NAVAL POLICY.

Taranaki Daily News, 5 February 1921, Page 5

NAVAL POLICY.

ATTITUDE OF JAPAN. REDUCTION OPPOSED. HTOE ARMAMENT COSTS. By Telegraph.—Press Assn.—Copyright. Received Feb. 5, 12.5 a.m. Tokio, Feb. 3 The resolution introduced by the Opposition Party to determine Japan’s attitude on disarmament threatens to disrupt the party Many members agree with the proposal, but assert, that it is impracticable for Japan to curtail her military and naval programmes. The Kokumin Shimbun points out, in an that fifty per cent of the national expenditure will be devoted to the army and the navy, creating a re-cord-breaking example in the world’s history, and yet Japan is unable to compete with Britain or the United States. —Aus.-N.Z. Cable Assn. [A cable received from Tokio last month stated: “The Jiji Shimpo declares that a member of the Opposition Partv has submitted a resolution within the party circle, advocating restriction of armaments. The newspaper adds that it believes that the Majority Party opposes the idea on the ground that it is idealistic and impracticable in the existing international situation, which renders an assurance of permanent peace .-doubtful, the failure of the United States to join the League of Nations making this quite evident. The newspaper concludes that Japan has grave responsibilities in the Far East, and must complete ai)d amplify her national defence.] AMBITIONS OF AMERICANS. WANT STRONGEST NAVY. New York, Feb. 3. The Navy General Board recently furnished a report to *Mr. J. Daniels (secretary of the Navy), who transmitted it to the Naval ’Committee as follows: — “We reiterate our belief in battleships forming the principal unit of the fleet. Without them the United States cannot hope to compete with existing navies. We urge that equality in power be continued as the policy of the United States. There is no thought of instituting an international competition in building programmes. “No other nation can reasonably take exception to such a position. Our guiding policy since 1903 was the eventual creation of a navy equal to the strongest in the world. We urge there be no rest or limitation of armaments .that would modify.the great programme of 1916 in future. We shall in all probability have to rely solely on our state of preparedness. Britain’s cessation of building is due to the great preponderance of her navy and the present economic situation of that Empire.” —Reuter.