DEFENCE AND “FIRE EATING.”

Evening Star, Issue 21824, 13 September 1934, Page 8

DEFENCE AND “FIRE EATING.”

The furthest extreme to which prejudice can be carried was shown by a remark of a Labour member in the House yesterday, when Mr Sullivan referred to the “ fire-eating ” sentiment of the Minister of Defence (Hon. Mr Cobbe), expressed in his advocacy of an increased defence expenditure. It seems incredible that anyone should be able to picture Mr Cobbe as a fireeater when the world, most unfortunately, is so full of posturing, threatening, mail-fisted representatives of the type. Mr Poison, protesting against the Christchurch member’s attack, which no member of his own party was concerned to protest against, claimed that “ of all the able Ministers of Defence we had had in this country none had carried out his duties more assiduously, more carefully, and more capably than Mr Cobbe.” That compliment may very well have been deserved, but what he promises to be chiefly remembered for is for abolishing the compulsory character of the Territorials, which has not increased their efficiency, and, in a time of straitened finances, his severe reductions of defence expenditure. Defence had been allowed to run down, year after year, until a good deal of its equipment was in danger of becoming a farce. That might not have mattered if the world had been becoming steadily more peaceful and if disarmament conferences had been going from one triumph to another; but everyone knows how disarmament conferences have been thwarted, .and the nations that are still most anxious to sec them successful and to work for their success cannot ignore requirements of their safety till the mood that has made Europe “ a seething cauldron ” changes.

Britain has to consider her Navy and to enlarge her air forces, though the additions will only be carried as far as the refusal of other nations to limit theirs forces addition upon her. Australia has been under the same necessity. The New Zealand Government is allocating for this year £453,037 for the purpose of nayal defence, as compared with £397,384 spent last year, and 1 for other defence £524,600, as compared with £264,724. The greatest increase of expenditure will be on coastal defences and on aeroplanes, meant to serve the same purpose. There is nothing aggressive in those proposals, dnd the suggestion of this country offering aggression to anyone could only be made by an effort of humour. In the present state of the world there is no country that can afford to be entirely without defence. Unfortunately it is not true, as Mr Sullivan claimed, that the maxim of pre-war years, “ if you wish for peace, prepare for war,” has been exploded. There remains in it a large element of truth, as well as elements of danger. All that can be done, in present circumstances, is to keep a just sense of proportions, and that need is not likely to be violated by the present Minister of Defence. In his picture of possible dangers, Mr Cobbe may have been a trifle more rhetorical than we would be ourselves, but he had reason to say; “ We are not aggressors. We wish to avoid trouble, not to seek it, but when our country is at stake we do claim the right to take steps to protect ourselves, and in taking any steps necessary we believe we have the support of every patriotic man and woman in New Zealand.’ Jo this Mi Barnard replied: “You will not Juivc the support of the Labour Party. It

was a reply to Ijo marked and remembered. The Labour Party, to judge from its speakers, would starve defence entirely to provide more wages, more State advances, more pensions, more concessions for almost everyone. But these things would be worthless without security. And the cry for more and more of them, at the State’s expense, in itself involves a danger. Some cuts imposed recently are to be deplored, but, apart from cuts, there is truth in the saying that ‘‘ no nation can flourish when it is the ambition of a majority to put in fourpence and take out nineThat tendency should be discouraged, not encouraged.