A NAVAL HOLIDAY?

New Zealand Times, Volume XLVII, Issue 10812, 31 January 1921, Page 4

A NAVAL HOLIDAY?

The prospects of a naval holiday, by .mutual agreement between the United States, Britain, and Japan, are by no means so bright as when the project was first mooted. The chief difficulty in the way is, clearly, the fact that America has not ratified the Peace Treaty and has not joined the League of Nations. While a member of the Opposition Party in Japan has submitted a resolution ’within the party advocating the restriction of armaments, the newspaper “Jiji Shimpo” states that it is believed that a majority of the party is opposed to the idea, regarding it as idealistic and impracticable. “The existing international situation,” the newspaper adds, “renders an assurance of permanent peace difficult. The failure of the United States to join the League makes this quite evident Japan has grave responsibilities in the East, and must complete and amplify her naval defence.” Moreover, Mr Josephus Daniels, Democratio Secretary to the United States Navy, has again stated emphatically his opinion, that, failing America’s entry into the League, or into some similar organisation, the construction of the American Navy must be speeded-up; and

this view finds support in an article contributed by the Republican Presi-dent-elect to the “Naval Journal.” “ft is the Navy,” declares Mr Harding, “that guarantees us against invasion. We do not want the navy for conquest. \Ve would like to reduce our armaments, but so long as there is need for American national defence, we must maintain our navy, not only in material strength, but in the moral and capacity of its officers.” Ex-Senator Harding would have nothing to do with the League of Nations, which would have proved a far cheaper rfbd far surer guarantee against invasion than the American Navy can ever be; and the difficulty in which the United States now finds itself is the natural result of the intransigeant folly of himself and his fellow-Senators. Senator Borah, another Republican, speaking in the Senate last week,. stated that the United States must either seek an international agreement aiming at disarmament, or construct a navy able to defend the country against any possible group of enemies; and it is very significant that he at once went on to declare that the cost (640 million dollars—£128,000,000) of the completion of the capital ships In the present American naval programme is “prohibitive.” He added that he believed that the masses of the people of the United States, Britain, and Japan are in favour of abandoning competitive naval building. If this be true, and vve fully believe that it is true, then the mass of the people in the United States will, surely, before long compel the President-elect and his Senators to ratify the Peace Treaty and join the League. No greater heed need be given to the Paris cablegram which states that “The reduction of the American naval programme is considered unlikely in view of the unemployment in that country.” ' Manifestly, the money voted for naval construction would, if devoted to peaceful purposes, employ at least as much labour as it would if expended on battleships. Indeed, it would obviously be far cheaper and better to spend the money in unemployment subsidies than by building battleships, to commit the United States, and the nations generally, to a mad race of armaments.