Naval Disarmament

Next to economy, prosperity, morality and Divine Providence, President Coolidge's favorite speech-making topic is naval disarmament. Last week he did not make a speech, but he despatched to Congress and to Great Britain, Japan, France and Italy a plan of naval disarmament. It was received as the most statesmanly document of his administration. He suggested:

1) That these four nations and the U. S. empower their delegates at the resumed Geneva conference next month to "negotiate and conclude" a naval disarmament treaty. Thus, President Coolidge chose to use League of Nations machinery that is already in motion, instead of attempting another spectacular Washington conference.

2) That air and land armaments be omitted from the discussion. These are "essentially regional problems," said the President.

3) That the U. S., Great Britain and Japan apply the 5-5-3 ratio to all types of ships not included in the Washington conference. He referred chiefly to cruisers, destroyers and submarines.

4) That the ratios of France and Italy be determined by the conferees, "taking into full account their special conditions and requirements."

There is no doubt of President Coolidge's sincerity and of the desirability of his plan from a U. S. viewpoint. BUT, what are the reactions of the other nations?

Great Britain welcomed the proposal of separating land and naval armaments. It must be remembered, however, that the Washington conference attained partial success chiefly because the U. S. was the biggest "giver" in capital ships. At the proposed Geneva conference Great Britain will have to be the biggest "giver" in cruisers. Her future attitude, particularly concerning submarines, will depend on France and Italy.

Japan was enthusiastic and its government prepared to draw up an acceptance of President Coolidge's plan.

France is essentially interested in land armaments, will brook no naval disarmament unless land disarmament is considered at the same time. Also, France would be unwilling to give up many cruisers, destroyers and submarines, sine 3 these constitute the main strength of her small navy.

Italy. Premier Mussolini was silent; the Pope looked with favor upon the plan. Italy, whose need for submarines is great, will certainly be loath to indulge in any wholesale scrapping of them.

If France and Italy balk at the conference, it is possible that the U. S., Great Britain and Japan will get together on another 5-5-3 agreement.

In the U. S., President Coolidge's proposal was cheered loudly. When the vigorously Democratic New York World hails a Coolidge memorandum as "timely and statesman-like," the nation can be assured that it is no mere political gesture. Most members of Congress backed the President, but doubted that Europe would react favorably. Hostile skepticism came from Senator Reed of Missouri: "It is intended as a stop to fill the gap left at the Washington conference, but I don't think it will get anywhere. It is also aimed at the three-cruiser program now being discussed in Congress."

Whether or not the President's naval disarmament plan was aimed at the three cruisers is another question. "Big Navy" men in Congress insisted that the U. S. could go ahead and build these ships without any fear of having them scrapped, because the U. S. was already far behind Great Britain and Japan in cruiser strength.-- The appropriation to start construction of these three cruisers had already passed the Senate (TIME, Feb. 14) after being rejected in the House; had gone to conference. Before the President's proposal last week, it seemed certain that the House would agree to the Senate's action. Later it was doubtful. A compromise was suggested.

If there is to be a disarmament conference at Geneva, the plenipotentiary of the U. S. will be Hugh S. Gibson, newly appointed Ambassador to Belgium (see below). Great Britain's leading delegate will probably be Viscount Cecil (Lord Robert Cecil) of Chelwood; first (1924) winner of the Woodrow Wilson $25,000 peace prize.

--Great Britain 54, Japan 25, U. S. 15.