SINGAPORE BASE

Evening Post, Volume CVII, Issue 140, 14 June 1924, Page 20

SINGAPORE BASE

STRATEGIC VALUE IN DEFENCE

LORD SYDENHAM'S VIEWS

BEST GUARANTEE •OF PEACE.

(moil ODB OWN CORRBSPONDKTC.)

' LONDON, 7th April. Lord Sydenham, who has been Governor of Victoria and Governor of Bombay, explains in a letter to "The Times" the strategic value of Singapore, a subject, he is convinced is not generally understood.

"A British Fleet able to operate freely from Singapore," says Lord Sydenham, "might well prove the; best guarantee of peace. On the other hand, if Singapore were able only to supply andmaintain a, small cruiser force, it could be taken without difficulty, as was KiaoChow, and our Fleet based on Malta, about 6000 miles away, would be powerless to save the situation. New Uuinea is only 2500 miles from Yokohama, and, failing the presence of an efficient British Meet in this part of the world, the whole of our trade passing through the btraits would be deprived of protection, while the free movement of escorted transports to any of our sparsely-popu-lated territories in the South Pacific could not be prevented. "Honolulu is 2091 miles -from San Francisco and 3394 miles from Yokohama. In Pearl Harbour the UnitedStates possess an unrivalled naval base with a water area of nearly ten square miles and a depth of ten fathoms. The natural conditions are such that, unlike Singapore, dependent on naval defence, Pearl Harbour can easily be made impregnable. The strategic value of this base is also purely but effectively defensive, and the Japanese have never shown the smallest resentment at the preparations which are being made there. Singapore, having regard t*> our far greater responsibilities'in tho Western Pacific,is of much more importance to us than Pearl Harbour to tho United States. Why should we be debarred from, the precautions which Americans regard as necessary? It is not possible to reason with persons who declare that they have a. plan which renders necessary defence measures superfluous, and who affect to believe that to safeguard our vast interests in the Far East would poison the pure atmosphere they propose to create." ILLUSIVE THEORIES. In summing up, Lord Sydenham says: "Neither Singapore nor Pearl Harbour can bo regarded-as "a weapon that can be used for attack' against Japan or any other Power: The strategic importance of both ■is essentially that- of restraint against aggression; and therefore-a guarantee of peace. Meanwhile the Government have decided to deprive 'the Navy of the means of acting effectively in the Pacific' for the . protection of Australia, New Zealand, the Malay States, and even India, in addition to a vast volume of food supplies and other trade. They-have thus determined to paralyse the right arm of Imperial defence .in waters which may become vital in regard to our territorial integrity and commerce, and they ■ have violated a solemn undertaking given by their predecessors^ to'^'great Dominions that hive hitherto trusted to the "sure shield' of the Navy. The effect is a heavy blow to the Empire, inspired by illusive theories ■ contradicted by .all world history. -As Mr.. Brace has plainly stated, the Government have 'manifested a distinct lack' of Empire vision,' which is dangerous in the circumstances.'"■

■ SIGN .OF,'.DECLINE.': Very few provincial papers have neglected to deal -with the Singapore, subject, some.with a certain amount of wisdom," others -with a deplorable ignorance of the subject. The -'Yorkshire Post" puts forth an interesting and unusual argument. "It is a pity," writes this journal, "that the Imperial Labour Conference representing all the Labour Parties in the Empire, which the British Labour-Socialist Party, has been seeking to organise in London, is not to meet soon, for Mt. Ramsay Mac Donald's Government and party might' have their views and visions broadened. Labour is strong politically in' Australia and New Zealand, and there is no doubt that it takes the same view as the other political parties in the Southern Hemisphere on the necessity for a naval base at Singapore to take the largest battleships atioat. lhe British communities in and around the: Pacific look •to the Mother Country for her co-operation. A policy of defencelessness will not be counted to us for. righteousness by prosperity, but as a sign of the decline of British vitality." FRYING PAN OR FIRE? The "Sunday Observer" takes op a peculiar attitude, but it is one which should not be ignored. It requests Australia and New Zealand in the circumstances, to prefer in effect the frying pan to the fire. The "Sunday Journal" gives' its reasons for agreeing with Mr. Mac Donald's decision. •'First, the Labour Government could not have existed had it gone on with the Singapore project h,'present circumstances ; and as the majority of Liberals have shown themselves more narrow and short-sighted than the majority of Labour on matters of Imperial defence, it is to^thq^major interest of the Navy and the Empire in present circumstances that Mr. Mac Donald's Administration should be maintained. We beg Australia and New Zealand to remember this.

