LABOUR AND EMPIRE

Auckland Star, Volume LIV, Issue 219, 13 September 1923, Page 4

LABOUR AND EMPIRE

While it may bo indiscreet to accept Mr. Sturr as the accredited mouthpiece of tho Independent Labour Party, tho view's that lio lias expressed on Imperialism and Empire problems throw an interesting light on the attitude of at least ono eeetion of British. Labour toward these important questions. The point io T>e observed, particularly In this pronouncement is that ifc accepts tho Empire as "a great fact and that it asserts the duty of Labour to recognise the fact, and to accept the responsibilities that it rntails. From Mr. Sturr'a reference; to tho Commonwealth lyabour Party's declaration favouring complete self-government for Australia, we may surmise that some of the Labour leaders at Homo regard British Imperialism as still inclined to encroach upon the rights and privileges of Britain's oversea dependencies; and this suggestion is made the text for a vigorous protest against the proposal which hius certainly found favour in some circles nt Home for "mi Imperial legislature wielding coercive power" In this sense we agree entirely with Mr. Shirr that, "the creation of v superParliament in the Umpire may be regarded as outside the realm of practical politics." And. in view of the British Labour Party's recent increase in strength and the possible contingency of a Labour Oovernment sooner or later at Home, it is very satisfactory to receive this assurance I hat. in regard to this important question, at least one section of British Labour is wholly in accord with public opinion throughout the Dominions. Hut from the standpoint of the Kinpire regarded as 11 whole it. is even I more important to observe that Laliour as represented by Mr. Sturr, while admitting the necess.it v for the maintenance of the Imperial' unit., accepts also the duties mid responsibilities Unit this implies. For Mr. Sturr not only admits the "great fuel" of Empire; he I grants Ihe necessity for shouldering I that share of the burden of civilisation which has recently taken the form of "mandated territories." We arc not inclined to quarrel uilh Mr. Sturr's opinions as to the manner in which Britain, for example, i.- to deal with the task entrusted to her by the League of Nations or the Concert of the Powers. Indeed ue approve entirely of his contention that as far as possible Britain should regard herself in the liberal .sense of the term as "trustee" for the undeveloped countries and the uncivilised races thus relegated to her I care. That the inhabitants of I topical | regions should, as far a- possible, benefit by their contact with the mate rial advantages of civilisation, that they should he trained and encouraged To improve and to govern themselves and that they should not be "exploited" in the -ense of being plundered or reduced to industrial serfdom —these are prinl riples which most intelligent people. Socialists or not. will he inclined to i accept as defining the policy that the 1 civilised races ought to adopt in dealing with relatively uncivilised peoples. No, doubt, in matters of detail, Mr. Sturr. | ,as a Socialist, Would differentiate his I point of view- sharply from our own. j | But the point in his profession of faith that requires to lie emphasised most strongly is. as we have already indicated.' his recognition of the necessity for main- ' I taining the Fmpire and his admission of the responsibilities | hat its existence involves for its rulers. Such a view of Imperialism is in striking contrast I with tne incoherent and bitter diatribes against the British F.mpire in which so many Labour leaders in New Zealand and Australia have frequently indulged, and it is to be hoped that'those who have fallen into the pernicious habit of denouncing indiscriminately the Empire and every form and aspect of British Imperialism in the name of Lak-;ir may , be induced to reflect seriously upon the latest British Labour view. ' I