SIZE OF FLEETS.

Taranaki Daily News, 21 November 1921, Page 5

SIZE OF FLEETS.

A DIFFICULT PROBLEM. DEMANDS OF JAPAN. / INFLUENCE OF BRITAIN. (From the Special Representative of .the Press Association.) Received Nov. 21, 12.5 a.m. Washington, Nov. 19. The opinion has been advanced in well informed circles that Britain will have greater influence than any nation in making or breaking the conference. It ia definitely stated that the United States delegation expressed that view to the President. It is significant that Mr. A. J. Balfour (Britain) and Admiral Kato (Japan) held a conference with Mr. C. E. Hughes (America) to-day. It is hinted that this had to do with Japan’s pressure regarding an increasefl tonnage ratio. This is reflected in an authoritative statement cabled this afternoon, wherein it is emphasised that the object of Mr. Hughes’ plan was to end offensive naval war and stop naval competition. At the same time Japan has shifted consideration from submarines to airplane carriers, which she professes to require, because her towns are frail and inflammable, and need extra protection from an air attack.—Aus.N.Z. Cable Assn.

RATIO OF REDUCTION. THE DANGER OF RIVALRY. COMPLETE HOLIDAY ESSENTIAL. (From the Special Representative of the Australian Press Assn.) Received Nov. 20, 5.q p.m. Washington, Nov. 18. The Australian Press Association understands that America is strongly opposed to any alteration of ratio of five—live —three for capital ships, which was put forward after the fullest consideration, and which also represents a basis for existing fleets, with some generosity towards. Japan? If one Power demands that its ratio should be increased, others will follow suit, thereby introducing the competitive element which brought about navai rivalry. America is willing to discuss an amendment of the plan regarding auxiliary ships, of which Britain wants a larger proportion. America regards a complete naval holiday, involving the cessation of all shipbuilding for a decade, including replacements, as essential for the success for her plan for disarmament. i Owing io feeling in America against participating in international treaties, and the difficulty of getting the Senate’s sanction, which the constitution renders essential, it is understood the American delegation desires that the conference should result in a general agreement, as distinct ffom a treaty, in the settlement of disarmament and the Far Eastern question. It ia pointed out that. the sanction of Congress for the of Government property, involving the scrapping of ships, is not necessary. The President possesses power 1o authorise the destruction of any warships the naval authorities declare no longer useful.

REDUCTION CONTROVERSY. THE POSITION OF JAPAN. (From the Special Representative of the Australian Press Association.) Received Nov. 20, 11.5 p.m. Washington, Nov. in. The controversy regarding the Japanese strength centres more and more round the battleship Mutsu, which will 'be scrapped according to the American plan. The Japanese newspapers contend the Mutsu is commissioned, and not merely launched, as stated in Mr. C. E. Hughes’. speech on November 12, and therefore it is in the same position as America’s California, which is t’ie only capital ship among America’s construction programme of sixteen ships not to lie scrapped. The Australian Press Association understands that the ratio five-five-three, based on existing strength, takes into consideration all capital ships partially built, besides all commissioned ships. Thus a ship 50 per cent, completed counts as half a ship of her size; also, the ratio five-five-three is generous to Japan, as the existing strength of the Japanese fleet is nearer 50 than 60 per cent, of the American and British fleets.

NEW ZEALAND DELEGATE. THE POSITION REVIEWED. (From the Special Representative of the Australian Press Assn.) Received Nov. 20, 5.5 p.m. Washington, Nov. IS. After a week’s experience of the workings of the conference on naval disarmament, Sir John Salmond (the New Zealand delegate) to-night expressed the firm belief that, it was going to be successful. He was greatly impressed by the sincerity, definiteness and practical statesmanship displayed by the Americans. At -ie same time certain unfounded expectations of impracticable idealism would be disappointed. He added: “It must be remembered that the conference is one of 'limitation, not abolition, of armament. Self-de-fence is a necessary permanent part of State activity. It would be the right and the duty of every State to examine these proposals with reference to their requirements for national safety. The abolition of national preparedness is sentimentalism, but the limitation of armaments is practical statesmanship. Again, the proposal is not one of regulation of warfare, but of regulation of the action of States in time of peace. On the outbreak of war every State would do its utmost in self-preservation, while victory would not consent to be restricted by an agreement governing the use and nature of its weapons. “A naval agreement cannot be permanent and irrevocable, and. States cannot be expected to tie their hands for all time, regardless of a change in the situation. Although the nations have agreed to the principles of the American proposals, agreement as to details is not to be expected or to-morrow. Everything must be carefully examined and thought out in order to avoid the possibility of a future misunderstanding. An agreement must involve readiness to give and take on behalf of all the States concerned, but certain sufficient wisdom and sincerity displayed by all parties would successfully overcome all such difficulties. —Aus.-N.Z. Cable