NAVAL OBLIGATIONS.

Auckland Star, Volume LVI, Issue 199, 24 August 1925, Page 5

NAVAL OBLIGATIONS.

POSITION OF DOMINIONS. STRIKING CANADIAN OPINION. "SPONGING OUR WAY." (From Our Special Correspondent.) VANCOUVER, July 2S. The niggardly attitude of certain little Englanders in'the realms of Canadian politics in persistently declining to assist Britain by providing warships for the defence of the British Empire, has aroused the righteous indignation of some of the Imperialistic Press of Canada, following the statement of Mr. Lloyd George in the House of Commons in London concerning the. Dominions' naval obligations, when he said: "I think it is about time the whole British Empire came in and stated frankly that they will take their share. Too much has been left this gallant little country and it is time the Empire said, 'Your burdens are ours.'" • The position of Canada has been typified by the "Montreal Daily Star" in a strikingly trenchant article, eaptioned " "Sponging' our Way." The article,which is of timely interest, says: "Mr. Lloyd George says that the Overseas Dominions have a. direct interest in maintaining the navy, precisely as has the Mother Country. He adds that, having such a ninterest. they should 'chip in' toward its support. "We should dearly like to know which of these propositions the 'spongers' controvert. Australia and New Zealand, at all events, will not pretend that they have no need of a navy. They admit their need in a very practical fashion bytrying to maintain little navies of their own. which, however, are carefully dovetailed int othe Imperial Navy with which they must co-operate to be of any real use. "What are Australia and New Zealand afraid of? The answer is easy — Asiatic penetration. Why is not Canada afraid of the same thing? The answer again is easy —We expect to hide behind the American Navy. "Some people may think that that is a contemptible attitude. We may belong to that company. But that it is our attitude is no secret. This recent disposition to take our foreign policy from Washington r ops up everywhere. In the 'white paper' that has just been issued, containing the dispatches exchanged between the British and Canadian Governments over the Geneva protocol we are reminded that the Canadian Government, in declining to recommend Parliamentary adhesion to the protocol, said: "Among the grounds fo rthis conclusion is consideration of the effect of non-participation of the United States upon attempts to enforce the sanctions, and particularly so in the case of a contiguous country like Canada.' '• 'Looking to Washington' has become a favourite pastime among the official representatives of this country. There were reasons enough in plenty why we should not adhere to the aforesaid protocol without picturing ourselves as shivering in the shadow of American greatness. But we are so little ashamed of it that we put it proudly in our oflicial correspondence. Little Navy People. '•If anyone imagines that the 'little navy , people —the very little navy people —do not depend upon the American Navy to protect up. let him try to think what they would or could say if there were no American Navy. Suppose that nowhere on the Pacific between British Columbia and Asia ther-; rode any armed vessel of a 'white race.' save our own. Would we then feel free to treat the Asiatic as a pariah if we believed that Great Britain had found it too heavy a task to maintain a navy that could police the far-away Pacific? Suppose there w?re nothing to prevent Japan from ending a mole : u armada over to'discuss t _> t'.ic 'genilemcn's agreement' while Vu-furi.i and Vancouver lay under the gun.; of her warship-?. Wo w.: ; id be about ai h-'in-less anl i.ii'alliiitt J as Shanghai i= to-day. "Great Britain would not then have to appeal to us to 'chip in , toward the maintenance of a Pacific squadron. Our fear would be that the British Islanders might not be willing to help us keep a powerful enough navy to meet all Asia in the Pacific. The North Sea is one place and the Pacific is another. And the curious thing is that we were willing to contribute three battle-cruisers to strengthen the defences in the North Sea, while we are not willing to contribute three row-boats to keep watch and ward in Pacific waters which wash our own coasts. Only One Answer. "Why? There is only one answer. We knew in 1012 that the' British Navy had to be strong enough to keep the line in tire North Sea or it would not be kept. The American Navy would not fight there. But we know now that any Asiatic attack on Canada from the Pacific would be Tesisted by the full force of the two greatest navies in the world. why worry? The British taxpayer is far more heavily burdened than 'we are. Unemployment is a far more serious menace there than here. We are riding on another man's ticket — on the tickets of two other men. indeed. But if we are a«liamed —the shame is not sharp enough to cut down into our pockets. "There is something to be said on the other side. We are very badly off financially. We cannot pay our way as it is. It is easy to say that we might tax ourselves np'to the British standard: but. if we did. we would dangerously inflame the wound of the exodus. Canada cannot afford to be a much dearer place to live in than the United States. "We are building the Esquimalt dry dock. If it is properly done it may serve as a subsidiary Singapore. In other commercial ways, we are of value to the Empire. Bankruptcy and separation would be poor services to render to the British Commonwealth of Nations. No one is pressing Canada to do the impossible.