DEFENCE PLANS FOR EMPIRE

Press, Volume LXXXII, Issue 25022, 2 November 1946, Page 9

DEFENCE PLANS FOR EMPIRE

CONTRIBUTION FROM dominions CRITICISM BY LABOUR MEMBER <N.Z. Press Association—Copyright) (Rec. 8 p.m.) LONDON Oct 11 fence U S in th/ h w debate ° n Imperial deR W G M»S USe ( T O£ u Col & mons . Mr while hid (Labour) 1 said that the UnitJri d <st d J" agreement with board for a joint defence Canada ■ not one between and Britain, and the samp ZeakSd. appUed t 0 Australia and New th? mai? <h° n 6d Part, to to Dominions were willing 1- ? the defence of the Empire. Australia s failure to contribute to the amo?e 6 was the best extiS were not interested in the Mediterranean or Europe. They Derial°dpfp nt tO part ip an y penal defence machinery. ' Thev hrfd already entered into agreements IX n V^ h mSe j Ves -- The ency m the Empire to-day was not Unit°e°d Natk,ns Pire dSfence ’ but the

Mr Mackay said that the British Commonwealth was a world-wide organisation, and it could only be deiended if all the Commonwealth memc,?me together and formed the federation, which they would not. The House' must either bring the Dominions together or realise that each U< i r P ln i or ‘ u : ou,d go its own way. Mr K. Zilhacus (Labour) said that al ioa and i New ealand coritemt Plated regional areas for defence, embracing not only Britain and other dominions, but other Pacific countries. History showed that military agreements carried political obligations. He saw significance in General Eisens W* to 4 Britain and Field-Mar-shal Lord Montgomery’s to the United States. In practice, Empire defence was beginning to mean the formation or a British-American bloc under American leadership, leaving the United Nations Charter as so much thin air and building up the balance of power against Russia, which was causing apprehension. Brigadier A. H. Head (Conservative) said that the Empire was now facing an entirely different threat from any it had ever faced before, therefore Imperial defence must not be based on a slavish interpretation of the Statute of Westminster, but must be so based that it could fit the nature of a new threat.

Captain A. R. Blackburn (Labour) called for a British Commonwealth scientific office responsible to the Commonwealth and paid by the Commonwealth. He said he > would like to see the capital of the Empire shifted annually to other countries of the Empire.

“I believe that if a third war comes the British Commonwealth would be less vulnerable than Russia and the United States, and we must look forward to the creation of a world-wide Commonwealth which is a reality so

that nations will not still think that by destroying London it will be possible to eradicate the British Commonwealth,” added Captain Blackburn. Mr R. A. Eden (Conservative) said there was. agreement with the basis of the scheme, but he doubted whether it was really necessary for the Chancellor of the Exchequer to be a permanent member of the Defence Committee. The conception of treating defence as a whole meant that the allocation of available resources should be arrived at on purely defence considerations in which Treasury conditions had no part. Mr Eden said it was essential that the Dominions secretary should have sufficient knowledge of the work of the Defence Committee to enable him to make his contacts with the High Commissioners as useful as possible, but he did not think he should be a permanent member of the committee. Replying to the debate, Mr A. V. Alexander said the crux of the matter was the arrangements to be made for contact with the Dominions on defence matters. All should remember the amazing contribution the Dominionsand the colonies had made in the war. “Sometimes we talk of the Dominions as brothers and daughters, but we should now regard them as brothers and daughters who have grown up,” said Mr Alexander. “If the proposals outlined in the White Paper are accepted by the Dominions it would be the aim of the Government to make them effective.” Committee Defended

Defending the proposed composition of the committee, Mr Alexander shid the Chancellor of the Exchequer was concerned not only with the financial policy but also with various branches of industry in the country which would all be a part* of the war potential. There must also be the closest contact between the Ministry of Defence and the Chiefs of Staff. The aim should be to provide an efficient fighting force in which the tail was kept as short as possible and the teeth as long and keen as possible. Mr Alexander appealed for support for the maintenance of sufficient forces to hold the situation in any part of the Empire which might be attacked until the United Nations could act. They must also have sufficient forces to fulfil comrpitments under the United Nations Charter.

The motion, approving the White Paper was carried without a division. Commenting on the defence debate “The Times” in a leading article says that Mr Attlee gave an assurance that there is no intention of excluding the Dominions Secretary from the Defence Committee when matters of Commonwealth concern are under discussion, but many members felt the proposed facilities for consultation through liaison officers did not go fai enough. “Strategy demands decision which is something much more than consultation,” adds “The Times.” “It is precisely to secure a decision in United Kingdom defence planning that the Ministry of Defence is being set up, but the Dominions have their own foreign policy and therefore necessarily their separate defence policies as well. “That each should undertake the defence of one territory or region is not in itself a sufficient principle of common action for it leaves undetermined the most fundamental question of all, namely, how the lines of communication between them are to be defended. In the nineteenth century this was the Royal Navy’s function, and the 1926 Imperial Conference in effect declared that responsibility must continue to rest on Britain. That resolution is now manifestly outdated, but it has never been rescinded, and consideration of how the Commonwealth’s defence obligations are to be redistributed among the partners according to their present capacities, a question on which their very survival may come to depend, remains to be squarely faced.”

Savings Committee Chairman Resigns.—Lord Kindersley, pioneer of the savings movement in Britain, who was chairman of the National savings Committee in 1916 and also continuously since 1920, has resigned for health reasons.—London, October 31,