CO129-482 - Public Offices - 1923 — Page 20

2

Duke

[This Document is the Property of His Britannic Majesty's Government.]

Enclosure.

The Naval Treaty.

ARTICLE 19.

(Adopted at Meeting of Sub-Committee of Fifteen on Naval Limitation, held at the Pan-American Building on Monday, January 30, 1922, at 3'30 P.M.)

THE United States of America, the British Empire and Japan agree that the status quo at the time of the signing of the present Treaty, with regard to fortifications and naval bases, shall be maintained in their respective territories and possessions specified hereunder :-

1. 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 Panamá Canal zone, not including the Aleutian Islands, and (b) the Hawaiian Islands.

2. Hong Kong and the insular possessions which the British Empire now holds or may hereafter acquire in the Pacific Ocean east of the meridian of 110° 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 of Japan in the Pacific Ocean, to wit: The Kurile Islands, the Bonin Islands, Amami-Oshima, the Loochoo Islands, Formosa and the Pescadores, and any insular territories or possessions in the Pacific Ocean which Japan may hereafter acquire.

The maintenance of the status quo under the foregoing provisions implies that no new fortifications or naval bases shall be established in the territories and possessions specified; that no measures shall be taken to increase the existing naval facilities for the repair and maintenance of naval forces; and that no increase shall be made in the coast defences of the territories and possessions above specified. This restriction, however, does not preclude such repair and replacement of worn-out weapons and equipment as is customary in naval and military establishments in time of peace.

Franklin Square Hotel, Washington, D.C.,

January 30, 1922.

Printed for the Committee of Imperial Defence. January 1923.

18

SECRET.

185-C.

D.20-1

13

COMMITTEE OF IMPERIAL DEFENCE.

DEFENCE OF HONG KONG.

(Previous C.I.D. Papers Nos. 119-C, 120-C, 146-C, 167-C, 181-C and 184-C.)

Copy of Letter from the Foreign Office to the Secretary, Committee of Imperial Defence.

A 24/24/45. Sir,

Foreign Office, January 12, 1923. IN reply to your letter of the 30th December last (I/D/H/2), in which the opinion of the Secretary of State is invited as to whether the extension of the naval dock at Hong Kong is permissible under the terms of the Washington Treaty, I am directed by the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs to say that he is advised that this proposal is clearly not permissible under article 19 of the treaty.

2. The situation, as he understands it in the light of the Admiralty letter to your Committee of the 28th October last (M. 0255), is that there is at present at Hong Kong no existing naval dock which can accommodate H.M.S." Hawkins," and in consequence the "existing naval facilities for the repair and maintenance of naval forces" are to that extent inadequate. If the proposed extension were to be carried out there would be a dock capable of taking this vessel, and it would therefore seem clear that the "existing naval facilities, &c.," would have been increased. If it were permissible to add to the existing dock so as to enable it to take H.M.S." Hawkins," it would seem equally permissible to build a new dock capable of accommodating, eg., H.M.S. "Flood," but it would be impossible to maintain that this would be legitimate under the terms of article 19. The contention that there are commercial docks at Hong Kong capable of taking H.M.S. "Hawkins" does not appear to be material; it was, in the Secretary of State's view, always realised at Washington that in the case of ports like Hong Kong, which is at the same time a naval station and an important commercial port, it was impossible to forbid the increase of the commercial facilities of the port, such as docks, on the ground that the increased facilities would be available for warships. It is therefore only "naval facilities which are dealt with in article 19; but the dock now in question is a purely naval one, to which the provisions of the article undoubtedly apply.

3. The Secretary of State agrees with the Lords Commissioners of the Admiralty in rejecting the interpretation of article 19, referred to in paragraph 8 of their letter of the 28th October. It is his understanding that the wording of paragraph 2 of article 19 ("Hong Kong and insular possessions") was expressly adopted because Hong Kong is not entirely an island, and it was thought impossible to confine the operations of the article to the island itself. The words "coast defences in the article were adopted in order to enable increases to be made in the fortifications on the mainland, in so far as the latter are only capable of defending Hong Kong against an attack from the mainland.

4. Although his opinion on the second and third points referred to in your letter is not specifically requested, the Secretary of State agrees with the Committee's recommendations (b) and (c) regarding the storage at Hong Kong for spare parts for aircraft carried in His Majesty's ships and the establishment of a naval volunteer reserve at Hong Kong.

I am, &c.

(Signed) MAURICE PETERSON.

[9373]