"Secondly, we want to strengthen the Prime Minister's hands in his endeavours—whatever may come of them —to fortify the securities for peace throughout the world. Eor a world-peace Japan is as vital a factor as any in Europe. The recent earthquake is a real reason for a generous proof of our consideration . and goodwill. In a way that no other nation seems yet prepared to emulate, we shall have taken the lead in allaying suspicion. Mr. Ramsay ,MacDonald, because of postponing Singapore, could enter witli added authority during the next six months—if his tenure of office lasts so long—an international conference upon more definite securities and more equal disarmament."

THE MASTER KEY. ■ The "English Review" : "In the Singapore Naval Base discussion! is centrod the whole subject of Empire defence. Long before 1914 the Empire was being educated out of the idea that1 it was the sole business of Great Britain to defend tho Empire. If the Empire is to be safe, tho whole Empire must organise the means of her safety, and since that is so, the whole Empire must not only contribute to the means of safety, but must be consulted about them. Whether a naval base is needed at Singapore'is not a question only for | Great Britain; it is a" question also for Australia, New Zealand, Canada, South Africa, and India. From the point ot viaw of.the naval>strategist there can be no question : Singapore is the British key to the Pacific. Strongly held, it makes the Indian Ocean a •British Empire lake and safeguards both Australia and New Zealand, and makes any Asiatic attach

on the Pacific Coast of Canada impossible. But—some object—the Navy is obsolete; air force is the only force of the future. Is that not rather a London than an Empire judgment? Air force sufficient to make London, •to make this Kingdom, safe, of course, we must have. But the Empire cannot be defended solely by air squadrons in Kent. The Pacific Ocean is the ocean of the future, the scene of the next Rreat struggle of races—unless the wisdom of man teaches him the futility of war—and Singapore is the master key of the Pacific." POINTS FROM PROVINCIAL PAPERS. Points from other papers are as follow :—

Edinburgh "Evening Dispatch." : — "The pity is that Singapore has- been made a, party question. In a naval sense the projected base either is necessary or is not. Those responsible for the nation's security at sua must be considered the best judges of that. When we find our ablest admirals declaring that the provision of facilities at Singapore for the repair and refitment of our largest warships is essential to keep open the communications of Empire, and when, moreover, this view of the experts is earnestly supported by Australia and New Zealand, wnose safety is involved, it is not for the mere* layman, with his insular ideas, to say that the thing is a wasteful superfluity. There is a tendency in Liberal and Labour quarters to regard too lightly our naval responsibilities, as if the Fleet's efficiency and convenience were now of little account. That is a dangerous day-dream, from which there may yet be an unpleasant awakening." Belfast "Evening Telegraph" :—"'A few more snubs of this kind and the Australasian people will begin to ask questions concerning their relations witli the Empire. Australia, as Premier Bruce' said in his welcome speech to Admiral Field, is proud of the British Navy, but we fear the British Govern--ment is more anxious to save' votes at home than fco please British Dominions overseas by a courageous decision on this Singapore issue. 1' - PROOF OF WEAKNESS. Belfast "News-Letter":—"The adoption of ' the- policy of disarmament by Great Britain will, have as. little influence on other nations as the adoption of the policy of Free Trade. Moral forceis not to be despised, but it would be madness to overrate its influence. It did not prevent the invasion of Belgium in 1914, and it; has not obtained any reparations from Germany. ; It may be said that. Great Britain., is /strong enough to set.an example, Jrafc other nations take her action as a proof of weakness, not of strength. They believe that she is weary of the burden of Empire, and they will prepare to seize as much as they can of it when the hour of its dissolution comes. The sole guarantee of the safety of the Empire and of the food supply of the British people, is a- strong Navy always ready As the Government does not believe this", its continuance in ofhee is a national and Imperial danger."

WEAKENING OF BRITISH AUTHORITY.

