The Daily News MONDAY, NOVEMBER 26, 1934. NAVAL CONVERSATIONS.

Taranaki Daily News, 26 November 1934, Page 4

The Daily News

MONDAY, NOVEMBER 26, 1934. NAVAL CONVERSATIONS.

OFFICES: NEW PLYMOUTH, Currio Street STRATFORD, Broadway. HAWERA. Hieh Street

The reference made by the Foreign Secretary, Sir John Simon, in the House of Commons in regard to the naval conversations now proceeding between Great Britain, the United States and Japan was exceedingly cautious. It gave official recognition to the statement already published that Japan is no longer content with the ratio of 5-5-3 laid down in the Washington Treaty in 1922. Japan seeks equality in total tonnage, with liberty for each Power to use that tonnage as it sees fit. For her own defence Japan favours smaller battleships, the abolition of aircraft carriers, and a large increase in the number of submarines permitted to signatories of a new agreement. The reasoning is obvious. Battleships and aircraft carriers could bring war into Japanese waters, while submarines would extend her capacity for protecting her coasts and attacking the commerce as well as the navy of any potential enemy. Great Britain and the United States consider that the size of navies should be decided by the oversea responsibilities of each nation concerned. Britain pleads that her responsibilities are world-wide and that they begin in European waters. The United States points out that she has responsibilities in two oceans and that she has few naval bases abroad. For that reason. American expert opinion does not favour Britain’s desire to reduce the size, if not the numbers, of battleships to be allotted each signatory, as it is held that the United States must possess a fleet with a wide steaming range. Great Britain desires a large increase in the number of cruisers allotted to her and required for the protection of longer trade routes than those of any other country. So far the discussions appear to have been the consideration of the views of the Admiralty experts of the three Powers. They were bound to conflict, just as they did when the Washington Treaty, was on the stocks. Unfortunately the position in regard to international security has not improved in the 12 years that have elapsed since the Washington agreement was made. Then the horrors of war were fresh in the minds of the statesmen negotiating as well as in those of the peoples they represented. To-day, while the statesmen may remember the terrors of warfare, they know also that a generation has grown up that knows those terrors at secondhand; that has found, its progress arrested by economic conditions, really the outcome of the last war, but which are laid to the charge of other causes by the unthinking and the unscrupulous; that sees “nationalism” running riot everywhere, and is inclined to ask itself whether, after all, another conflict might not clear the air. It is dangerous pleading, for to say nothing of the loss of life involved it is very) certain that another war would increase immeasurably the economic difficulties out of which the world is trying to find a way. There is also the undoubted fact that Britain’s gesture towards a reduction in armaments has met with no response from other nations. She did not build up to the margin allowed under the Washington Treaty. Neither did the United States, but both the Eng-lish-speaking nations have found it necessary, after watching for ten years the effect of their gesture towards disarmament, to admit its failure and to increase their naval equipment. Sir John Simon’s guarded statement makes it evident that if left to naval experts alone there is little hope of a new treaty of limitation. That, of course, is understandable, for each admiralty must put its own nation’s safety beyond all reasonable doubt. The question that awaits reply is whether statesmanship can achieve an agreement that will

meet the technician’s view by mutual accommodation of demands. To do so the negotiators must have the patience of strong conviction as well as the widest support of public opinion. It must be confessed that the latter, in Britain at all events, is not nearly so unanimous in the cause of lessened naval armament as it was 12 years ago.