THE OTAGO DAILY TIMES WEDNESDAY, DECEMBER 11, 1935. THE NAVAL CONFERENCE

Otago Daily Times, Issue 22751, 11 December 1935, Page 8

THE OTAGO DAILY TIMES WEDNESDAY, DECEMBER 11, 1935. THE NAVAL CONFERENCE

The representatives of the Powers assembled for the Naval Conference in London arc confronted with a difficult, task. They are labouring under no misconceptions on that point. The decision of Japan to repudiate the Washington Treaty has thrown the whole question of naval limitation open afresh to discussion. The principles governing the formulation of naval programmes practically throughout the post-war period are brought under review from a new angle, and the upshot may even be that they will be thrown into the melting pot. A position is presented to the Conference practically on a footing with that which - existed in 1921, when the Washington Treaty established the naval ratios that have obtained

since then. The effect of the subsequent London Treaty is negatived by abrogation of the major naval agreement. Thus, it is to a very large extent a naval discussion de novo that is being initiated after all these years. The alternative to a reaffirmation of the principles which have operated so usefully within that a reversion to the old system of unrestricted naval competition. If the Conference is to succeed in its task it must reach agreement on a new basis of limitation. The value of the Washington Treaty in reducing rivalry in naval construction to a minimum has been unquestionable. Mr Baldwin has expressed a conviction that the countries represented at the Conference " are prepared to yield a little of their maximum demands for the general good and to evolve an agreement reducing the total tonnage of naval armaments, adding to the general sense of world security." It is to be hoped that his words represent more than a merely pious utterance appropriate to such an occasion. It is sufficiently apparent that the attitude of Japan presents an obstacle that will not be overcome without difficulty. For whereas for fourteen years Japan was content to accept the Washington ratios and possess a fleet inferior in strength to the fleets of Great Britain and the United States, to-day she is bent upon naval parity with these Powers. How this demand is to be reconciled with the British and American views must be one of the great problems of the Conference. As it was a considerable time ago when Japan made known her intention of seeking such equality, the British and American Governments have no doubt already given much deliberation to the position. There has, however, been little indication of the views which they will present on the subject, and thus far the plenary Conference proceedings have been confined to a statement of the general sentiments of the various delegations. It may be a hopeful sign that there has been a general expression of opinion in favour of quantitative limitation, for this implies a realisation of the burdens and dangers that would be involved in a return to unrestricted naval competition. In her demand for equality Japan contemplates limitation also, but obviously a limitation that would affect herself but little. What she asks is, in effect, that the British and American navies should be brought down to the strength of her own. She also presents proposals respecting types of ships, with abolition or drastic reduction of those classed by her as "offensive," which are not likely to be in accord with the ideas of the other Powers. As Sir James Parr has definitely put it, therefore, " the Conference meets in circumstances far from favourable.", The renewal of the existing treaties appears to be wholly out of the question. The more permanent and comprehensive treaty, of which Mr Norman Davis, representing the United States, has advocated the desirability, may prove to be elusive. Curiosity necessarily attends the attitude taken up by Italy, but while this is evidently coloured to some extent by her present plight in relation to the League Powers, the statement that was made by her representative is on the whole reassuring. No Power represented at the Conference is likely to dissent from the view that what is required is a balance of fleets adequate for the purposes of security, maintained by international agreement, and eliminating expensive and dangerous naval competition. Within that range it is devoutly to be hoped that sufficient give-and-take will be possible to permit of the attainment of such an agreement as Mr Baldwin has envisaged.