JAPAN’S PLAN

Evening Star, Issue 21279, 7 December 1932, Page 7

JAPAN’S PLAN

NAVAL DISARMAMENT PROPOSALS SUBMITTED TO POWERS Press Association—By Telegraph—Copyright. GENEVA, December 6. Japan’s naval disarmament plan, which has been submitted to the four Powers confidentially, suggests that naval reductions must respect the geographical situation of each country, and not destroy the feeling of security of any country. Hence Powers with superior naval forces must reduce proportionately more than Powers with smaller navies. The maximum tonnage of cruisers should be 8,000, but Bin guns could be retained on cruisers, while Britain, the United States, Italy, and Japan should fix their respective maximum global tonnages of small cruisers, destroyers, and other small units. The actual amount of tonnage each navy may possess should be determined by a regional agreement, and for this purpose the nations of the world would be divided into such units as the Pacific and Atlantic Oceans, European waters, South American waters, etc. GERMANY'S EQUALITY CLAIM FRANCE’S OPPOSITION. GENEVA, December 6. Mr Ramsay MacDonald’s dinner party was without result j indeed, the cynics suggest that the festival was in the nature of a funeral wake, with the Disarmament Conference ns the corpse. Latest advices at Geneva show that the all-day efforts of Mr MacDonald, Sir John Simon, and Mr Davis (United States) to induce M. Herriot to meet Germany’s claim to equality were of little avail, but Frauce and Italy are now inclined to favour Mr Davis’s idea that the existing results be embodied in a protocol. Baron Von Neurath (Germany) had an hour’s interview with Mr MacDonald directly he arrived- The interview was most cordial, but except at the dinner party M. Herriot and Baron Von Neurath seemed to be avoiding each other. M. Herriot will leave Geneva on Tuesday evening, but offers to return on Saturday if necessary. AMBITIOUS PROPOSALS THE AMERICAN PLAN. (British Official Wireless.) RUGBY, December 6(Received December 7, at 12.30 p.m.) In Geneva to-day Five-Power conversations took place, mainly, it is understood, on the basis of a memorandum put forward by Mr Davis. The main features include a proposal for the provision of an immediate convention, to run until 1936, when the naval agreement now in force expires. This document is to embody, inter alia, the formal recognition of Germany’s right to arms equality and France’s right to security, both to be worked out within the next three years, and provisions regarding the limitations of land gun calibres, and the size of tanks, a reduction of 33 1-3 per cent, in effectives, the abolition of air bombing, gas, germ, and flame warfare, and the adhesion of France and Italy to the London Naval Treaty. It is understood that the German Foreign Minister regards the proposal ns unacceptable in its present form, and M. Herriot is also critical. \ ’ GOOD PROGRESS REPORTED TENTATIVE AGREEMENT RSACHED. (British Official Wireless.) RUGBY,’ December 6. (Received December 7, at noon). Geneva reports good progress at yesterday’s conversations, and it is stated that a tentative agreement between the British, American, French, and Italians was reached on what is called the American plan, providing a basis for, an immediate convention. If the proposal is adopted the measure of agreement reached after the work of the Disarmament Conference Bureau during the year will be embodied in a convention that would run until 1936, when the naval agreements now in force expire. The practical application of tho principles of the convention will be worked out by a permanent commission, which apparently will have the same constitution as the existing General Committee of the Disarmament Conference, all nations being represented by a permanent delegate. The permanent commission will also prepare the way for a new conference in three years’ time. ‘ The Times;’ commenting on the Geneva agreements, agrees with the ardent advocates of far-reaching reductions, who regard the results to be obtained on the present record of the conference as meagre indeed. It points out that the only hostile votes given against the July resolution were those of Germany and Russia, but both dissented because it did not go far i enough. Over forty States subscribed to the contents of the resolution by which it was agreed that all heavy land artillery in respect to mounting and calibre should be limited, that the maximum unit tonnage of tanks should be similarly limited, all chemical and incendiary warfare abolished, and air attack against civilian populations absolutely prohibited. ‘ The Times ’ says: “ In the aggregate these self-imposed restrictions mark a definite acceptance by all the signatory nations of the principle of limitation, which so far only applies on land to countries vanquished in the war and on sen by their own deliberate act to the five principal naval Powers. Its extension would at least constitute a most favourable base from which an advance could later be made to substantial all-round reductions.’’-