500.A15A5 Construction/133: Telegram
The Ambassador in the United Kingdom (Kennedy) to the Secretary of State
[Received March 12—12:45 p.m.]
207. 1. Your 103, March 8, 8 p.m. At the request of the Foreign Office Johnson and Captain Willson met informally yesterday afternoon with subordinate Admiralty and Foreign Office officials. The object of the British primarily was to give us their views regarding escalation under article 25. They had prepared a lengthy argument in support of their stand, the gist of their contention being contained in the two following paragraphs, the full text being forwarded by mail.15
“Articles 25 and 26 of the London Naval Treaty were intended to apply to entirely different circumstances. It was article 25 which was intended to apply to the case of construction outside treaty limits by a power not a party to the treaty.
Article 26 is specifically stated to be applicable to any change of circumstances ‘other than those provided for in articles … 25’. It was never intended that article 26 should be utilized in order to overcome a technical defect in a case for escalation properly falling under article 25. In brief, article 26 was not intended to give any right to depart from treaty limits but only, while keeping within those limits, to effect a departure from annual programmes for the current year already declared.”
The British claim that their position is strongly supported by paragraphs 23 and 24 of “observations” annexed to the report of the Drafting Committee of the London Naval Conference, 1936. These two [Page 901] paragraphs are on page 217 of “Documents of London Naval Conference”. While neither article 25 nor 26 of the treaty exactly fits the case, the two paragraphs 23 and 24 above cited appear, in our view, to support the British thesis. The British point out in this connection that escalation under article 26 would have to be an annual affair and would involve first announcing a programme, something which has not yet been done by any power, and then changing that programme. Further instructions are requested concerning these points.
2. Your 96, March 5, 3 p.m. It appears that the Japanese Ambassador reported to Tokyo his approaches here and has received a reply from the Japanese Government that in its opinion the present time was inopportune for explorations along that line. The Foreign Office has been advised and will instruct Ambassador Craigie to use his discretion in the matter as far as any talks with the Japanese Foreign Office are concerned. The Foreign Office here says Ambassador Yoshida is continually making suggestions of various kinds which are later repudiated by his own Government.
The British agree with numbered paragraphs 4 and 5 of your 96, March 5, 3 p.m., and they wish to escalate now with respect to the size but not the armament of capital ships sub-category (a), reserving full freedom of action otherwise. The British interpret numbered paragraphs 2 and 3 of your 103, March 8, 8 p.m., as applying to the immediate present and assume that further discussion will be held as provided in paragraph 3, article 25 of the London Naval Treaty, 1936.
3. The following was furnished as a tentative draft of a note concerning escalation:
“With reference to article 25 of the Naval Treaty signed in London on the 25th March, 1936, I have the honour in accordance with paragraph (2) of that article, to notify Your Excellency that His Majesty’s Government in the United Kingdom find it necessary to exercise the right reserved in paragraph (1) of effecting a departure from the limitations and restrictions of the treaty.
The proposed departure consists in the construction of capital ships of sub-category (a) exceeding 35,000 tons (35,560 metric tons) standard displacement. The precise extent of the departure will depend on the result of the consultations provided for in paragraph (3), but the proposal of His Majesty’s Government relates to tonnage only and not to any increase in the maximum calibre of gun permitted for capital ships by the treaty.
The reasons for the above proposal consist in the reports received by His Majesty’s Government and confirmed by discussion with the United States and French Governments, to the effect that Japan is constructing or has authorized the construction of capital ships of a tonnage not in conformity with the limitations and restrictions of the treaty.”
- Despatch No. 43, March 15, not printed.↩