America’s Maritime Ambitions

Press, Volume LXXIX, Issue 24074, 9 October 1943, Page 4

America’s Maritime Ambitions

Admiral Howard Vickery, a member of the United States Maritime Commission, recently told Washington journalists on his return from England that he had informed the British, “bluntly,” that the United States intends to become a maritime nation, and remain one, after the war. Britain would find it “ advis- “ able ” to co-operate with America, and he believed the British were ready to co-operate.' Four months ago, Mr P. J. Noel-Baker, Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of War Transport, announced in the House of Commons the three guiding principles of British post-war shipping policy. First, Britain must have a large and efficient mercantile marine; second, the British Government will be ready to collaborate with other like-minded Governments in establishing conditions in which the shipping of the world can be efficiently and economically carried on; and third, the best possible working conditions must be given the officers and men of the mercantile marine. In the same debate Sir Arthur Salter, the other Joint Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry, went further by saying that there must be international collaboration. Nothing has been, said since to suggest that these principles have been abandoned or even altered; and they appear to be favoured by the House and by the shipping industry in Britain. For instance, the General Council of British Shipping, expressing the views of the United Kingdom Chamber of Shipping and the Liverpool Steam Ship. Ojwners’ As soda-

tion, finds collaboration “obviously “ preferable to out-and-out com- “ petition.” In the years between this war . and the last British ship owners had to fight, with their own reserves and abilities, the Statesubsidised services of the United States, Japan, Italy, and Germany, among others, md they weakened under the intense pressure. To them the case for international cooperation and international agreements is clear. Why Admiral Vickery should now “ advise ” Britain to follow a course she already favours is not. The United States has equally good reason to accept it, though Admiral Vickery permitted himself to say only that he thought his country “ could “ co-operate.” The story of United States merchant shipping, since the last war'especially, shows that collaboration would be to America’s advantage no less than Britain’s. After the vast building programme of the last war the United States had an ocean-going merchant navy of 14,500,000 tons, nearly five times the pre-war tonnage. Not since the Clipper the United States had a fleet in keeping with her foreign trade,,and Congress set out to maintain it. A shipping board was formed, which operated this, great State-owned fleet first by itself and later through private companies acting as paid .agents. But this policy was both costly and uneconomic. For more than J. 7 years no fewer than 38 separate uneconomic services were maintained at an average cost to the taxpayer of about 40,000,000 dollars a year. “ Vast sums were poured “into these lines,” said a report by the Maritime Commission in 1937. “Notwithstanding, we have steadily “ lost ground. Our foreign-going “ fleet has dwindled until to-day “. . . we are faced with a further “ reduction to the point where all “ the remaining subsidised vessels “will have a tonnage about equal “to that of a single good line “abroad.” The lesson is that America will become a maritime nation and remain one, not “ whether or no Britain co-operates,” but if Britain co-operates.