The Indianapolis times. [volume] (Indianapolis [Ind.]) 1922-1965, 1934-08-04
JAPAN AND THE NAVY

Japan does not like Secretary Swansons
~ proposal for naval reduction. according
to the cables. That is surprising. For sew
eraI reasons:
1. Premier Keisuke Okada himself has just
been talking reduction.
, naval race is expensive business, for
each and all.
3. Japan is less able even that the United
States and Great Britain, to afford mounting
armament expenses.
T. Japan needs very much friendly agree
ment with the United States and Great
Britain, who seem to be standing fairly we'll
together on this matter.
So JapanS reported policy, however illog-
ical 1t may appear from the standpoint of
world friendship. seems even more illogical
from the viewpoint Of her own selfish interest.
But the subject can not be dropped there,
permitting our two nations 10 drift into dis
agreement We Americans owe 1t to ourselves
and to world peace to make every effort to
understand Japan's feeling.
II Japan can not accept our original pro-
posaI for all-round one-third reduction, or
the new Swanson figure Of 20 per cent reduc-
ton. Toxic is free to make a counter proposal.
OF course nothing could be accomplished by
repeating her 1882 Geneva proposal for cut
ting our navy "a per cent while she cuts only
Q per cent; or the recent trial balloon for an
American cut of ~ per cent and Japanese
Of per cent. such tests only increase frc-
ton The counter-offer should be serious
enough 10 merit serious consideration by
Washington.
Apparently Japans real purpose is to
change the 5-5-5 ratio which she accepted with
Britain and America III the Washington treaty.
There Is nothing sacred about that figure.
Possibly some modification might be fair
that is not question on which the general
American public would be apt 10 have an
opinion; it Is TOO technical
Bat the American public gives 10 sign Of
changing It's opinion as 10 the purpose which
fiNed the 5-5-3 ratio N the first place. The
object vas TO prevent either Japan or the
United States from having an offensive force
against the other. And It Is agreed rather
generally by naval authorities that under the
5-5-3 ratio Japan. in her own waters and
near her own bases. has been superior TO any
five-ratio foreign power. II Japan can show
that. because OF changing naval conditions, a
modification Of the 5-5-3 ratio is necessary
TO preserve the purely defense balance, then
she deserves a fair hearing.
Often 1t Is suggested that the main diff
Guilty IS national pride. That was a foreign
Interpretation Of Tokos recent statement
that Japan VIII demand equality" but not
parity" There must be something wrong
with our diplomacy If We unwittingly have
encouraged the japanese 10 believe that a
smaller naval ratio is a sign OF national in
feriority. We ought 10 be able 70 make them
see that naval requirements are relative. and
that what may be a small navy for one nation
might be a very large navy for another nation.
Certainly Japan does not think that France
and Italy are inferior. or consider themselves
inferior. because they need and accept smaller
ratios than Great Britain and the United
States
50 even the national pride difficulty may be
solved II both SIDES Try hard enough.