The Indianapolis times. [volume] (Indianapolis [Ind.]) 1922-1965, 1928-08-03
KEEPING UP
With
THE NE WIS

WASHINGTON, Aug. 3.-Some
American officials are looking for
the joker in the new British French
compromise naval agreement. Does
it mean a virtual alliance of those
two European powers? Does it
lead to scrapping the Washington
naval treaty for a League Of Nations
pact?
Until much more study is given
to this latest European move, the
State Government announcement
that it is ready to renew the dis
armament discussions at Geneva iS
not to be taken very seriously.
BY this announcement, which
commits the United States to
nothing but which is interpreted
"in a big way" by most of the
press, the department is gaining
time to pursue careful investiga-
tons.
Some diplomatic and naval Off
Gals here believe the European
powers are getting ready to kill the
Washington naval limitation treaty
at the 1881 revision conference, and
to hand over future naval agree
ments to the League Of Nations.
To consent to such tactics, the
United States would have to change
completely its basic postwar for
eign policy.
This is the reason Washington
officials are handling the British
French understanding with gloves,
and why they refuse to discuss for
publication its implications
TIME British note to the State
L Department, describing the
tentative London-Paris agreement,
is not at all clear. The note which
London has not yet agreed to make
public, is said to state that France.
in effect, has given up her demand
that naval tonnage be considered
for limitation in one total unit, and
has accepted the Washington treaty
principle of considering each class
of ships separately.
It is understood that the agree
ment, to satisfy Frances desire for
submarines, distinguishes between
large or so-called offensive sub
marines and smaller undersea craft,
which presumably would be unlim-
tied.
Such arrangement between Bril-
tain and France would be, in effect,
an informal military alliance, under
which the large French army and
its smaller nation satellites would
dominate Europe on land and the
British navy would continue to
dominate the seas.
To be effective in the long run
such agreement would have to be
hooked up at least indirectly to the
League of Nations, and its "secu~
rity' and war-nlaking powers.
Where does the United States
come into this plan? The answer
has been in the past-and there is
no sign Of any change of policy so
far-that the United States quite
definitely and deliberately stays out.
TINE American arms policy is
4 based upon three fundamental
premises, which have been stated
repeatedly by Secretaries Hughes
and Kellogg and by the American
resentatives on the league of Nations
preparatory arms commission. These
are:
/. That arms limitation can not
be achieved by one world treaty
fitting the needs of all nations, but
is to be attained by so-called
regional agreements among groups
of nations.
2. That limitation of land ar
maments is distinctly a European
problem involving problems Of
security" which the European ma
tons alone are capable Of settling.
That land disarmament does not
apply to the United States and the
Western Hemisphere, because the
United States considers its army and
the armies of other American ma
tons already are reduced to the
lowest possible point compatible
with their police functions" and
nonaggressiVe purposes. That the
small nonnaval States Of the League
Of Nations shall ~ot be permitted in
/ a general arms conference to fix the
size Of American and other navies.
Behind this United States arms
policy, Of course, is the conviction
which played such a large part in
the enate DEBATE on membership in
the League Of Nations that the
Geneva body can be controlled by
Great Britain and France through
their informal ~'''0r~oe v-'-'~ smaller
European lotions.
1t is considered significant here
that f~"1wing the Geneva Coolidge
naval conference, in which France
refused to participate and which
Britain broke up" in the face Of
the American-Japarese unity Of
r ogram, Britain and France now
have come together.