NAVAL POWER

Waikato Times, Volume 122, Issue 20425, 16 February 1938, Page 7

NAVAL POWER

THE NEEDS OF AMERICA AN UNDERSTANDING DEBIRED COMMENT ON JAPAN’S REPLY United Press Assn.—Elec. Tel. Copyright NEW YORK, Feb. 14. Commenting on Japan's reply to the American Naval Note, the New York Times frankly envisages the need for an understanding between America and other democracies. It says: "The reply necessarily will be considered in the hght of our own responsibilities under the existing naval treaty and our own defence needs. ‘ Mr Vinson proposes to maintain a Navy, not only large enough to protect our coast-line on both oceans simultaneously, but also to protect the Panama Canal, Alaska and Hawaii and our insular possessions, commerce and citizens abroad. ‘lf we are to attempt all this by our own might, without some understanding with other peac3-loving democracies, whose interests are akin to ours, we shall need a much larger Navy than any now In sight. To achieve complete security in complete isolation is an expensive business.” The newspaper prints a symposium of the comment of 14 leading provincial newspapers, seven of whicn are in favour of increasing the Navy and the balance are non-committal or suspicious of the Government’s intentions. The Washington correspondent of the New York Herald Tribune says the Government has rejected the idea of calling an international Arms Limitation Conference. A hint from the Japanese Foreign Office that Japan might be willing to provide information about her naval construction if requested to do so unofficially, but that it would not., necessarily be binding, has been ignored. A Government spokesman pointed out that the official request had been preceded earlier by Just quiet efforts to obtain Information which might have kept naval building within limits. Although no official statement is forthcoming on the conference proposal, the Government's attitude is clear. President Roosevelt discussed foreign policy with Mr S. D. Mcßeynolds, Democrat member of the House of Representatives for Tennessee, who said later that the conference suggestion was untimely and preposterous. THE PRESIDENT AOCUBED REPUBLICAN MEMBER'S CHARGES WAR IN THE FAR EAST United Press Assn.— Elec. Tel. Copyrlghl WASHINGTON, Feb. 14. The President, Mr Roosevelt, was accused to-day by Mr G. P. Xye, Republican member of the Senate for North Dakota, of refusing to invoke the Neutrality Act in respect to the Far East because of pressure from trade interests. He said the President's naval rearmament programme was directed against Japan and his whole defensive policy contemplated war in the Far East. The identical iorce was at work now as in 1914-16, which marched the United States into a war that was not its business. President Wilson was forced to give way to trade interests who had made loans to foreign Powers. “We are as near war to-night,” said Mr Nye, "as in the 30 days before we declared war on Germany.” CO-OPERATION FOR PEACE ~ AMERICA’S FOREIGN POLICY CHARGE OF SHORT-SIGHTEDNESS United Press Assn.—Elec. Tel. Copyright NEW YORK, Feb. 14. “The American Government ought not to be turned aside from the sound course of co-operation for peace by the criticisms of those who would carry new isolation to fantastic limits,”’ says the New York Times in replying to critics of Mr Cordell Hull's recent exposition of foreign policy. “There is really no way to satisfy these critics in Congress,” says the paper, “except to withdraw all our Ambassadors from t/ie capitals of European democracies on the theory that if they are permitted to remain they may learn something of interest or value to our Government. “It is hard to believe that the American people, who are realists in other matters,, are so short-sighted in the field of foreign policy as to fail to see the advantage of proceeding by the method of parallel action if parallel action will strengthen our own case.”