DOMINIONS' POLICY.

Auckland Star, Volume LXVIII, Issue 271, 15 November 1937, Page 6

DOMINIONS' POLICY.

IF BRITAIN WERE AT WAR.

HOPES AND RESERVATIONS.

"International Affairs" for SeptemberOctober is a special Commonwealth ii*sue, devoted to reviews and reflections prompted by the Imperial Conference. Representative contributors make an attempt to define basic issues from the standpoint of the Dominions, and to clarify present relationships between component parts of the Commonwealth of Nations. Difficulties are encountered on almost every subject, but the problem of defence and foreign policy obviously is the most important and the most acute. On this grave issue the conscientious reader derives two main impressions: (1) That the Dominions shrink from definite commitments; (2) that any situation imperilling the United Kingdom and Empire integrity would rapidly consolidate roost, if not the whole, of the Empire forces.

Mr. H. V. Hodson, editor of the "Round Table," leads the symposium with a general review of the conference, and some helpful explanations, showing that the absence of tangible results is not necessarily evidence of son-success. He admits that on the question of defence the uniformities of outlook definitely yield pride of place to the differences. In his opinion, if Australia and New Zealand were the only two Dominions they would have subscribed to "something much closer in the way of co-operation."

Absence of Commitments. "Reading between the line*," Mr. Hodson says, "one can see a good deal of progress, on paths that diverge from strict uniformity for the whole Commonwealth, in certain directions of defence co-operation and understanding." When all factors Have been assessed, Mr. Hodson draws attention to renewed stress on the absence of commitments in one of the vital sentences in the conference report: "Each of the Commonwealth countries would thus be enabled to ensure more effectively its own security, and, if it is so desired, to co-operate with other countries of the Commonwealth with the least possible delay."

The attitude and policy of each of the Dominions are not explicitly defined, either by the principal statesmen or by those who interpret their views. From the articles contained in this number, however, the following general indications of policy in respect of defence and foreign policy may be presented as representative. Canada's Three Points. As a general rule, Canada's policy is to occupy a back seat at Geneva or elsewhere, when European or Asiatic problems are being discussed. Canada Is under no obligation to participate in the military or economic sanctions of the League, or in the defence of any other part of the Commonwealth. Before the Canadian Government agrees in future to participate in military or economic sanctions, or in war, the approval of the Parliament or people of Canada will be secured. These points have been stated by the Canadian Prime Minister with candour and clarity, and can be accepted as a fair, thou?h not a complete, statement of Canada's attitude under the present Liberal Government. Australian Attitude. Australia's position is stated by the present Federal Treasurer, Mr. Casey:— Our policy generally is based on the belief that the British Fleet, or some appreciable portion of it, will be able to move freely eastward in case we in Australia get into any trouble in that part of the world. Any world movement that appears to threaten the ability of the British Fleet to move freely eastward would be of great concern to us.

On the fundamentals of foreign policy, Australian thought w completely in line with thought in Great Britain. There has always been since the end of the war a great desire that Britain should not embroil herself in Europe again. We are an intensely loyal people. It is quite impossible for any Dominion to engage itself in any literal sense in respect of the foreign commitments of (Jreat Britain. That does not betoken any lack of loyalty to the Imperial idea, as far as Australia is concerned. We were not committed in 1014. and I think it can Ik? assumed that for the future we will l>e no more backward in any real emergency than we were at that time.

The Xew Zealand attitude, as defined by Dr. W. B. Sntch. may he summarised: Xew Zealand stands for a stronger league of Xntions and the full use of sanctions against aggressors. In any Empire defence scheme Xew Zealand will play it« part, although that does not necessarily mean automatic support in all cases.

The attitude of South Africa is considered in a long review by Senator Malan. whose main conclusion is: The extent of South Afriea's participation in any conflict outside her own borders will depend on her own judgment of the merits of the case as expressed by her own Parliament.