NAVAL TREATIES

Manawatu Standard, Volume LIV, Issue 306, 23 November 1934, Page 2

NAVAL TREATIES

3.45- P.M. EDITION

ELUCIDATION OF POSITION. BY FOREIGN SECRETARY. (United Press Association —By Electric Telegraph—Copyright.) (British Official wireless.) Received November 23, 12.25 pan. RUGBY, Nov. 22. A statement on tlio naval conversations now proceeding in London was made during the debate oil the Address to the Throne by Sir John Simon. He recalled that the Washington Treaty of 1922 was one which would go on indefinitely unless the voice was given to terminate it. The London Treaty oi 1930, .oil the other hand, was made for a fixed term and automatically expired at- tlie end of 1936 unless, as was contemplated and hoped, a new treaty could be negotiated. Another difference between the treaties was that the Washington .Treaty, entered into with five great Powers, was one which dealt with limits in respect of capital, ships, aircraft carriers, and the maximum size of the biggest cruisers, whereas the London Treaty dealt wtli cruisers more in general and with destroyers. Consequently, both treaties were in effect involved m the present deliberations. Though the immediate reason for the meetings was connected with the fact that the Wasliington Treaty contained a clause under which it was possible for any one of the signatories to give notice at the end of the present year, as a result of which the treaty would cease to apply two years later (at the end of lybti), no signatory of that treaty, he was glad to say, had given notice to terminate it, but lie had reason to know that it wu9 very necessary to meet for the purpose of a discussion because the time was coming when such notice might be given. In the event of the denunciation ol the Washington Naval Treaty by one of its parties before tlie end of the present year, the Naval Conference must still take place under tlie terms of that treaty during next year.

Sir John Simon said there was a similar provision in the London Naval Treaty for a conference in 1935 for the purpose of negotiating a fresh treaty, it was common knowledge that the Japanese Government were not content with tho treaty ratio (5-5-3) laid down in the Washington Treaty. They had made, during the present conversations with America and Britain, several proposals, the general purpose of which was to establish in substitution for the present treaty system one under which each Power would be able to build up to what had been called a common upper limit, representing the total amount of ships they were entitled to possess.

“I can say this,” Sir John continued, ‘‘that the British Government will regard the breakdown of the system of naval limitation as a great disaster for everybody, not .merely for the Powers now in consultation, but for the world at large. The financial evils and political evils which would result from a renewed race in armaments are too apparent for me to enlarge upon them now. The equality of security that every great naval State should feel, that its security compares favourably with others, is the unquestioned right of all of us, but that does not necessarily mean that all the fleets should in fact be equal in size. That depends upon the nature of the responsibilities and other things in each case, and the whole purpose of our discussions now is to reach, if possible, a basis on which an understanding can be reached without endangering the sense of security of anybody. If that point could approximately be reached then we should feel the way had been adequately prepared for next, year’s conference. We have at all times kept in the closest and most friendly touch with other parties and we have kept the representatives of the French and Italian Governments informed of all developments.”