After the end of WWI the world wanted to insure that there would never again be a war as disastrous as this. One such way that was avidly supported was the disarmament of nations, or the limiting of stored military weapons and forces. The Washington Naval Conference was aimed at both reducing the sizes of navies, as well as dealing with the issues present in Asia. Invited to the conference were nine nations the United Kingdom, Japan, France, Italy, Belgium, China, Portugal, and the Netherlands. However only the United Kingdom, Japan, France, and Italy were invited to the discussions regarding naval capacity. By the end of the conference three treaty had been signed, the five, four, and nine, power treaties.
The five power treaty was the United States, the United Kingdom, France, Italy, and Japan. It assigned each country to a ratio of warship tonnage. This ratio that was set forth, allowed for the United States and the United Kingdom to have 500,000 tons each, Japan 300,000 tons and only for 175,000 tons each for France and Italy. The rationale behind these choices was that the US and UK both had to protect their colonial holdings in both the Pacific and Atlantic oceans, thus they both needed larger naval strength. Although the treaty was often thought of as a success there was one key loopwhole. The treaty aimed to reduce naval size by limiting the production of capital ships increase the scrapping of old ships. However this specific restriction on ship type lead to a race of countries to build more cruisers, an unrestricted type of ship. This race forced the countries to reconvene in 1927 and 1930 in order to resolve the remaining conflicts.
The second treaty signed was the four power treaty, which stated that the US, France, the UK, and Japan all agreed to consult with each other before taking action in any future crisis in East Asia. This treaty was meant as a fix to the Anglo-Japanese Treaty of 1902, as this treaty entailed that if the US and Japan were ever involved in conflict the UK may be forced to join on the side of Japan. This fact was previously not a problem as it was only recently that Japan had started to become a sizable power, with the potential to interfere with the lucrative trade in China. This treaty simply guaranteed that if conflict ever did arise, no country would be forced to join, however there would be a system of discussion for the countries is such a conflict were to occur.
The final treaty that was signed was the nine power treaty which allowed for the internationalization of the United States’ open door policy in China. The treaty states that all participating nations would respect China’s sovereignty, other than Manchuria which went to the Japanese. In turn China would not discriminate against any country that wished to do business. The treaty similar to the four power treaty allowed for the opening of discussion in the case of any violations, however this meant that there was no way to enforce the treaty for all.
The Washington Naval conference created several treaties all of which intended to continue with what was currently accepted in the Pacific. It guaranteed the existing interests without changing them in any major way.
Sources:
http://www.britannica.com/event/Washington-Conference-1921-1922
Would you say that this treaty represents the world's refusal to solve diplomatic problems by means of war? Or is it just another chapter in the long history of power politics? How did the US and UK justify being given the most tonnage of warships?
ReplyDeletehttp://www.britannica.com/event/Washington-Conference-1921-1922
I wouldn't say that the treaty shows a refusal to much of anything, rather it shows an attempt at change, but still with strong stubbornness. Countries liked their militaries, and they didn't want to give it up, nor did they want to give up their chances to have a larger army than there rival nations. The fact that the US and UK were allowed to have the greatest amount of warships, was most likely due to that fact that they were not only the most powerful nations at the time, but they were the most rebuilt, and in the case of the US, the ones hosting the conference, allowing them the leverage to get just about anything they wanted.
DeleteI think you should give more detail on the background of the conference but I do like the detail you give about the conference. I didn't know that President Harding hosted and called for the conference and I think that is an important part of his presidency and therefore an important part of the Conference itself. Do you believe that this was a big part of his presidency? Did it affect how the people viewed him?
ReplyDeletesource-http://totallyhistory.com/washington-naval-conference/
It was unfortunate that the Allied powers were able to decide the terms of the treaty for everyone else. Their end product relfects the imperialistic natures they had because each country only made decisions that would benefit them. Although very unlikely, if each country had an equal say in the treaty, do you think there would have been another World War? This article talks about the conditions Germany had to live through and how it causes another World War:
ReplyDeletehttp://www.ushmm.org/wlc/en/article.php?ModuleId=10005425
I agree that things could have turned out better if all the nations came together and reached an agreement that they all accepted. However this seems extraordinarily unlikely, as no nation would whole heartedly agree to being forced into having a smaller navy than those around them. And if they were all limited to the same size, then there would be complaints about relative inequality, and the arguments would simply go in circles, achieving nothing.
DeleteI do agree that this treaty was crucial in preventing an arms race and mass destruction which we see later during the Cold War. I like that you brought up the loopholes in this treaty and why it was flawed. I also think it is important to bring up that Article XIX of the treaty had detrimental impacts during WWII. It permitted Japan, the United Kingdom, and the U.S. from expanding into the Pacific. This meant that U.S. could not fortify Pacific strongholds, such as Hawaii, Guam, and the Philippines. This made U.S. lawmakers skeptical and I would argue that the Conference did not guarantee the existing interests because it did require a compromise.
ReplyDeletehttps://history.state.gov/milestones/1921-1936/naval-conference