TREATY WITH JAPAN.

Ashburton Guardian, Volume XLI, Issue 9543, 23 June 1921, Page 5

TREATY WITH JAPAN.

THE AUSTRALIAN VIEW.

Mr Hughes*, Prime Minister of Australia, said >ne hoped the Conference j would do something to convince the people that it "had found a practical and sure way of bridging the apparently' impassable chasm which divided the complete autonomy of the several parts of. Empire from united action upon matters affecting them all. "It is essential," said Mr Hughes, "that we must <Jo something if this Conference is not- to be the last magnificent flare Of a dying illumination." There were vthree outstanding problems — foreign policy, Japan, and defence. The equality of the Dominions at the council table m dealing with these questions was accepted, but for the Dominion-; *to , have an effective voice' m foreign policiy, they must have knowledge, which was impossible without improved communication. Referring to the Anglo-Japanese Treaty, Mr Hughes said the matter was definite and urgent. Australia's attitude could be clearly stated— the Treaty could not be renewed precisely m its present form. It must conform to the requirements of the League of Nations. Nevertheless, the case for a renewal of the Treaty was strong, if not overwhelming. Speaking broadly, Australia favoured renewal, but renewal must exclude ihe possibility of war with Amerioa. The Treaty must guard against even a suspicion of hostility or unfriendliness towards the United States. . If the Treaty was renewed the Empire would be m a betfer position to exercise its influence over Eastern policy than if Japan were a potential enemy. "We will do well for the world's peace, for China, and for the Commonwealth of British nations to renew this Treaty." Mr Hughes suggested a- conference between Great Britain, America, and Japan regarding the renewtil of the Treaty. In any case they should ascertain America's yiews. , Referring to defence, :he advocated international limitation of armaments, bnt whatever was agreed upon, Au_vtralia must have naval defence ade- J quate for her safety- . „.,,■ The war and the Panama Canal had i shifted the world's stage to the Pacific. The world's future drama must be •played m the Pacific- He 'hoped for an agreement between the three great naval Powers. He admitted that Britain was unable alone to continue her responsibility for the defence of the Empire. The Dominions could not ask to be permitted to participate m the direction of the foreign policy of the Empire without sharing m its -defence. Mr Hughes was not prepared to gay what Australia's share would be. He considered Australia's share per capita should not be so great as Britain's, because Britain defended her -colonies .and other dependencies and india ** but whatever was Australia's share, it should apply to all Dominions on a per ♦capita basis. He refused to subscribe to the docttrine that less endangered Dominions ishould contribute less than the more ■menaced Dominions. He did not believe the Dominions' quota should be jnonetry. It should be expressed m .terms of Dominion Navies. {Referring to the proposed constitutional conference, Mr Hughes confessed his inability to understand what a conference could do. The position had changed since the resolution was carried by the .1917 Conference. It was unnecessary, because no limitation was -placed upon the Dominions, which now 1 could even encompass their own destruction by sundering the bonds of Empire if they desired to do so. They already possessed aR the rights of selfgovernment by independent nations. ..._-,.. The proposed Constitutional Conference was causing anxiety m Australia. Instead of giving Australia greater powers, it was feared it would dimmish her existing powers. Even this p° n z ference was m tihe shadow of clouds of suspicion. It wae not even entitled to give itself a name, whether Conference, Cabinet, or Council. All were questionable titles. Constitutional experiments meant treading dangerous ground. Let us leave well alone.