Brutal Parallels

At 7:45 one evening last week the centre of gravity of the London Conference shifted from. Prime Minister Andre Tardieu of France to U. S. Secretary of State Henry Lewis Stimson. Previously Mr. Stimson had been in lengthy telephone conversation with President Herbert Hoover.

Without prewarning correspondents were suddenly bidden to scurry to St. James's Palace. Statesman Stimson was before them. Crisply he read the first positive, kinetic words he had uttered at the Conference (TIME, Jan. 20 et seq.). Awful was his command that not one syllable be released to the public of any country before the morning papers. Radio Correspondent Frederick William Wile was scheduled to speak to millions of U. S. citizens within a few minutes. He dared not quote to his tantalized audience from "Mr. Stimson's statement which lies before me." Never before had upstart radio been so humbled and abased before the venerable press.

Around to other delegations than the U. S. rushed correspondents, to glean a complete symposium of opinions for the morning papers to which Statesman Stimson had made so low a bow. Early to bed, the principal Japanese delegates had all disconnected their telephones and were peacefully snoring, especially His Excellency Chief Delegate Reijiro Wakatsuki, who always takes a nightcap of hot Japanese rice wine. Italy's Grandi and England's MacDonald were mum. But the dynamic Frenchman called L'Americain, the man who had led the Conference thus far, Prime Minister Andre Tardieu, changed his smile to a frown and pricked up angry ears when reporters chorused: "What do you think of Stimson's statement?"

"I know nothing about it."

They read it to him.

"Nothing to say, gentlemen!" and, calling his limousine, M. Tardieu barked at the chauffeur, "Number 10, Downing Street."

Though eager press hounds trailed him to the most famous address in the British Empire, they could ferret out no details of the reputed angry scene between M. Tardieu and Mr. MacDonald, whom the Frenchman took to task for not informing him that Britain and the U. S. had come to a separate agreement secretly--for the existence of such an agreement plainly appeared from the Stimson statement.

Next morning Paris news-organs close to the Tardieu Government, called Mr. Stimson's words "brutal" and also "undiplomatic." The bubble of French complacency slowly blown up while M. Tardieu won his little victory over Italy (TIME, Feb. 10) and remained the only Chief Delegate to advance a positive program, burst.

Irate Paris editors followed up their assertion that Diplomat Stimson's words were "undiplomatic" by asking two sharp questions:

1) Why did the Chief U. S. Delegate make his first important pronouncement at London to a hastily summoned group of journalists, instead of at a Plenary Session of the Conference after sending appropriate notice to France, Italy and Japan (members of all these delegations later expressed "surprise"); and 2) Since the Stimson statement was a personal one, why was it delivered ex cathedra at St. James's Palace, instead of at the Secretary of State's hotel, the Ritz?

Within 24 hours a second broadside to the press was fired, this time by Prime Minister James Ramsay MacDonald. Parallel in ideas, the U. S. and British statements of policy were by far the most important developments at the Conference thus far, are best set forth in parallel columns:

Parity

Mr. Stimson "restated the historical fact of the agreement in principal for parity" between President Hoover and Prime Minister MacDonald, then demanded "with Great Britain immediate parity in every class of ship."

Mr. MacDonald knowing that British public opinion is averse to the word "parity," substituted another thus: "The [British] Government feels that if naval establishment are not to be a menace, an equilibrium must be maintained between them by means of international agreement."

Naval Strengths

Stimson: "The gross tonnage of [our] two fleets is substantially 1,200,000 tons apiece. The negotiations last Summer between President Hoover and Prime Minister MacDonald practically reduced the discussions of parity between them to the comparatively insignificant difference in their respective cruiser class tonnage of 24,000 tons. We propose to settle this difference [now].

MacDonald: "The policy of His Majesty's Government in the United Kingdom is to keep the highway of the seas open for trade and communication and . . . to take what steps are necessary to secure this. In estimating its naval needs, the Government has also to take into account its obligations under the Covenant of the League of Nations, partly offset though they are by the security afforded under the Covenant by its provision of mutual support."

Reduction or Limitation?

Stateman Stimson avoided proposing reduction of cruisers but sought their limitation at a parity which would require the U. S. slightly to enlarge its present fleet.

Scot MacDonald voiced this noncommital sentiment:

"His Majesty's Government in the United Kingdom . . . believes the conference ought not only to reduce existing fleets and building programs, but put an end finally to competition in naval armaments."

