DETAILS REFUSED

Evening Star, Issue 22882, 14 February 1938, Page 11

DETAILS REFUSED

JAPAN’S NAVAL POLICY REPLIES TO BRITAIN, AMERICA, AND FRANCE WILLINGNESS TO DISCUSS QUANTITATIVE LIMITATION Press Association — By Telegraph— Copyright TOKIO, February 13. The Japanese replies regarding the naval requests have been delivered to tho British and American Embassies. They are identical. A similar Note has been sent to France. , The Cabinet, at an extraordinary meeting, approved of the terms of the replies, refusing to supply Britain and America with naval building details, and saying that Japan was ready at any tine to enter discussions, giving first place to quantitative limitation. The reply says that the three-Power action is not fair, as it implied that Japan is violating treaties to which she is not a signatory. Japan has no intention of possessing a navy which will menace other countries. Mere communication of information concerning construction will not contribute to equitable disarmament in the absence of quantitative limitation. The British proposal to discuss the limitation of tonnage and calibres will not be. conducive to the realisation of Japan’s desire for disarmament. ' PLACING OF RESPONSIBILITY. The responsibility for any future developments, the reply adds, must therefore be borne by the leading naval Powers. Japan profoundly regrets that, if tho Powers undertake still more extensive construction, it will leave Japan with no alternative but to alter, her plans to cope with it. Japan is not behind any Power in her desire to realise such fair deductions in naval armaments-as would contribute to the promotion of amity and peace - throughout the world, and invites all really devoted to world peace carefully to consider the offer to discuss disarmament based on quantitative limitation. Japan sees no logical reasoning in the assumption that Japan is entertaining the construction of vessels not in conformity with the treaty because she does not supply information. A statement accompanying the Note says: “Japan at the London Conference emphasised that really fair deduction of armaments could not be achieved except by quantitative limitation. -Accordingly, qualitative limitation and the exchange of information regarding construction will not achieve disarmament but will create a tendency quantitatively to supplement deficiencies, leading to inevitable quantitative competition. Japan sees no reason t° alter that conviction.” "BRITAIN CAUSING APPREHENSION.” , The statement adds: "Japan is trying to ensure national security with -armaments which are small compared with such great Powers as Britain and America. She cannot afford to disclose her plans. Meanwhile, Britain is causing- considerable apprehension in other countries by embarking on a colossal armament . programme. The United States is apparently following this example. Therefore it is unfair, in view of the fact that many countries are expanding armaments, that the non-dis-closure of the Japanese programme should be made a reason for armament expansion.” The Minister of Foreign Affairs (Mr K. Hirota) went to the Palace to obtain the Emperor’s approval. Naval circles describe the approach as a diplomatic blunder, and an affront to the nation, stiffening the hitherto more moderate navy officials to a disposition to dispel foreign misgivings.

RECEPTION IN AMERICA REPLY REGARDED AS DIRECT CHALLENGE “BLUE SKY" NAVAL BUILDING RACE - I WASHINGTON. February 12. Japan's refusal to disclose her naval intentions and to discuss limitation agreements on a basis acceptable to America is interpreted officially as a direct challenge to a “ blue sky ” naval building race. The Washington correspondent of the ‘ New York Times ’ states' that the reaction in Administration circles to the tone and content of the Japanese Note indicated that only the refusal of Congress to vote funds would prevent the construction by the United States of the greatest navy the world has seen. It is expected that the State Department will consult the British and French Governments early next week with a view to mutual absolution from the qualitative limitations of tho London Naval Treaty. The only comment of the Secretary of State (Mr Cordell Hull) was: “ This Government seeks constantly to cooperate in advancing a policy of limitation and reduction of armaments, and regrets any development having the effect of encouraging rather than discouraging races in armament building.” EXCHANGE OF INFORMATION. However, it is most significant that Mr Hull made public almost simultaneously a letter to Sir Ludlow, a member of" the House of Representatives, sum-