"Leicester Mail" :—"The Government takes the view that the feelings of the Japanese must not be wounded by the enlargement of the Singapore Base. But what about the feelings of our own people in Australia, New Zealand, and the Far East? It is the Dominions which are immediately concerned in this matter, and it is a very serious question as to how far we should permit ourselves to go back on them,,."to say nothing of the likelihood of weakening British authority in the world's councils by reducing the power of the Navy—probably, also, of lessening the prospect of future peace." Derby '-Daily Express" :~"The Government action will undoubtedly prove a check to the movement for drawing tho Empire closer together, a far greater ideal in the eyes of niostof us than that we should cot risk offending other countries by taking ordinary measures for self defence. Indeed, how thait' could happen is not very obvious. ' The construction of the base would not stop any other Power from disarming if they wished to, or compel any country to increase its armaments. The only effect it would have would be to make ilTe Empire safer and give to the Commonwealths of Australia and New Zealand the protection they need." "iiirminghani, 1-ost" : "Docks are not built in a day. Moreover, there is this to be considered. There would be far more danger, politically, in dock development at some future date, when Mr. Mac Donald's 'general foreign policy' had failed, than in building docks to-day, when' they are and can be a 'menace' to nobody. Not one of the Ministerial arguments appears to us to possess any validity. The Singapore dock is immediately necessary to the efficiency of our Empire defence. Without it we cannot maintain a modern fleet in being in the Pacific or in the Indian Ocean. Foreign Powers, realising this, would understand—as Lord Curzon says Japan has already admitted—that the development of Singapore is compelled. We are very sure that the idea of building docks in a hurry at a time of international crisis is neither feasible nor politically sane. And we are not prepared to gamble the future of the Empire on tho success of Mr. Mac Donald's attempt to convert the world to a policy of conciliation and peace. If the policy is only possible on these terms, the policy is ioo expensive. The Government ought, in this matter, to be opposed to the last possible limit and in every ■ possible way."

A LIBERAL VIEWPOINT. J "Derby Daily Telegraph" : "As matters stand, the world knows no reason for the construction of the Singapore dock, but once it becomes an accomplished fact, it will bo watched with sullen suspicion by other nations, who will assuredly read into it a menace to their own security. The. fact that Australia and New Zealand are wholeheartedly in favour of the dock no doubt compels our respect. These countries are obsessed with a notorious dread of one great Pacific Power/ and many of their people live in anxiety of being over-run' by countless hordes of Japanese. But surely it would' be better investment to people their great Continent and create the new industries which its possibilities invite than to spend vast sums of money in a provocative competition in armaments." ' . ■ Other Liberal papers point to the expense and to the fact that naval experts are not altogether in agreement as to the necessity of the extension of the dock. SIR lAN HAMILTON'S,yiEWS. General Sir lan Hamilton, •speakin" at a rally of the British Legion at Head" ing, -referred: to' the 'Government's decision concerning- Singapore. -Ho said it might help to. calm the public mind, especially in-Australia and- New Zealand, if he reminded his audience that'he was sent in November, 1912, as InspectorGeneral of Overseas Forces to enable the Government- of the day. to make up their minds on. that very matter. As a strategist, he Visited North-. China, Hong Kong, .and.tho. Malay States; as a tactS cian he inspected every post, every fort, every gun, every trench ,at. Singapore. He sailed." over from the north shore of Singapore Island and inspected • the Sultan of Johoro's, army. The Sultan informed him that his volunteers were , commanded to become volunteers, other-

wise he couldn't get any. They marched past very well, and on "his saying so, the Sultan replied, "Yes, they do. If any of my volunteers gets out of step on parade, I give him three months' imprisonment with hard labour." In his reports, said General Hamilton, he predicted that the very day tension in Europe relaxed so that the Great \Powers would be free to turn their attention to the Pacific, Singapore would become a key position, and that ■it should, therefore, 'be strengthened at once, even if it had to be done by withdrawing troops from China and by raising a- big force of Malay militia. The garrison was not strong enough to hold it. The question was largely a land question. Japan could not embark upon a military expedition to the Antipodes unless she got hold of a dock for modern battleships at Singapore; so long, that was to say, as .we prepared docks at Trincomalee. The U.S.A. conld not move a hattle fleet into the Yellow Sea unless they held a dock for modern battleships at Singapore. Why offer so terrible a temptation to the general staffs of any great nation as docks for modern battleships at Singapore without a big land force to protect them? Why, anyway, do it in the meantime when Japan might think—quite erroneously— she was being squeezed because at the moment she happened to have been earthquaked" ?