Manawatu Evening Standard. FRIDAY, OCTOBER 26, 1934. NAVAL TREATIES.

Manawatu Standard, Volume LIV, Issue 281, 26 October 1934, Page 6

Manawatu Evening Standard. FRIDAY, OCTOBER 26, 1934. NAVAL TREATIES.

The naval discussions which have been resumed in London between the British, United States, ' and Japanese representatives and their experts are purely of an exploratory nature. Bilateral and informal discussions were opened in July, but did little more than reveal most divergent views, and they now enter upon a most serious phase. The fate of the agreements limiting naval armaments —the Washington and London Treaties—depends upon the result of these conversations. The Washington Treaty of 1922 received the signatures of France and Italy in addition to those of the Powers which have sent their delegates to London. Capital ships were limited in numbers and also in regard to their size, while restrictions were placed upon the calibre of guns. It was stipulated that unless notification be given two years before its expiry in 1936—by December 31, 1934—-by any signatory that abolition is desired the agreement would remain in force until two years after any subsequent notification. A good precedent was set for the continuance of naval negotiations when it was agreed that “ within one year of the date on which a notice of termination by any Power has taken effect, ail the contracting Powers shall meet in conference.” The London Naval Treaty, which limited the number of cruisers, received the signatures of only Britain, the United States, and Japan, both France and Italy refusing to commil; themselves on the question. Neither in the interval has made an honest attempt to reconcile their divergent views, and the United States and Japan have made their position clear by authorising programmes for building up to the limit allowed. Britain, on the other hand, has carefully avoided an increase in naval armaments that might have prejudiced the success of the Disarmament Conference. The Lbndon Treaty expires automatically in 1937, but it provides for the continuance of negotiations in a clause stating: ‘‘Unless the high contracting parties should' agree otherwise by reason of a more general disarmament limiting naval armaments, to which they all become parties, they shall meet in conference in 1935 to frame a new treaty to replace and to carry out the purpose of the present treaty, it being understood that none of the provisions of the present treaty shall prejudice the attitude of any of the high contracting parties at the conference agreed to.” A more general disarmament not being within sight, the three signatories to the treaty recognise that a conference, if possible, must be convened next year, and are exploring the way. Japan’s attitude has been made fairly clear. She objects to the restrictions imposed upon her by the treaties as a reflection upon her national position. It will be recalled that in 1930, at the signing of the London agreement, there was a protest in Japan against its provisions regarding* her navy, and recent events in the Far East, she asserts, strengthen her claim for revision of these restrictions. She has proposed a new agreement allotting equal global tonnage to the three Powers, leaving each to build within that , aggregate the ships deemed necessary by them. Support is given to the British proposal to reduce the size of capital ships from 35,000 tons to 25,000 tons _ maximum, their guns from 16 inches to 14 inches, and the maximum size of cruisers from 10,000 tons to 8000 tons. Japan also suggests the abolition of aircraft carriers. Should these proposals prove un-

acceptable, Japan would like to see the ratio agreements abolished. For her part Britain has expressed readiness to co-operate to the full, her paramount desire being* an agreement whereby the Powers will accept smaller and less costly warships, and abolish aircraft carriers and submarines. Any restrictions, however, must apply to European programmes, for Britain has reached the limit of unilateral disarmament. The United States Government is definitely opposed to Japan’s claim for equal strength, and would like to see a reduction of 20 per cent, all round on existing ratios. Political feeling no doubt will play a large part in the negotiations. In the Pacific are the United States and Japan, and in Europe France and Italy jealously watching* each other. But, as a writer has pointed out, theirs are regional interests while Britain’s are world-wide. In the conversations now proceeding the advisability of holding a conference next year appears to be the main point of exploration, but if competition in naval armaments is to be avoided in the future jealousies must be subordinated to the interests of world peace.