miug up the foreign policy and again emphasising that no plan existed for naval co-operation with any nation, though the United States was following a policy of parallel action and an exchange of information with other nations with whom she has common interests and objectives in world affairs. The United Press representative says that Mr Hull’s statement of the attitude of officials indicated that the Government will probably not continue conversations with Japan, and indicated the conviction that conversations will lead' nowhere, while Japan maintains that she .must be guaranteed naval parity or build without restriction to suit her own ends. With the Administration in a frame of mind induced by the Note, the proposal of Senator King to convoke a o-eneral arms limitation conference met with little attention. the escalator clause. The Washington correspondent of the ‘New York Times’ adds; “Whether or not the Senate adopts Senator King’s resolution on Monday, there seems little likelihood that President Roosevelt will proceed with alacrity to carry it out. The indications are that •motions for consultation with England and France will be carried out largely for the purpose of preserving the appearance of a solid front in face of the Japanese attitude. The United States does not want to be put in the position of appearing to wage purely bilateral naval building competition with Japan. It wants the matter presented as a common problem, in which other naval Powers are concerned. The first step is to see whether London and Paris consider, as Washington undoubtedly does, that the situation justifies the invocation of the escalator clause. Whether or not England and France will agree, there is not a doubt that the United States will consider it must escalate, and it will proceed to do so after the consultation, but regardless of the result of the consultation. “ The most discouraging aspect of the reply, according to experts, was the use of language practically identical with that employed by the Japanese delegation to the Lop don Conference. Thus the problem is back to where it was two years ago. This country and Britain might be prepared to agree in principle to a common upper limit, they were assured that it did not mean in practice that the Japanese would build new battleships feverishly while the two others built nothing. Assurances from Japan could not be secured at Loudon in 1936 and have not been secured to this day. At the existing ratio, experts on both sides concede that Japan could never successfully attack the United States nor the United States Japan.” IMPORTANT IMPLICATIONS. While Mr Hull’s letter was addressed to Mr Ludlow, officials consider .that it is a response to numerous questions raised in Congress during the naval debate. ,In this sense its implications are very far-reaching. Mr Hull said: “It is a matter of simple common sense that, if every peaceful nation insisted on remaining entirely aloof from every other peacefuil nation and ipursued armament limitation without reference to the armaments of other nations, the inevitable outcome would be that nations inclined to play lawless roles would thereby be given great encouragement, even assistance, towards doing so. While in our foreign policy there is no disposition or intent to engage in warfare, we believe that the people of this country desire.it respected that our.nation’s interests abroad will be given fair treatment, and that there should prevail in the world conditions of peace, order, and security. This country always exerted its influence to support such objectives. It it is prepared, and is known to be prepared, the likelihood of being drawn into trouble will either be absent or greatly diminished. To be more specific, this Government carefully avoids on the one hand extreme internationalism, with political entanglements, and on the other extreme isolation, with its tendency to cause other nations to believe we are more or less afraid’. While avoiding alliances and entangling commitments, it is appropriate and advisable, when other countries have common interests and objectives, for this Government to exchange information with the Governments of such other countries, to confer with those Governments where practical and to proceed on parallel lines, but reserving always the fullest freedom of judgment, right, and independence or action, WORKING ON PEACE MOVE PRESIDENT ROOSEVELT'S AIMS WASHINGTON, February 13.

The Washington correspondent of the ‘ Herald-Tribune ’ reports tliat President Roosevelt said he was working on a peace move to reassure the country that his aims are peaceful, and that he was not pursuing a course calculated to entangle the country in war. It is conjectured in some quarters that the President is considering something more positive than the statement in his radio address, although none is aware how he proposes to attain his objective. Curiosity has been aroused over the special task which the President, it is reported, intends for Mr Bsrle, whose duties have not yet been defined.

Senator King says he proposes to introduce a resolution asking the President to invite all nations concerned to come to Washington to see if arms limitation cannot be reached.

“ I want to see every nation put its cards on the table in an effort to dispel the atmosphere of fear and to end the terrible burden of armaments,” Senatcr King said. “ I would like to see tie democratic nations of the world join in an understanding to maintain peace. Taey should work together. We are not and cannot be isolationists. The United States ought to set an example ii working the world towards peace.”

NAVAL CONSTRUCTION BILL PROTECTION OF BOTH COAST LINES WASHINGTON, February 11. Air C. Vinson, sponsor of the Bill, announced that the Naval Construction Bill involving 800,000,000d01, would include a section exactly stating the fundamental naval policy of the United States—namely: The maintenance of an adequate navy to protect both coastlines sumultaneously, also the Panama Canal, Alaska, Hawaii, and other insular possessions. To protect commerce and citizens abroad. To guarantee national security, but not for aggression. To ensure the national integrity of the United States and to support the national policies of the country. The navy must be adequate to keep any potential enemy from the United States’ shores. Finally the United States looked with apprehension and disfavour on general increases in world naval building, Air Vinson concluded. In the event of an international agreement for limitations, the President would be empowered to suspend construction, save where ships have already been begun.