Ashburton Guardian. Magna est Veritas et Prævalebit TUESDAY NOVEMBER. 10, 1936. POWERS AND THE PACIFIC.

Ashburton Guardian, Volume 57, Issue 26, 10 November 1936, Page 4

Ashburton Guardian. Magna est Veritas et Prævalebit TUESDAY NOVEMBER. 10, 1936. POWERS AND THE PACIFIC.

It is regrettable that the United States has not seen fit to accept the proposal by Britain for continuance of the status quo in the Pacific, for with the lapsing of those provisions of the Washington Treaty of 1922 that concern this important area, there will be opened up possibilities of serious moment. Article XIX. of the Treaty bound the British Empire, the United States and japan to do nothing to extend their fortifications and naval bases in the Pacific, with certain exceptions. These exceptions were: for the British Empire (east of meridian 110 east longitude, Singapore being thus expressly excluded from the agreement) fortifications and bases adjacent to the coast of Canada, of Australia and of New Zealand; for the United States —those adjacent to the United States, Alaska and the Panama Canal Zone (not including the Aleutian Islands) and the Hawaiian Islands. In the case of Japan no exceptions were specified, but her right to develop the naval facilities and shore defences of her homeland was left untouched, equally with the right of the United States, as the provisions of the article related only to insular territories and possessions. Japan accepted the article for the Kurile Islands, the Bonin Islands, Ama-mi-Oshima, the Loochoo Islands, Formosa and the Pescadores, and any insular territories or possessions in the Pacific Ocean which Japan may hereafter acquire.” Under the Treaty of Versailles the former German possessions in the Pacific north of the Equator were placed under Japanese mandate. These comprise ‘the Marshall, Caroline and Ladrone groups of islands. The mandate prescribes that no military or naval base may be established in the territory nor any native military force be organised for use outside it. When the Japanese report on this territory came before the Permanent Mandates Commission last November some rather delicate and searching questions were asked the Japanese representatives relative to the observance of the military and naval clauses of the mandate, the object being to test an allegation to which some publicity had been given that the Japanese Government had constructed a naval base on one of the islands. It was reported a few days ago that Japan was not likely to accept the British proposal foi the retention of clause XIX, and now that the United States has announced its objection to the maintenance of its provisions, that unlikelihood must be considered a certainty. The seriousness of the position arises from the fact that if Japan so acted as to arouse suspicions as to her bona fiues when she was under a double obligation regarding fortifications, the single restraint, which moreover was, according to report, the weaker of the two, may not prove of much value. The abrogation of the Washington Treaty denotes the renewal of the conditions that fourteen years ago were regarded as requiring a formal undertaking in order to remove tendencies militating against the cause of peace.