Battleships

Stimson: "In battleships we suggest by reduction in number on both sides to equalize our two fleets in 1931. At present the British battleship fleets contains two more vessels than ours."

MacDonald: "The [British] Government . . . would wish to see an agreement by which battleships will in due time disappear altogether. . . ."

Meanwhile the British want maximum battleship size reduced from the present 35,000 tons each, to 25,000; are agreeable to the Stimson plan of striking parity (i.e. "equilibrium") in 1931; and think a Battleship Abolition Conference should be called in 1935.

Cruisers and "Duplication"

With striking lucidity Statesman Stimson proposed a clear-cut solution of the old, much-muddled Anglo-U. S. cruiser issue:

"Under our suggestion othe actual tonnage difference between the two cruiser fleets will be only 12,000 tons. Of the larger cruisers armed with 8-inch guns Great Britain will have 15 and the U. S. 18, an advantage to the latter of 30,000 tons.

Of the smaller cruisers armed with 6-inch guns Great Britain will have an advantage of 42,000 tons, but beyond this, in order to insure exact equality of opportunity, the United States makes the suggestion that each country will have the option of duplicating exactly the cruiser fleet of the other. Thus Great Britain would have the option, by reducing its number of small cruisers, to increase its large cruisers from 15 to 18 so as to give it a total cruiser tonnage of 339,000 tons, the exact amount of tonnage which the British now ask."

This potent idea, "Optional Duplication," said to have sprung from the brain of Herbert Hoover, may well prove the most important thing in modern naval history -- for cruisers are the crux.

Always addicted to general terms, Mr. MacDonald paralleled the Hoover-Stimson specific proposal for "Optional Duplications" with these words:

"The agreement should be not upon global tonnage but upon the size of individual ships in the various categories and upon the tonnage used by each nation in each of these categories. . . .

"At the same time it might be convenient to allow a percentage of tonnage assigned to different categories to be transferred to other categories. The British Government, however, does not favor a general transfer. It is opposed to transfer in regards to capital ships, aircraft carriers and submarines. In regards to cruisers, it would permit the transfer out of the 8-inch class into the 6-inch class on a percentage which remains to be arranged. The object of this arrangement would be to take into account the special needs of countries which require a large proportion of small cruisers."

Thus Britain began accepting half the Hoover-Stimson plan (shifts from a higher to a lower category), but were mum about the other half (shifts from low to high).

Destroyers

Stimson: "In destroyers. . . we suggest equality in tonnage, and in submarines the lowest tonnage possible."

MacDonald: "The present British building program of destroyers is for 200,000 tons ultimately, but this can be reduced if the submarine programs of other Powers are reduced."

Submarines Stimson: "As is well known, we will gladly agree to a total abolition of submarines if it is possible to obtain the consent of all five powers to such a proposition, and in any event we suggest that the operations of submarines be limited to the same rules of international law as surface craft in operation against merchant ships, so that they cannot attack without providing for the safety of the passengers and the crew."

MacDonald: "The Government proposes the abolition of submarines. Its experts feel that the argument that the submarine is an arm solely of defense was destroyed by the experience of the late war and that in war conditions it is an arm of attack. If abolition cannot be agreed upon, the British government will put forward proposals limiting submarines rigidly to the defense requirements."

Significance. Plainly these parallel statements indicate well-nigh complete agreement between Britain and the U. S. A two-power treaty could have been signed any day last week. But the great issue of whether France will concede parity to Italy --as Britain has to the U. S.--remained unsettled, with both parties snarling, and with the French especially angry because their P. T. F. (Proposition Transactionelle Franqaise) or French Basis for Bargaining had been simply ignored by Statesman Stimson, and Statesman MacDonald had snubbed (see Cruisers above) the Tardieu proposal for limitation by "global tonnage."

Secretly communicated by U. S. Senator Reed to the Japanese delegation was a proposal dealing with that country's claims (TIME, Jan. 27) about which Statesman Stimson would say only: "Our suggestion to the Japanese would produce an over-all relation satisfactory to us and, we hope, to them."

Parity of Japanese submarines with British and U. S. was said to be a feature of the hush-hush document. On the whole the London Conference, last week, began for the first time really to move.

This file is automatically generated by a robot program, so reader's discretion is required.