Evening star., 1936-01-16
End of Naval Limitation.

L
Japan has taken the step long fore
shadoWed as inevitable, and bolted tne
London Naval Conference. Refusal OF
other powers to concur in the demand
for common upper limit of tonnage"
the japanese definition of parity, led
Admiral Nagano to declare that no uSelul
object could be served by further par
ticipation in the conference. Dellbera-
tias will continue at four-poWer con-
ference, but all concerned are conscious
that for practical purposes naval Nmlta-
ton is at an end. Japanese determlna-
tion to build regardless of ratios means
that the road once again is open for that
costly and perilous competition IN naval
construction which it was sought to
abolish at Washington in 1922. II
would be idle to pretend that the cause
of world peace has not suffered
setback.
To the last Japan contended that she
required feet equality for psychological
reasons. 1.-The ALLEGATION OF an inferior
ratio" Japan says, "is so detrimental TO
our national prestige that it is bound
to produce serious repercusSions in our
country, it already being the source OF
permanent and profound discomfort.
Japanese militarists maintain that an
underlying cause of China's resistance
to Japan's rights" in that country Is
the impression connoted by the 5-5-3
ratio that Japan is a second-rate nation
and can therefore be defed with
impunity.
Directly to the point is the question
of security involved in Japan's claims.
From both British and American stand
points, the present equilibrium OF all
around security would be dangerously
disturbed by the parity Toxic seeks. The
case was tersely put by the United States
chief delegate, Norman H. Davis, In
closing statement to the conference.
Equal armaments," he said, do not
insure equal security. 1t is possible to
change some factors, but you cannot
change geography Equality OF security
as recognized and established at the
washington Conference can mean only
superiority of defense in each country's
own waters. The japanese dele
cation stated that one of the objects OF
their proposal is to create state OF
non-aggression and non-menace.' We
are convinced that this state now exists
among the signatories of the naval
treaties" Mr.. Davis explained that in
view of conditions in the Far East,
Europe and Africa, the United States Is
unwilling to consent to any change which
would lessen its relative security, par
ticularly in the absence of greater assur-
ance than We now have that to do so
would establish regime of non-menace
and non aggression"
In so far as this plain-speaking applies
to Japan, it means that the Western
nations see in her ambition to become
more powerful at sea nothing but an
intention to assure her mastery of Asia
and diminish the possibility that it can
ever be challenged. Current japanese
activities in North China are fresh notice
to the world of Japan's program for Far
Eastern supremacy. Nor is her refusal
to join in a guarantee of Philippine inde-
pendence exactly reinsurance Of the
innocence of her purposes.
London dispatches suggest that COL
lapse of naval limitation is bound to lead
to Anglo-American cooperation for safe
guarding mutual interests in the Far
East. Already, too, there is discussion
of the likelihood that both Britain and
the United States will undertake fortifi-
cation of their Pacific possessions on a
scale now forbidden by treaty. There is
likewise prompt indication that if the
Japanese insist upon creating a feet
beyond ratio dimensions, such action will
be countered by building programs de-
signed to perpetuate that equality of
security" so cogently defined by Mr..
Davis.
The Japanese have elected to go their
own way. That Britain and America
will be guided accordingly, with respect
to their own naval policies and their
legitimate interests in the East, is fore
oooo conclusion