The Evening Star SATURDAY, AUGUST 7, 1937. EMPIRE DEFENCE.

Evening Star, Issue 22721, 7 August 1937, Page 16

The Evening Star SATURDAY, AUGUST 7, 1937. EMPIRE DEFENCE.

The promised statement of the Government’s defence policy, which is to be made by the Minister of Defence, will bo awaited with unusual interest. It is plain, from the Prime Minister’s reference to the question immediately after his return from the Imperial' Conference, that his views upon this issue have expanded notably since the naive reply which he made to a deputation from the National Peace Council before his departure. He said then that when national superannuation and health services had been attended to would be the time to “ consider other matters. We want to put our people in possession of a country which they will defend automatically, but at the same time we are working towards peace.” The implication was that New Zealanders would defend their country automatically, without any need for compulsory training, because, when they led easier lives with more of material comforts and economic security than most peoples, it would be natural for them to leap as one man to resist any challenge to those conditions. It might be supposed that there would be no need of training, as there would be none for compulsion. But automatic defence, in the past, for most peoples has meant nothing more than rushing out valiantly to bo shot. High standards of Jiving have not made those methods more availing. Mr Savage has spoken differently since his return from England, i Defence, now is important, and it must serve both New Zealand and Imperial needs. Not so long ago there was room for the conviction that the Government was pinning almost the whole of , its faith, in this matter, to protection by air. It appears, however, that Mr Jones’s statement will bo concerned very largely with “ what is being done about our land forces.” . , . The Government will bear in mind the necessity for the closest co-operation between the three services. Defence is to be dealt with .in a realistic spirit. The same development is being shown in the policies of all the dominions. Not one of them has tended to give more thought than it could possibly avoid to local defence, and the claim' of Imperial defence have been a still more unpopular subject. While “ collective defence ” by the League seemed a feasible prospect there was reason, •if not excuse, for that attitude. , The League could do nothing in the last resort unless it could call upon armed forces) but, consisting as it does of something like sixty nations, it would be unlikely to want many from dominions. The possibility of its wanting any at all could be virtually disregarded. The collapse of “ collective security ” in that sense has brought other considerations to bear. The dominions must find some other form of it, which is only to be found in the Empire as a whole, or provide for their own defence. And to provide completely, or with any approach to completeness, for its own defence Is what none of them, in their present conditions of development, is able to do. That form of protection can only be combined with the Empire’s protection, and the pressing problem that is being forced on all the dominions by new tendencies in Europe is how best to combine the two. To the latest number of the i Bound Table ’ review groups named after that journal in Canada and South Africa contribute articles to show how the problem is being viewed in those two States, where independent courses of action have had most attractions. In Canada the need for defence has been most hard to realise, because Canada is protected by the Monro doctrine. Imperial defence might tend to be less a concern, because only 50 per cent, of the population are of Anglo-Saxon stock. Yet, despite official denials, the Canadian writers to the ‘ Round Table ’ rega-d it as an “ obvious fact ” that, when the estimates for seven million pounds to be spent on the army, navy, and air services were brought down this year, “ the dominion was providing itself with the nucleus of a martial establishment able to serve as a Canadian contribution to Empire defence in an Empire war, should such a war eventuate.” To the people who would decry that form of defence beyond all others the irrefutable answer would bo that the most fortunate countries, when war cannot be avoided, are those who can wage it away from their own shores.

The position is much the same in South Africa as in Canada. South Africa might defend her interior if an

enemy landed. Not for rears will it be possible for her to defend her long coastline for herself, and she is saved millions of pounds a year by leaving that task to the British Navy. Neutrality, in a new war in which Great Britain might be involved, does not exist as an alternative. “ Against an imperialist aggressor no declarations of neutrality will afford much protection to the mineral wealth of the Rand or the Capo's strategic gateway to the East.” So, although the least is said about it, the Government is making defence a matter of primary importance, the formulation of strategic plans is engaging the attention of the General Staff, and active progress is being made with the enlargement and revitalisation of the permanent and reserve forces.” The new war that is feared may never happen, but it is the simplest wisdom to be prepared against it. And for that preparation, up to this stage, the taxpayer of Great Britain has borne by far the greatest burden of the cost. Mr Jones informed the House last session that New Zealand’s total expenditure on defence per head was 16s 9d, compared with £1 Os 2d for Australia, 7s 2d for Canada, 14s for South Africa, and for Great Britain £3 11s sd. It is not a division in which any dominion can feel pride.