EMPIRE DEFENCE

Evening Post, Volume CXXIII, Issue 132, 5 June 1937, Page 11

EMPIRE DEFENCE

AUSTRALIAN FLEET

PAST AND FUTURE POLICY

SOME FALSE RUMOURS

A strange report that "the Commonwealth might abandon its own navy and contribute to the upkeep of the British Navy" is said to have reached London in a cable message from Sydney, writes John Sandes in the "Sydney Morning Herald."

Nobody in Australia would believe such a rumour. Even the most apathetic citizen is proud of the Australian Navy, and remembers with pride its record in the Great War. But certain people in Australia would. n6 doubt think it clever electioneering tactics to propagate the' rumour by a cable message to London in order to embarrass the representatives of the Commonwealth Government in England for the Coronation, and convey the entirely false impression that the Government was proposing to return to the .principle, abandoned after a short trial twenty-eight years ago, of an Australian subsidy to the British Navy in return for Britain's naval protection.

At the Naval Conference in London in 1909, when representatives of Australia, New Zealand, and Canada conferred with members' of the British Government, a memorandum prepared by the Admiralty for the conference set forth that "If the problem of Imperial naval defence were considered merely as a problem of naval strategy it would be found that the greatest output of strength for a given expenditure is obtained by the maintenance of a single navy, with the concomitant unity of training and unity of command." The memorandum proceeded to state that "it was recognised that other considerations than those, of strategy alone must be taken into account, such, for example, as individual national sentiment," and it went on to set forth 'that the main duty of the conference would be to determine the form in which the Dominion Governments could best participate in the burden of Imperial defence with due regard to political and geographical considerations. COULD DELAY DECISION. In spite of- discouragement since the war from more than one financiallyembarrassed Federal Government, the Australian Navy, though diminished in the number of its ships, shows no fall-ing-off in the keenness with which its sea-exercises are conducted. The report of the Admiral commanding at the recent manoeuvres off Jervis Bay was.drawn'up in terms of high commendation. . • ' The late Admiral Viscbunt Jellicoe of Scapa in his report dated August, 1919, wrote:—"it must be recognised that Australia is: powerless against a strong naval and military Power without the assistance; of the British Fleet, but whether political considerations admit of a'strong British Fleet being permanently based in Far Eastern waters or not Australia's contribution to that fleet will be necessary to provide a force and a naval organisation that will serve to delay any immediate .decisive action on the part of an enemy.' Viscount Jellicoe by no means suggested that the "Australian contribution" to the proposed strong British Fleet in Far Eastern waters should be a contribution of money. On the con r 'trary, he was careful to express himself most'explicitly in these terms:— i "Owing to the ■small'population■■(oi Australia)' the local military ■ forces cannot be numerically strong. For the same, reason naval forces maintained by the Commonwealth must be. assisted by the ships of the British Navy. ■as well .as by any other naval forces belonging to-the British Dominions in the Far East should the enemy, forces be stronger in those-waters. The very fact.-.of the numerical weakness of the military forces increases the vital mr portance of naval defence as a deterrent to invasion." He went on to draw the inescapable conclusion that "the Far Eastern Fleet should be provided by those constituent parts of t.ie Empire, including Great Britain, for which it is of vital necessity that there should be the closest co-operation, with unity, of direction in war, between the various squadrons composing the fleet. ! A BRITISH ADMIRAL. There it is.1 In the opinion of the greatest naval strategist that Great Britain possessed during the last war the Australian Navy ■ should provide a squadron for a Far Eastern Fleet composed of a number of squadrons provided by those constituent parts of -the Empire, including Great Britain, which require naval protection. The combined fleet would naturally ■be under the command of a British admiral since, according tb the scheme drawn up, 75 per cent, of the. strength lot the fleet would consist of British ships. No sensible Australians would dissent from such a practical,- and equitable arrangement. All must, hope that, time will permit of the Far Eastern Fleet coming into existence before the need for it is demonstrated, by grim happenings. Lord Jellicoe's proposed Far Eastern Fleet anticipated the recent announcement by the First Lord of the Admiralty, Sir Samuel Hoare, that Great Britain required "a fleet in both hemispheres," in order.to safeguard her interests and territorial possessions. ' This can only mean that the bonditions foreseen by the late distinguished naval > strategist _ have now come into existence according to the judgment, of the First Lord of the Admiralty. The Jellicoe plan for a powerful - fleet to-be stationed in Far Eastern waters and to consist of ships contributed by Great Britain as to 75 per cent, of the cost, by Australia as to 20 per cent., and by New Zealand as to 5 per cent., was abandoned in favour of the supposed safeguards obtained by the Washington Treaties signed in 1921-22. Australia was thought to be made secure by the Quadruple Treaty signed by the rer presentatives of Great Britain, the United States, France, and Japan. This treaty replaced the previously existing alliance between Great Britain and Japan, which ' the United States regarded with disfavour. By the Quadruple Treaty the high contracting parlies agreed as between themselves to respect their rights in relation to their insular possessions and insular Dominions in the Pacific Ocean. It was provided that, in the case of any controversy arising, a joint conference of the parlies should be held to which the whole subject would be referred for consideration and adjustment. It was further provided in a declaration made at the time of signature that the "controversies" referred to should not bo taken to embrace questions which, according to principles of international law, lie exclusively within the domestic jurisdiction of the respective Powers. This • declaration places the subject of immigration outside the scope of the treaty. "MOST VALUABLE." Senator' Sir George Pearce, who represented Australia at the Washington Conference, reported to the Prime Minister of the Commonwealth at that date, Mr. W. M. Hughes, that "the Quadruple Treaty, insuring, as it almost certainly does, peace in the Pacific Ocean for ten years, at least, is in my opinion, from the Australian point of view, the most valuable of the

agreements concluded at Washington." The Quadruple Treaty has not been denounced by any of the parties, and is, therefore, still in existence. But recent history in relation to other .treaties signed since the Armistice, and including, the Nine Power Tjreaty, which was signed at Washington by the United States, Belgium, the British Empire, China, France, Italy, Japan, the Netherlands, and Portugal guaranteeing the independence and territorial integrity of China, hardly justifies a belief in the inviolable sanctity of any treaty. Viscount Jellicoe's fleet, - if. it had been "built in accordance with his carefully thought, out and fully detailed scheme, would have given Australia the protection of a Far Eastern seagoing fleet composed of 8 battleships of modern Dreadnought type, 8 battlecruisers, also of modern type, 10 light cruisers, 40 modern destroyers, 3 flotilla leaders, 2 depot ..ships for destroyers, 36 Submarines, 4 submarine parent ships, 4 aircraft carriers, U fleet mine-sweepers, 1 large seagoing minelayer, and 2 fleet repair ships. It may be that at the Imperial Conference on Defence, which is to follow ' the Coronation, <*»c First Lord of the Admiralty, who has already indicated that the security of the. Empire demands-"a powerful fleet in both hemispheres," will suggest the participation of a considerably enlarged Royal Australian Navy in a Far Eastern Fleet, somewhat resembling that which was planned by the late Admiral of the Fleet Lord Jellicoe, to be based on Singapore. ■ With such a "fleet in being, _ Lord Jellicoe believed that the territorial integrity and independence of Australia might be effectively guaranteed. And he was certainly the greatest and the most far-seeing naval strategist of his time. ;