NOT JUSTIFIED

Evening Post, Volume CXVIII, Issue 33, 8 August 1934, Page 14

NOT JUSTIFIED

JAPAN'S SEA CLAIMS

AN ADMIRAL'S ANALYSIS

SECTJEITY & THE EATIO

Admiral William V. Pratt, former Commander-in-Chief of the United States Fleet and naval adviser to the American delegation at the 1930 London Conference, writing on the problems of arms limitation in the July issue of "Foreign Affairs/ challenges tho Nipponese viewpoint that Japan, for reasons of security, requires an increase in the naval ratio assigned to her at the Washington Conference.

"It has been stated openly in the Press that Japan at the next naval conference will ask for an increase in the naval ratio assigned her,'' Admiral Pratt writes, after a discussion of the technical and political problems likely to be involved in the next naval conference. "Is the request logical on the ground of security? It is not, jind technical men know it."

After examining in detail the claims and needs of the throe chief naval Powers, Admiral Pratt sums up their attitudes as follows: —

Great Britain wants smaller ships and more of them; the U.S.A. wants larger ships and fewer of them; Japan wants what the U.S.A. is allowed; The technical differences of opinion aro many, but thoro is. hardly ono which ought not to lie within the range of amicable settlement. It is not in tho technical sphere that the real obstacles lio. Recalling that, after establishing the 5-5-3 ratio for the United States, Great Britain, and Japan at the Washington Conference, tho three Powers at tho London Conference agreed to equality in submarine tonnage, Admiral Pratt continues:

"This action more than made seenro the Japanese islands themselves, as well as the road from tho islands to the mainland, even though tho total tonnage allowance for each nation was cut to approximately 53,000 tons. "Let us ask ourselves certain questions. In time of war does Japan have tho seas of the world to cover as a necessary part of her own security, as does tho British Empire? She does not, and, in addition, sho has a secure line to the mainland, which England has not.

"Does Japan have two great oceanfronts and one of the main water arterties of.tho world to defend in case of war, as does tho United States? Sho does not. "As a neutral in a great war, would the obligations and responsibilities imposed upon Japan put as heavy a burden on her shoulders as they would upon either Great Britain or tho United States? They would not. "Is there any nation in the world which, after taking care of its essential obligations at homo and elsewhere, could lay successful blockade to tho coast of Japan- There is not. NO AGGRESSION. "In tho last half-century has there even been any action taken against Japan 'on the part of tho two leading sea Powers which legitimately could be called aggressive? Tho writer thinks uot.

"Is tho Japanese claim for increase of ratios justified on the grounds of national income? Japan's national income is approximately ICi per cent, loss than ours, yet in tho cloven years following 1923 her expenditures for new uava.l construction exceeded our own during eight of those years, and the ratio of her naval budget to national income is livoand one-half times greater than our own. "No, the Japanese claim for an actual increase in her naval ratio will not further tho purposes of peace, and must find other reasons than equality and security. ''However, though Japan has no logical grounds to lay claim to an increase in her naval ratio, she has a just claim to equality in treatment in other respects, and until that claim is recognised there will remain a feeling of tension. International relations must be based on a spirit of fair play, equality, and justice, if peace is to bo kept. Is there any reason why friendly rela J tions should not bo maintained between this country and Japan? No. So long as each country respects tho other's rights, lives up to its treaty agreements, enters into no trade wars develops no superiority complex, starts no war propaganda, attends strictly to its own business, is just in its dealings with the other, and tfuly desires peace— so long there should be no apprehension. Tho Pacific has not been tho breeder of war hurricanes that the Atlantic and Mediterranean have been. Thus far calms or only fresh breezes have prevailed."

Discussing otlici1 factors likely to bo of moment in the next naval parley, Admiral Pratt cites the rlifferenco in viewpoint between Prance and Italy, with, the insistence of the former upon

security, appraised in the light of past experience, and the insistence of the latter upon recognition of the principle of equality in naval strength; together with the dissatisfaction of England "at being bound by terms which place her at a disadvantage with regard to others which will come to no terms." "TO PREVENT WAR." With regard to the stake of the United States in the next series of negotiations, the admiral writes: "Our stake is to prevent war, for, looking at tho matter even in the light of self-interest only, wo see that we are bound eventually to' pay a large part of the price of any great war, regardless of any immediate profits which might accrue to some classes of our citizens as the result of our, being neutral. All nations, through their spokesmen, are proclaiming peace. They probably want it. At the same, time they are all bent on being strong. They all intend to get their own way. Is the cause of world peace served better by our being weak or by our being firm j and otrong? This is one of the things wo shall have to ask ourselves at the nest conference, and we may as well be honest and face it."

Assorting that no one can predict the outcome of tho forthcoming naval talks, Admiral Pratt- concludes his article as follows: —

"If wo and the other nations of the world aro actually on tho road out of a depression, resulting largely from the last war, and if many tariff and financial questions aro in process of fair adjustment, this fact will do much to soften the present rather harsh political atmosphere and bring to the next conference a spirit of greater optimism. If the writer can surmise correctly, it will be a meeting whero men and their attitude toward each other will count for more than any logical presentation of the facts. No nation could care to bo responsible for sotting the clock back, for calling into existence again the old system of naval competition, with its attendant evils and balances of power. "But if the ship sinks the readjustment period should find those with identical interests in the samo lifeboat."