By GARETH
JONES
While in Japan Mr Gareth Jones submitted a number of questions to
the Naval Minister, Admiral Osumi and the War Minister, General
Hayashi. Today we publish Admiral Osumi Mineo ’s answers.
(Interview March 4th 1935. Published July 1935)
What would you consider to be fair and just terms for a naval
treaty with Great Britain and the United States?
Japan is earnest in her desire for a new limitation treaty that
shall be fair and just. Japan, Great Britain, and the United
States, the three leading sea Powers of the world face one another
in the three important sections of the world and are in a position
to co-operate for the furtherance of world peace. I believe they
ought to shake off the shackles of past circumstances, discard
competitive ideas and prejudices, stand on equal footing, and make
united efforts for accomplishing the common mission of peace.
So far as the problems concern the Navy, I think it is
absolutely necessary to fix a common upper limit of fighting power
for the three Powers by taking into account their geographical
relation and the increased mobility of modern maritime, forces, and
so to attain the common aim of co-operation. As an answer to
the universal desire for the limitation of armaments these great
naval Powers should take the initiative in fixing such upper limit
as low as possible, then proceed either to abolish or drastically to
cut down those units characterised by formidable offensive power so
as to render defence effective and offence difficult. Thus they
would pave the way to the consolidation of peace and the lightening
of the financial burdens on all the peoples of the world. This is
our firm faith and will be the governing principle of our attitude
in the forthcoming naval conference.
Being convinced of the impossibility of reaching a just and fair
agreement unless the parties approach each other in such a spirit,
we must stand firm in our position, and I trust the U.S.A., England,
and other Powers will appreciate the sincerity of our motives and
give us their unstinted support. Thus we think and feel and I do
not believe the forthcoming conference will end in failure.
What will be your policy in the event no treaty being
reached?
I do not wish to speculate on the basis of an assumption that the
next conference is going to fail.
Washington Treaty
How would you explain Japan’s reasons for denouncing the
Washington Treaty?
The Washington Treaty was concluded under the peculiar circumstances
following the Great War. Fourteen years have since passed. Times
have changed, manners as well. The progress of science and new
international developments in that period have made the terms of
that Treaty inadequate to meet the requirements of altered
conditions
Japan can no longer depend on that Treaty for security so we have
taken steps to terminate it in strict accordance with the express
provisions of that Treaty.
Admiral N, Suetsugu states
in the “Osaka
Mainichi” (Quoted in the Far Eastern Review January, 1935): -
Japan’s geographical position makes it impossible for any
prospective invaders effectively to blockade the Island Empire.
Japan is an easy country to defend, but a difficult one to invade
from without. If this is so why does Japan claim a navy as big as
that of U.S.A. or of Great Britain?
Newspapers are liable to misquotation. I do not care to comment on a
newspaper story of this kind.
Will not Japan’s financial situation force a reduction in
naval expenditure?
A minimum of
defence power is something absolute. Our people fully understand
it.
What is your attitude towards the strengthening of the Singapore
Naval Base?
The Singapore fortification does not conflict with existing treaties. I
do not like to touch on this subject. But, how would you feel if you
were in the position of the Japanese people.
What is your attitude towards American plans for developing bases in
Alaska and on the Aleutian Islands?
I do not wish to comment on this subject in the light of mere newspaper
reports. With regard to the Aleutian group the provisions of the
Washington Treaty remain effective to the end of 1936.
What part would the Japanese Navy play in counteracting an air
attack?
The aerial arm of the Navy takes charge of the defence in co-operation
with the floating units. On the Navy first devolves the duty of
fighting in defence against aerial attacks from overseas.
*
Does Japan’s leaving the League of Nations mean that she with
consider herself free to fortify the mandated islands in the Pacific?
Our withdrawal from the League will not in any way affect our policy of
strictly observing our obligations regarding the construction ef
fortifications and naval and military bases in the mandated zone.
The Philippines
Admirals Suetsugu states: “If America washes her hands of the
Philippines as the rest of the world hopes, the islands door may be
opened to ambitions young men, particularly from Japan for further
developing the untapped resources of the island.” Would the Japanese
Navy be prepared to maintain the independence and neutrality of the
Philippines, if that neutrality were guaranteed by an international
treaty?
Just as in the case of the earlier question I have nothing to say on
this subject. I will assure you it is co-existence and co-prosperity
that Japan wishes to attain. Aggressive thoughts are not with us.
What would your attitude be towards the formation of a European Air
Police Force?
I wish all success to the formation of European Air Police Force.
|