NAVAL DISCUSSIONS

Taranaki Daily News, 24 November 1934, Page 7

NAVAL DISCUSSIONS

SIR JOHN SIMON’S REVIEW NEED FOR AN AGREEMENT TWO TREATIES INVOLVED IMPORTANCE TO WORLD British Wireless. Rugby, Nov. 22. A statement on the naval conversations preceding in London was made during the debate on the Address to the Throne by Sir John Simon, Foreign Secretary. He recalled that the Washington Treaty in 1922 was one which would go on indefinitely unless a voice was given to terminate it. The London Treaty in 1930, on the other hand, was made for a fixed term, and automatically expired at -the end of 1936 unless, as was contemplated and hoped, a new treaty could be negotiated. Another difference between treaties was that the Washington Treaty, entered into with five great Powers, was one which dealt with the limits in respect of capital ships, aircraft-carriers, and the maximum size of the biggest cruisers, whereas the London Treaty dealt with cruisers more in general and with destroyers. Consequently both treaties were, in effect, involved in the present deliberations. Though 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 the result of which the treaty would cease to apply two years later at the end of 1936, no signatory of that treaty, he was glad to say, had given notice of terminating it, but he had reason to know that it was very necessary to meet for the purpose of discussion because the time was coming when such, notice might be given. CONFERENCE NEXT YEAR. In the event of the denunciation of' the Washington Treaty by one of its parties before the end of the present year, the naval conference must still take place under the terms of that treaty during the next year. There was a similar provision in the London Treaty for a conference in 1935 for the purpose of negotiating a fresh treaty. It was common knowledge that the Tapanese Government was not content with the ratio, 5—5—3, laid down by the Washington Treaty. It had made, during the present conversations to 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 ffiev were entitled to possess. “I can say this,” he continued. “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 is that every great naval State should feel that its security compares favourably with the others. It 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 tire 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 shall feel that the way has 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 kept representatives of the French and Italian Governments informed.” RATIO SYSTEM OPPOSED JAPAN DENIES RUMOURS By Telegraph-Press Assn.—Copyright Rec. 10 p.m. London, Nov. 23. The Japanese delegation has issued a statement that rumours that Japan is willing to recognise a larger navy for Britain than for Japan or the United States or proposes a ratio of 5—4—4 are without foundation. Japan is opposed to the ratio system in any form and favours an agreement based on. the principle of a common upper limit.