PACIFIC TREATY.

Taranaki Daily News, 1 February 1922, Page 5

PACIFIC TREATY.

STATUS QUO FIXED

ARTICLE 19 EXPLAINED.

TERRITORIES MENTIONED.

By Telegraph.—Press Assn.—Copyright.

Received Jan. 31, 8.20 p.m.

New York, Jan. 30.

It is pointed out that article 19 does not affect the rights of French and Dutch in regard to their island possessions in the Pacific, while the former German islands, whereof the mandates are held by Japan, Australia and New Zealand, cannot be fortified under the League Covenant. The article likewise does not affect whatever marine changes are desired in the islands of the Pacific for commercial purposes. The New York Times’ Washington correspondent presents the official text of article 19 as follows:

The United States, the British Empire, and Japan agree to the status quo at the time of signing the present treaty. With regard to fortifications and naval bases, these shall be maintained in their respective territories and possessions, as specified hereunder: (il) The insular possessions which the United States now holds, or may hereafter acquire in the Pacific Ocean, except (a) those adjacent to the coast of the United States, Alaska, and the Panama Canal zone, but not including the Aleutian islands; and (b) the Hawaiian islands.

(2) Hongkong and insular possessions which the British Empire now holds or may hereafter acquire in the . Pacific Ocean east of meridan 110 degrees, east longitude, except (a) those adjacent to the coast of Canada; (b) the Commonwealth of Australia and its territories; and (c) New Zealand. (3) The following insular territories and possessions: Japan, Pacific Ocean, to wit, the Kurile islands, the Bonin islands, Amamioshima and the Loschoo islands, Formosa, and the Escadores, and any insular territories or possessions in the Pacific which Japan may hereafter acquire. The correspondent adds that the following official statement has been issued relative to the meaning of article 19: “The maintenance of the status quo under the foregoing provisions implies that no new fortifications or naval bases shall be established in the territories or possessions specified; that no uneasiness shall be taken at the increase of the existing naval facilities for the repair or maintenance of naval forces, and no increase shall be made in the coast defences of the territories or possessions above specified. This restriction, however, does not preclude such repair or replacement of worn-out weapons and equipment as is customary in naval and military establishments in time of peace.—Aus.-N.Z. Cable Assn.

PACIFIC FORTIFICATIONS.

POINTS OF AGREEMENT. Washington, Jan. 30. Japan’s reply regarding the Pacific Islands fortifications has'been received. It is understood it gives general approval of the plani agreed upon by Mr. Hughes, Mr. Balfour and Viscount Kato. It is learnt that the principal points of agreement are that the United States, Great Bria in and Japan agree not to fortify or keep the status quo regarding fortifications and naval bases in all their insular possessions in the Pacific, with certain exceptions. The following islands are specially listed for maintenance of the status quo:—Belonging to the United States, Guam and the Philippines; to Great Britain. Hongkong; to Japan. Bonin, Kyukyu, Osima, Formosa and the Escadoree. The following will be listed as exempt from the status quo agreement:—United States, Hawaii,, and probably the United States coast; Great Britain. Australia, New Zealand, Tasmania, McQuarrie Island, Norfolk Island, and part of New Guinea not governed by the mandate. Japan’s exempted islands comprise Japan proper, with the exception of those islands listed in the status quo agreement.—Aue.-U.Z. Cable Assn.