JAPAN AND AMERICA

Sun (Auckland), Volume 1, Issue 77, 22 June 1927, Page 1

JAPAN AND AMERICA

U.S. PRESS PLEASED CONCILIATORY SPIRIT Reed. 8.50 a.m. WASHINGTON, Tues* The Japanese naval limitation proposals have been favourably received by the officials .here , as displaying a conciliatory spirit , a satisfaction with the present strength of her navy , and a willingness to remain in a position of comparative inferiority , in all classes of ships , to Britain and the United States. The British proposals are regarded as unsatisfactory in so far as they affect the questions decided at the Washington Conference, which the Administration feels should not be discussed at the present conference, because of the absence of two signatories of the 1922 treaties. —A. and N.Z.—-Sun. AN EXPERTS VIEW BRITAIN SUPPORTED GENEVA, June 21. An examination of the proposals made 6 y the British naval experts at the conference puts them, in a different light to that which the actual speeches conveyed, to the layman. In an interview one of the experts said: —“The British proposals are far more comprehensive than the American scheme. Our proposed extension of the life of capital ships alone would effect an Important lightening of the burden of naval armaments on the taxpayer. “We suggest a definite limit to the number and pdwer of cruisers, and we favour a clear statement from every nation as to its actual requirements in cruisers, destroyers and submarines. The American scheme does not propose to reduce the power and size of capital ships, while the suggestion -to maintain the 55 —3 ratio for cruisers, destroyers and submarines leaves a wide range of sizes. “Theoretically it would allow the smaller Powers to build according to their capacity, but judging from experience after the! Washington maximum, the size permitted would become the standard. , American Scheme Examined “A close examination shows that the maintenance of the ratios can only be in the total tonnage, instead of in the numbers of vessels. It means that America would be enabled to add considerably to her cruiser tonnage. Britain would have to reduce hers, and Japan’s would remain unchanged. Yet the effect would be that America would be able to scrap many of her old worn-out cruisers and replace them with new and more powerful ones. “America’s programme would really mean an Increase’and not a reduction in naval armameffts, because her proposed reductions would not apply to new ships. Our concrete proposal to limit the number and the size of ships constitutes a real step forward in the direction of disarmament. America’s does not. France and Italy “Similarly Japan proposes a shorter life and a quicker replacement of ships than we do. Under the Japanese proposition Britain would have 62 cruisers of all sizes, the United States 15, and Japan 29. The figures for destroyers would be: — Britain, 173; America, 280; Japan, 104. For submarines the figures would be: Britain, 64; America, 114; Japan 71. “The United States is not likely to accept these. Fortunately Japan has intimated that she is willing to view sympathetically our suggestion that the Powers should openly state their actual requirements in the various categories of ships.” Replying to a question, the expert said France and Italy would be welcomed with open arms if they were willing to join the conference even now. In any case Britain was anxious for their adherence to any agreement that the three Powers might reach. — A. and N.Z.