AT CONFERENCE

Ashburton Guardian, Volume 56, Issue 81, 17 January 1936, Page 5

AT CONFERENCE

THE JAPANESE DEMANDS.

POWERS STATE OBJECTIONS.

NEW ZEALAND'S POSITION

(United Press Association—Copyright.) LONDON, January 15.

At a meeting of the First Committee of the London Naval Conference this afternoon, at which Viscount Monsell (First Lord of the Admiralty) presided, the Japanese delegate restated the Japanese proposal lor a common upper limit in naval armaments.

The delegates of other Powers then spoke, explaining the objections to the proposal, and it was clear that no agreement was possible. The committee then adjourned, and the Japanese, delegation afterwards intimated its decision to withdraw from the conference.

The First Committee will meet again to-morrow, Avhen it will proceed to other questions, taking up the threads of the work where it was interrupted toward the end of last week by the request of the Japanese delegation -for an opportunity to. advance again its own proposal. Lord Munsell explained in a statement the attitude of the United Kingdom delegation to the Japanese proposal. He said that naval strength could not be measured in terms of numbers of fighting ships without reference to other factors, such as the remoteness of bases, the sources of supplies, and the vulnerability of communications.

A Power with world-wide responsibilities must devote its naval forces to the protection of its sea communications, and it must therefore possess forces greater than those of a Power which was able to maintain all its naval forces in or near its home waters.

Accordingly, the United Kingdom delegation did not find the proposal to apply a common upper limit, either to the British Commonwealth, the United States and Japan, or to all the Powers, consistent with the defence requirements of the British Commonwealth, and it agreed with the United States delegate that it was impossible to maintain equal armaments and give equal security. The Japanese proposal, if applied universally, would mean that every country, however slender its resources and however small its responsibilities, would not only have the right to build up its naval strength to equality with its neighbours, but it might be encouraged to do so. Thus the plan might well give an incentive for a general increase in building among the Powers at present possessing small navies. "The British Government and people yield nothing to Japan in their desire to see a general reduction in naval armaments, but such a reduction must be achieved by a method which is fanto all, and which impairs the security of none," said Lord Monsell. American View. "The United Kingdom cannot subscribe to the strategical theory that naval needs are purely relative, and that territories can be denuded or essential defences for the concentration ot the whole fleet in distant faterS. \Ye believe that the provisions of the Washington Treaty, maintaining the status quo in parts of the Pacific in winch J apan is specifically interested, offer the best guarantee of security, which we conceive to be in accordance with the Japanese principle of non-menace and non-aggression." Mr Norman H.Davis (United States) said: "The principle of the common upper limit is not the abandonment but the continuance of the ratio system, on a basis of parity without consideration of the varying needs. Equality of naval armaments is incompatible with, and contradictory to, equality of security. .„. "The United States is not willing to consent to any lessening of relative security, particularly in the absence of greater assurance than exists, at present that to do so would promote peace. We favour, however, all-round proportional reduction of strengths. "It was impossible to distinguish between offensive and defensive warships. The definition depended on the use which was made of them." Mr J. G. McLaren, on behalf of Mr S. M. Bruce (Australia), said that Australia could -not accept an interpretation which meant wider responsibilities, and entitled the Empire only to forces similar to those of a power with relatively narrow obligations. There was no analogy between Japanese needs and those of the Empire. New Zealand's Needs. Sir James Parr (New Zealand) supporting; Lord Monsell, recalled Admiral Nagano's declaration on December 2, stating a desire for a just and failagreement on disarmament which would secure for each country adequate national defence. This statement, Sir James declared, was incompatible with the claim for a common upper limit.

Emphasising New Zealand's isolation, Sir James Parr said:—"Our small forces are a component part of the British Navy, on which we are absolutely dependent for national security. The Japanese proposal would mean that the Empire's naval forces would be reduced by about 40 per cent., which would bring them below the present Japanese strength. Even the strength of 50 cruisers, now permitted for the whole Empire, would be drastically reduced, making Britain's protection of New Zealand almost negligible. "Can this really be called a fair and just agreement?" he nuked. ""Can New Zealand lightly agree to such a startling reduction ? We must seek security, not only now, but for the future. It would be impossible to achieve security by any system based on the common upper limit." Canada, South Africa, and India all opposed the Japanese. Mr J. "W. D'ulanty (Irish Free State) passed no opinion on the merits of the plan, but, asking what would be the position of members of the British Commonwealth of Nations if all the

powers were entitled to build up to a c ommon limit, said that if they were so entitled the Free State would possess the same theoretical right. SPIRIT OF DISARMAMENT. NOT STARTING BUILDING RACE. (Received This Day, 10.55 a.m.) TOKIO, January IG. The Minister for Foreign Affairs (Mr Hiroto), in a statement, says that although compelled to withdraw from the Naval Conference,* Japan will continue in the spirit of disarmament and non-aggression. Japan does not desire to start a building race, but will continue to co-operate with other naval Powers. \