Evening Post. MONDAY, JANUARY 17, 1921. THE NEXT CONFERENCE

Evening Post, Volume CI, Issue 14, 17 January 1921, Page 6

Evening Post. MONDAY, JANUARY 17, 1921. THE NEXT CONFERENCE

In his statement to an interviewer at New York, Mr. Doherty, who has been representing Canada at the meeting of the' Assembly of the League of Nations at Geneva, combines an uncompromising assertion of Canadian independence in foreign policy with a belief in the maintenance of Imperial unity. "I have the utmost confidence," he says, "that the Empire will hold, but the Empire members must stand together on the basis of agreement, not on the basis,of control. It is necessary to get the voice of all the nations that compose it in order to get the voice of the Empire." This is sound Imperialism and sound common sense, and it is one of which the immediate moral is not weakened by any differences of opinion as to the ultimate constitution of either the Empire or the League of Nations. In the light-hearted enthusiasm -which was excitedi by the cdncession of an independent status to the British Dominions on the League of Nations, it was far too widely assumed that this unexpected development had by a single, stroke fundamentally altered the conditions of the Imperial problem and superseded the demand for Imperial reorganisation. Mr/ Doherty's statement explodes whatever was left of this comfortable delusion. The official representation of the oldest, the most powerful, and the most eelf-confident of the Dominions draws from his experience at the first meeting of the Assembly of the League of Nations a conclusion which implies that the independent representation of. the Dominions on the Assembly has strengthened the need for Imperial unity and for the consultation which alone can secure it. We are all agreed that the basis of Imperial unity must be agreement and not-control, but the disagreement of the Imperial partners in the debates of the League of Nations would not make for unity or for success in either their general or their individual aims. . . , In order to get the voice of the Empire we must, says Mr. Doherty, get the voice of all the nations that compose it, and it is clear that this cannot be secured if differences of aim and point of view are left to be adjusted in the open debates of the League or in its lobbies or ante-rooms. The (assumption by the Dominions of a direct responsibility in foreign affairs which had hardly been seriously considered before the war has-, emphasised the need for improving the existing methods of co-operation, consultation, and conference, and for devising such new ones as may appear to be practicable. So far from having been superseded or weakened in any way bythe League of Nations, the work of the Imperial Conference has thus become of greater importance than ever. It is true that the ideal of a close Imperial consolidation under a brand-new constitution which ,the unifying effect of the war seemed to have brought almost within our grasp has receded once more into the region of the visionary. Now thatour blood has had time to cool, the task appears infinitely more difficult than it did while our sense of danger was keen and our enthusiasm at fever heat. The Conference which .has been summoned for June next will not even have this business among its agenda. Mr. Bonar Law has made ; t quite clear that tins gathering will not be the Special Constitutional Conference contemplated by Resolution IX. of the Imperial War Confprstipi; olt HH7, niwl iv« hsliove Hint in so deciding the British G-ovwiusent hafi

acted wisely. Both the Mother Country and the daughter States have been far too busy during the last two years with the gigantic problems of peace-making and reconstruction to pay any close attention to the Imperial question. Much hard thinking will be needed before any substantial step in advance can be taken, and a perfunctory consideration of such a problem by the Imperial Conference without this necessary preparation might easily do more harm than good. But to infer from this limitation of the proceedings of the Imperial Conference of 1921 that there is nothing left for it to do would be a grievous blunder. With the possible exception of the Oonferences of 1917 and 1918, which ww« given the status of Imperial War Cabinets, no Imperial Conference has had more momentous business to consider than tffe one which will assemble in June. • The fact that it wiE be the, first such conference to meet after the international conferences which met at Paris and Geneva would of iteelf suffice to give it a unique importance. Many an old prob. lem has been given a new face by the work of the Peace Conference and the League of Nations, and many <new problems have been created. If there had been nothing else for the statesmen of the Empire to consider, these questions alone would have justified their meeting for the purpose of taking counsel together.. Has any Imperial Conference ever had a more important issue submitted to it than the renewal of the AngloJapaneee Treaty which, after being formally referred to the League of Nations, now awaits the consideration of Great Britain and the Dominions? The question is one of special concern to Australia and New Zealand, and what they have always regarded as a life-and-death question for themselves might even become a life-and-deiath question for the Empire if it were indiscreetly handled. The opportunity now presented for dealing with the question without airing important differences before an international tribunal is one- for which we should all be thankful.' Without touching the constitutional issue, which has 1 been wisely reserved for more leisurely treatment, the Conference will also have the broader aspects of foreign policy before it, and the means of focussing Imperial opinion' upon them under existing conditions. It is eurely unnecessary, to say more in order to illustrate the importance of the coming Conference and the duty of our Government to see that New Zealand is represented as strongly as possible, and that her representatives are well equipped by the fullest possible inquiry and discussion. That the Prime Minister should be one of these representatives is, of course, highly desirable, but we are not surprised that he doubts whether the demand* of domestic policy will not keep him here. Failing him, the country would be well represented by Sir Francis Bell and Sir James Allen. The latter's experience at Geneva would, in any case, be of the utmost value, but it is to be hoped^that the Prime Minister will realieo that no possible arrangement will dispense with the need for a thorough consideration of all probable issues by the whole Cabinet.