Evening Post. SATURDAY, APERIL 30, 1921. NATIONAL OBLIGATIONS.

Evening Post, Volume CI, Issue 102, 30 April 1921, Page 4

Evening Post. SATURDAY, APERIL 30, 1921. NATIONAL OBLIGATIONS.

Professor Berriedale' Keith's statement regarding the unreadiness of the Dominions for the. status which their recognition by the Peace Conference and'the League of Nations has so rapidly established makes unpleasant reading, and it is all the more unpleasant because it is absolutely true, It is not only true of) this country, which made no demand for the change and which views with apprehension the interpretation placed upon it by other Dominions, but it is equally true of the larger Dominions, which brought about the change by their insistence and appear to find the new dignity highly gratifying to their pride. The reason given by Professor Keith for regarding tlie Dominions'as not fully prepared for the status which they have so suddenly and with so little forethought acquired is simple and unanswerable. " This," he 6ays, "is most conclusively shown by the unwillingness of any of the Dominions, even Australia., to face the. burden of a just share in the cost of naval defence. Years must elapse before the United Kingdom can expect any 'serious aid in this direction, except possibly from Australia." From one point of view New Zealand 1 may be able to accept with ■ equanimity this pronouncement of the unfitness ■ of the Dominions for.the national status which has been conceded to them, because she put forward no* claim for it and has made no fuss about it. On the other hand, a Dominion which is disposed to take credit to itself for the strong Imperial senti.raent that resents the change in question has reason for special shame that it is not mentioned as one that may be expected to take its fair share of Imperial defence. The Canadian. Opposition has shown itself eager to prove the truth of Professor Keith's words in their application to Canada. It has asked the Canadian, House of Commons to "declare against the taking of any step at the Imperial Conference that would involve a change in the relations of Canada to other parts of the Empire, and also to say " that in view of the present financiaT position 'in Canada no action should be taken implying any obligation on the part of Canada to -undertake new expenditures for naval and military purposes." The aloofness from the Imperial family circle which Sir John Findlay detected in Sir Wilfrid Laurier's attitude at the ImI perial Conference of 1911 is evidently^being fully maintained by his party, but as that patty is no longer in power Mr. Mackenzie King's resolution was not carried. A negative resolution was, however, merely met by a negative, and a double negative does not in such a case necessarily mean an affirmative. Last month Mr. Massey's proposed Imperial Executive met with an uncompromising negative from the Canadian Prime Minister. There again the negative was sound, but it is unfortunate that no positive suggestion of any kind seems to have come from Canada with regard to the work of the Imperial Conference. New Zealand does not stand in a much better position. On the Anglo-Japanese Alliance our Ministers have expressed themselves in a helpful and statesmanlike fashion, but Mr. Massey's proposal of an Imperial Executive has really done more harm than good, since it has aroused the opposition of other Dominions, and disposed them to hostility against other suggestions from the same quarter, without serving any useful purpose whatever. ' Australia alone has so far contributed something solid and statesmanlike to the discussion, and Australia alone is mentioned by Professor Keith as a possible contributor to Imperial defence on a serious scale during the near future. The position is as creditable to the Government of the Commonwealth as it is discreditable to our own. Courage and determination were needed on the part of Mi. Hughes to enable him to declare in favour of Australia'^ co-operation in-a scheme of Imperial defence in the face

of the bitter. opposition of the Labour Party and of the suspicion of anything bearing the name " Imperial," which extends in Australia far beyond the ranks of Labour. Where Mr. Hughes has been clear, courageous, and'statesmanlike, our own Government has been timid and inert. With a strong Imperial sentiment behind them, which recognises that it owes to the British Navy ite security and prosperity throughout the war, and that nothing else 'can keep it safe in the future, our Ministers have not dared to say a single word in favour of the Dominion's undertaking its fair share of the burden of Imperial defence. In the fa-ce of a powerful local opposition, the Commonwealth Prime Minister takes a strong line, but even with a strong Imperial backing the New Zealand Government takes no line at all, except one of mild negation. It would be unjust to describe its attitude as anti-Imperial, but Ministers should surely be able to see that a time like this is no time for letting things drift, and that a meTely stationary attitude is unworthy of a self-respecting and patriotic Dominion.

It is to be noted that the test applied by Professor Keith, concerns the obligations of the Dominions not to Great Britain or the Empire but to themselves. His argument is that the Dominions are not yet prepared for the status which haa been conferred upon them because they are not yet ready to undertake the duty ■of self-defence. They are not asked to protect the Mother Country, but to so protect themselves'as to relieve her to .that^extent of the common burden which she lias hitherto carried almost unaided. No doubt it is a simpler, more economical, and more effective method for all p Arties to pool their, defence, but the point from which the Dominions should approach it is not that of easing the burdens of Great Britain but of partially relieving themselves of a burden which, if ahe independence of which they speak were a,reality, would be more than they could bear. It is from this standpoint that Mr. Hughes looks at the questiori. It is in the interests not of Britain but of Australia that he declares the latter's participation in a joint Imperial scheme for the naval defence of the Pacific to be essential. New Zealand's danger is just as great and her obligations are just as sacred as those of Australia, and she boaste a rather purer brand of Imperialism. Yet while Australia has given the other Dominions a lead in this vital matter, New Zealand's attitude aft represented by the Government is one of negation.