DISARMAMENT—THE JAPANESE VIEW.

Waikato Independent, Volume XXVI, Issue 2609, 13 April 1926, Page 4

DISARMAMENT—THE JAPANESE VIEW.

Japan is now recognised as such a /great Power—more particularly - from the important strategic position she occupies in the Pacific —that, the opinions of the foremost men of that country regarding disarmament are of special interest. The limitations of the Locarno Treaty in guaranteeing the peace of Europe only deeply impress some of the Japanese editors. The validity oi the Locarno Treaty, they, say, is local, and it follows, therefore, that the disarmament accompanying it will logically be local. “Inseparable as security and disarmament are,” remarks a Japanese journal, thc\Osaka “Asahi,” “one is entirely different from the other.” The assurances of security may be properly local, according to this paper, but the force of disarmament, must be international. It goes on to say:— ‘ Even if a disarmament treaty be concluded, that is applicable to Europe, it will be of no force as long as Russia stands outside its scope. Wc take disarmament as meaning that the fighting strength of land and sea forces must be restricted. Then it will be necessary for Great Britain to persuade the United States to participate in such an international parley, and also to prevail upon Japan to send her representatives to it. It is for these reasons'that we think disarmament by Europe alone is impracticable. As the local limitation of a disarmament! conference which the local security pact requires is impracticable, Its force must be made universal. The naval disarmament which the Washington parley effected was local, and so the participants were, not in a position to limit the force of auxiliary ships. This failure is responsible for the present competition in ship construction. Thus it may be concluded from these contentions that it is necessary for the purpose of international disarmament to invite those nations which took part in the Locarno conference and which participated in the Washington conference in order to limit not only the naval forces but also the fighting strength of their respective armies.” Seeing Japan’s proximity to Russia, and the very good cause she has had to mistrust Soviet Russia', it is not surprising ing that the writer of the article we have quoted from above declares: — “We arc of opinion that the representation of Soviet Russia at such pourparlers is i essentially important. ” The writer goes oil to say: “Russia did not partake in either tlie organisation of the League of Nations or in the discussion at tlie Locarno parley, but she must needs be. invited to an international disarmament conference lest the disarmament treaty lie invalidated. The non-participation of 'Russia will not permit her neighbours to limit their fighting, strength. As Japan is contiguous, she will not find herself in circumstances to reduce her fighting capabilities. Tlie necessity of universal disarmament requires some political convention as forceful as the Peace Protocol. We hold that a Pacific pact along- with the security convention is indispensable for tlie purpose of general peace. The, co-existence of such pacts- will \effep.tiy;ely •, safeguard the peace of tlie world. However, as it has been argued, a political convention alone has not sufficient force for. the purpose of disarmament. Its validity must be supplemented by. an economic arrangement.”