IMPERIAL DEFENCE

Hawera Star, Volume LIV, 23 April 1935, Page 7

IMPERIAL DEFENCE

RIGHTS GF THE DOMINIONS THE PROBLEM OP NEUTRALITY OBLIGATIONS TO BRITAIN

Those people in the Dominions who hold very strongly that the Dominions should keep outside a European war involving the United Kingdom are not so positive that the United Wingdom should keep out of a Pacific war involving the Dominions. Mr H. V. Hodson writes in “The Listener” of March 6:—The phrase “Imperial Defence” may call up very different ideas to different minds, and most of the arguments and misunderstandings about it arise because those who are arguing are not talking about tlie same thing. To most of us in Great Britain, probably, “Imperial defence” conveys an idea of defending the scattered terrotories of the British Empire, and their overseas trade, against possible foreign attack. But clealy this is not at all the picture conjured up by the same phrase in the minds of Air Pirow, Minister of Defence in the Union of South Africa, and of- his fellow-citizens of South Africa. For, speaking a month ago to tlie members of the Imperial Press Conference, he declared in the name of the whole South African .Government that they would not participate in any general scheme of Imperial defence ; and the reason he gave was that if they were to try to commit South Africa to taking part in another overseas war, there would be large-scale disturbances, possibly even civil war. If we are to accept this evidence of how the majority of peoplo in South Africa think about Imperial defence —and I believe we must .—it implies in their minds an attempt to tie them down to fighting in some future war, in which, as South Africans, they might have no concern, General Hertzog and General Smuts have agreed to differ on the question whether South Africa could legally be neutral in a war involving other members of the British Commonwealth; but they are at one in insisting that it would be for South Africa, alone and independently, to decide how far, and in what way, she would take any active part.

NOT A NEIW PROBLEM This question of what are the rights and duties of a Dominion in the event of a war in which other parts of tho Commonwealth were engaged is not by any means a new one. It was raised very forcibly long before the war by Sir "Wilfrid Laurier, the Canadian Prime Minister, who claimed for Canada and the rest of the Dominions the same right of neutrality as is now claimed by General Hertzog. But because it is an old question, that is not to say that it is out of date or unimportant. The problem, however, has changed fundamentally since those pre-war days. Every self-governing Dominion, as well as the United Kingdom, is now a separate member of the League of Nations. Our obligations under the Covenant of the League may be interpreted in different ways, but the lawyers are agreed at least on one point, that no member of the League could remain strictly neutral if any country were to wage aggressive war in defiance of the Covenant. We can go further than that, and say that no nation which has signed the Kellogg Pact, renouncing war as an instrument of national policy, could remain strictly neutral, that is to say, impartial, between two waning countries, one of whom had broken its promise to renounce war while the other was in this respect innocent.

This goes a long way towards solving the legal problem of Dominion neutrality. The existence of the League of Nations also affects the practical problem: what will a Dominion do in point of fact if there is a war —which, of course, links on with the problem of what she will do now to prepare against the possibility of war. Because instead of South Africa’s having to ask herself what she is prepared to contribute to Empire defence, knowing that the rest of the Empire will defend her if she is attacked, she can merge this in the wider question: what is she prepared to' contribute to the system of coljee-? tive defence provided in the Covenant of the League, which she and all the other Dominions have independently signed ? Since we are all loyal members of the League of Nations, Imperial defence might thus be regarded—apart from pure self-defence against attack—as the Empire’s joint contribution towards a world security system.

Different Dominion Governments, and different sections of opinion in tlie Dominions, would give widely varying answers to' those questions.

I ‘A UTOMA Tl O’ ’ PARTICIPATION. But the majority answer would probably be that the Dominions do not feel it to be their duty, as members of tho League, to be drawn- automatically into wars in Europe, whether or not Groat Britain were engaged. Their view is that Great Britain’s duty and interest, as a European P-'ower, may differ from theirs. She signed the Locarno guarantee pact, for instance ; they did hot. But we must not forget that they congratulated this country' on. the part it had played at Locarno, and indeed a few days after Mr Pirow had spoken General Smuts,, a member of the slime Government, publicly praised tho Locarno Pact in the most enthusiastic terms. If euly for this reason, the question of our future policy towards France and Germany and the rest of Europe, and especially towards tlio . proposed “Air Lodarno,” is of vital importable to Empire Relations. Only last Week Mf Forbes, the Prime of New

Zealand, said that if the Air Locarno was arranged, New Zealand must not blink the fact that if Great Britain became involved in a- war New Zealand would also be involved.

South Africa would obviously not agree with this view. Nor, certainly, would Canada, who, from the earliest days of the League of Nations, insisted on amending the Covenant so-that the obligation to ttso sanctions would be regional rather than workl-wide. This policy obviously limits the commitments of the Dominions in Europe, while at the same time increasing tlieir responsibilities in their own regions. Here is the essential significance of General Smuts’ speech three weeks ago, in which he said that by the side of the fateful situation in the Far East and the Pacific Ot-ean, the troubles of Europe, which now loom so large to us, are intrinsically more like petty squabbles in comparison. For if you look at the map of the world you will see that most of the British Empire has a direct interest in the system of peace and security in the region; of the Pacific Ocean. General Smuts' mentioned Great Britain, Canada, Australia, New Zealand, and India. lie might also have added South Africa; because South Africa is a vital link in the chain of naval and commercial communication between Great Britain ahd the Dominions in the Pacific. Although, per* haps .the obligations if the Dominions j t6wafd§ Irtipeiial and tci-

wards , international collective sanctions;, cafinat be defined as far as ope is ..concerned, can they be defined, iii the wider area that is bounded by the; continents of Asia, Africa, America and Australasia? That is the great '.question raised by the speeches of thosp /two ■ South African statesmen, taken together. . The saiiie questipiijwill/perhaps he at .the back of the minds of those new taking part in the; eqhfttrenne in Sydney, Australia, pfl Ertipire, air. mails, Tp accordance

with British policy, civil aviation is to develop on purely commercial rather than , military lines ; nevc-tthc.-less, rapid communications are-an"'es-sential part of any defensive.-, system. They are also an esesntial part any successful political system! aud.ywe may well hope that British Empire;relations will be • considerably v strengthened when mails and persans-Aisfites-mefi and oEpertsi**eaff be; brought/in a fCw days from farthest cArhers of - the EAlpine to its heart, .