NAVAL ARMS

New Zealand Herald, Volume LXXI, Issue 21966, 24 November 1934, Page 13

NAVAL ARMS

JAPAN'S POLICY THE NATION UNITED (ADMIRAL'S STATEMENTS PARTIAL REPUDIATION WASHINGTON EMBASSY By Telegraph—Press Association—Copvright (Received November 23, 7.25 p.m.) WASHINGTON, Nov. 22 The widely-published article appearing under the name of Viscount Admiral Saito assailing iingoists in his own and other" countries was partially repudiated by the Japanese Embassy in Washington this evening. In a formal statement the Embassy Viscount Saito gave Mi\ Herbert Hilscher the interview last August, but had never seen or approved of the article as it appeared in the Christian Science Monitor. Iti was denied that the admiral had said was a division of opinion in Japan on naval matters, or that jingoists were scheming to force Japan to build the world's greatest navr. The Embassy declared that the Japanese is united on the naval question. '• RATIO SYSTEM JAPANESE OPPOSITION 7 , COMMON UPPER LIMIT (Received November 23. p.m.) LONDON, Nov. 23 The Japanese naval delegation states that rumours that Japan is willing to recognise a. larger navy for Britain than for Japan or the United States, or thai she proposes a ratio of 5—4—4, are without foundation. Japan is opposed to the ratio system, whatever 'its form. She favours an agreement based on the principle of a / common upper limit. LONDON PARLEYS / URGENCY OF AGREEMENT SIR SIMON'S STATEMENT . Britiuh Wireless RUGBY, Nov. 22~ A statement on the naval conversations proceeding in London was made in the House of Commons to-day, during the debate on the Address-in-Reply to the Speech from the Throne by the Foreign Secretary,- Sir Johm Simon. He recalled that the Washington Treaty, of 1922 was one which would go on indefinitely unless voice were given to the wish to terminate it. The London Treaty of 1930, on the other hand, was made for a fixed term, which would expire automatically at the end of 1936. unless, as was contemplated and hoped, a new treaty could be negotiated in the .meantime- ■ other difference between the two Ve.y .'s»s n'as that the Washington . T-. f ,y was one which dealt with limits in respect to capital ships, . aircraftcarriers and the maximum size of the bigge.st cruisers. The London Treaty dealt more, with cruisers in general and with destroyers. Consequently, both treaties, in effect, were involved in the present deliberations. treaty Denunciation Possible Although'! the immediate reason for the'.meetings was connected with the fact that the Washington 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, no signatory bad given notice to terminate it, said Sir John. However, he had reason to know that it was essential to meet for the purpose of discussion, because the time was comirag when such notice might be given. t In -the event of denunciation of the Washington Treaty by one of its parties ljefore the' end of the present year a naval conference must still take place, under the 'terms of the treaty, next year. There was similar provision in the London Treaty for a conference in 1935 to negotiate a fresh treaty. It was common knowledge that Japan was not content with the treaty ratio of laid down by the Washington Treaty. During the present conversations America and Britain had heard several Japanese proposals, the general purpose of which was to establish, in substitution for tho 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 it was entitled . to possess. Evils of Armaments Race "I can say this," continued Sir John. - "The British Government will regard a 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 and political evils which would result from a renewed race in armaments are too apparent for me to enlarge upon now. " Equality of security—that every great navai State should feel its security compares favourably with others —is the unquestioned' right of all of us, but that does not necessarily mean that all fleets should be equal in size. "That depends upon the nature of responsibilities and other things in each case. The whole purpose of our discussions now' is to reach, if possible, a basis on which an understanding can be attained' without endangering the sense of security of anybody, if that point can be approximately reached then we shall feel that the way has been adequately prepared for next year's conference. , "We have at all times kept in the closes" and most friendly touch witn other .parties,'and we have kept representatives of the French and Italian Governments informed of all developments." i ~ A message from Boston states tnat the Christian Science Monitor this evening published tho text of a letter alleged to have been signed by Viscount Saito, in which the Japanese statesman was credited with approving of the recent article in that journal.