THE OTAGO DAILY TIMES MONDAY, NOVEMBER 26, 1934. THE NAVAL CONVERSATIONS

Otago Daily Times, Issue 22429, 26 November 1934, Page 8

THE OTAGO DAILY TIMES MONDAY, NOVEMBER 26, 1934. THE NAVAL CONVERSATIONS

Sir John Simon’s statement in the House of Commons on the subject of the naval conversations which are proceeding in London does not offer any indication of their probable outcome. That is, apparently, still a matter of very distinct uncertainty. The British Government, lie says, will regard a breakdown of the system of naval limitation as a great disaster for everybody. Naturally it would do so, as the absence of limitation would spell renewed naval competition and an increased burden of armaments. None of the Powers participating in the conference can desire that. Yet agreement will be difficult in view of the proposals submitted by Japan. It has to be recognised that in their present form these create an awkward position. Japan desires naval equality, or at least the recognition of it, with Great Britain and the United States. The phrase used by her representatives has been “ equality in national security.” She claims that there should be a fixation of an upper limit of naval construction, a “ ceiling” as it has been called, applicable to all three parties, which would not necessarily, however, build up to it. Apparently Japan would concede that Great Britain’s responsibilities might well involve her building up to this ceiling, whereas Japan, while free to do so, might in fact not undertake such a heavy programme. But Japan would not be satisfied to see the United States also building up to the limit and thus having a superiority over herself. To have parity with the United States, upon which she seems disposed to insist, despite the statement by her Ambassador in the United States that that country and his “ are Heaven-orclained to be mutually beneficial and ever to be co-guardians of the peace of the Pacific,” Japan would also have to build up to the limit. That would mean equality in naval strengths ail round, and Great Britain would be at the disadvantage that no recognition would be accorded to the fact that her naval requirements, by reason of the configuration of the Empire and her extensive trade routes, are in actual fact considerably greater than those of either the United States or Japan. It was for that reason, as indicated some days ago, that Great Britain signified that she could not accept the principle of a common upper limit. Even consideration for the prestige of Japan, upon which some stress is laid, cannot be fairly allowed to outweigh another consideration—the vital consideration of British national security. The British view is that equality of seeui'ity does not necessarily mean that the fleets should be in fact all equal in size, and in the circumstances that is a reasonable view. As to the possibility of a basis being found on which an understanding may be reached without endangering the sense of security of anybody Sir John Simon has offered no definite opinion. The difficulties are somewhat formidable. They are not likely to be diminished by the seemingly authoritative announcement that, whatever the outcome of the present conversations may be, Japan has decided to renounce the Washington Treaty.