admirals may have in their own country, but it is not likely that Mr Churchill will influence opinion in Britain. There is a section of the Conservative party which is entirely reactionary in its opinions and it would almost seem as if Mr Churchill aspires to lead it. He would be greatly disappointed, for he is never happy for long out of office. A pijbminent man of 250 years ago was satirised as “Stiff in opinions; always in the . wrong Was everything by starts and nothing long.’ and the description would apply to Mr Churchill’s career. The really remarkable thing about the statements from either side of the Atlantic is the utter ignorance of the speakers on both sides of the general feeling in the chief countries of the world. It may be quite true that war has not been finally''abolished, but it is safe to say that war between the leading countries will not t|ke place before 1936, at which date the treaty comes up for revision. America has no desire for war, and will probably feel some disgust at the vapourings of her admirals. Britain has worked hard for the success of the treaty, and the success which has been achieved will undoubtedly strengthen the Labour Party while Mr Churchill’s attack will weaken the Conservatives. The Treaty for the Abolition of War as an instrument of policy which the United States brought about certainly requires some guarantee of action for the purpose of coercing any nation which signs the treaty and afterwards breaks it, but at the same time it is an indication of the trend of thought in the United States. The League of Nations has been working for two or three years on the same problem. France is loath to diminish armaments, but under modern conditions. Britain and the United States, if they act in concert can prevent any war by refusing to supply munitions. The most hopeful way of preventing war is by making it clear that any nation that breaks the peace can expect no assistance from any other country. It may seem hopeless to- recommend that nations should show goodwill and practise justice to other nations. Most men think they have risen to great heights when they either act or forbear to act in the interests of their own country. We shall never be entirely free from the danger of war, until we can widen our horizon and recognise that those living under some other Government are equally entitled to justice, or even generosity.