The Waikato Times WEDNEDAY, DECEMBER 26, 1934. JAPAN AND NAVAL POWER.

Waikato Times, Volume 116, Issue 19459, 26 December 1934, Page 6

The Waikato Times WEDNEDAY, DECEMBER 26, 1934. JAPAN AND NAVAL POWER.

In the naval discussions held recently in London one fact has been rendered very plain. That is the determination of secure, with or without the concurrence of Britain and ’ revision of the present balance. It would he unwise to suppose that she means much less than she says, or that she ’wou to break up the forthcoming Conference if she fails to *= e _ wants, or most of it. Doubtless she would prefer a fnend y tion, but her behaviour at Geneva last year is a warm „ will not hesitate to take on herself the responsibility fo decision. ' ; .

The only thing that might induce the Japanese to hesitate, or at Iftast to compromise, would be a firm determination on the> P* of Great Britain and the United States to resist her. It is not enough that they should refuse to sanction her claim to parity at sea l she would ignore quite calmly. They must convince- her that ' J will stand together so firmly in resistance to her imperialism, it turns against China or Russia, that her additional ships will seem to her a mere waste of money. There is a naval problem only because the politicai problem has been shelved. So long as experience justifies Japan in the belief that a given quantity of tanks, aeropl and ships will enable her to secure a given amount of territory on the continent of Asia, on (which is worth even more) the ability up to a given point to dictate to Nanking, so long will she go on building ships, tanks and aeroplanes, confident that more ships wil ung more territory or a hegemony still more absolute. (

On the facts, a Japanese Government would be justified in reckoning that it never will be confronted with a solid Anglo-Ameri-can understanding capable of action.- Washington and Whitehall are entering this Conference with programmes perfectly devised tor mutual frustration. Both are virtuous Powers, both desire to reduce the burden of naval armaments. But each in its zeal to lighten t e load of mankind has felt compelled to seek salvation in a direction that ■'the other will certainly refuse to follow. America, would be content with fewer ships, hut she must have them big. Britain would manage with appreciably smaller ships, but she must have more o them, more even than she has to-day. Even so, one cannot call her moderation impressive.

When the last London Conference met, Mr MacDonald’s Cabinet, in a published memorandum, declared itself in favour of the abolition of capital ships. Smaller cruisers with 6-inch guns are favoured, but there must be seventy of them, instead of the present fifty. This is not a programme of reduction or even of economy. There 'is no means of reconciling if with the equally self-regarding scheme of Americans, save by falling back on the acceptance of some agreed figure of “global tonnage,” which would allow everyone to build what ships he pleased, subject to a limited grand total of tonnage. That might avoid a breakdown at the Conference, but it would lead to a period of acute rivalry and alarm, as each Powder varied its types and dimensions at will.

For the rest we may expect that each Power will offer to renounce the arm in which its rival excels. Humanity will inspire the British, as usual, to retain battleships and abandon submarines, while to the French it will dictate the opposite choice. Japan, well provided with island-aerodromes, will offer to sacrifice airship-carriers, which the United States for lack of islands must retain. So do our good intentions cancel each other out, and along divergent paths of virtue we continue in armaments to compete. We shall get a more hopeful naval conference when we organise the politics and economics of our planet on a footing of mutual aid.