Manawatu Evening Standard. FRIDAY, NOVEMBER 6, 1925. A DEFENCE POLICY NECESSARY.

Manawatu Standard, Volume XLV, Issue 286, 6 November 1925, Page 6

Manawatu Evening Standard. FRIDAY, NOVEMBER 6, 1925. A DEFENCE POLICY NECESSARY.

Oxk of file facts prominently brought out in connection witii the general election had reference to tne defence question. Although in lUlt) the New Zealand Labour Party, at, its annual conference, pronounced in favour of the formation of a citizen army at trades union rates of pay, the remarks made by the various speakers in supporting that policy sufficiently indicated the fact that such an army was intended to be used more in dragooning the capitalists into subjection to labour rule when a Labour Socialist Government came into office, than for the defence of the country at large. Speaking at the Idl'd conference, Mr 1. It. Cooke, who contested the Christchurch North seat against Mr Holland and Dr Thacker on Wednesday and was so soundly beaten, gave definite expression to his view that, although a pacifist himself, he would not be above fighting in defence of the Socialistic cause. Mr W. L• Parry and other members of the conference spoke in much the same fashion; but, for some occult reason, the citizen army proposal no longer finds place m the Labour Party’s programme. It would be a mistake, however, to suppose that the withdrawal of the proposal from the party programme in any way indicates the abandonment of the idea at the back of the citizeu army business. Por reasons best known to themselves, the party leaders have elected to drop the proposal and to say nothing on the defence question, except that they rely on internationalism to save the country from attack by a foreign foe. At the same time the littssiau Soviet Government considers it necessary to maintain the largest army in Europe, ostensibly for defence purposes, but actually so that it may be in a position to strike on behalf of international Communism, when the time appears to be ripe for such an offensive. Expenditure upon defence is objected to by the New Zealand Labour Party on the ground that it is not o 11I3' unnecessary but, to a certain extent, provocative where other nations are concerned. We arc told, for instance, that money so spent induces other nations to spend greater sum's to guard against possible attack from nations arming in self-defence. The argument seeihs to imply that the man who possesses ap.abundance of this world’s goods should take no steps to safeguard his possessions against a marauding thief or

burglar who might wish to deprive him of his wealth and that it is foolish on his part to take any steps which would interfere with such marauders. That argument applied to the individual is also applicable to the nation. It goes without saying that there are those who envy New Zealand its opportunities, resources, and possessions. It is well known that, in the peace conditions framed by Germany before she so lightly entered upon the Great War in 1914, it was her intention to take possession of this country. It was even currently reported that the first German governor had been actually named for the position of the Raiser’s representative in New Zealand. The story is an old one now, but it is perfectly certain that a German victory would have resulted in New Zealand becoming a German possession. While we are on friendly terms with Japan it should not be forgotten that, in terminating the Anglo-Japanese pact, we seriously offended Japanese susceptibilities, which were not appeased in any way by the subsequent agreements arrived at in Washington at the Disarmament Conference. There is a certain amount of danger to be apprehended from any sudden change of opinion such as occasionally sweeps over nations and transforms passive into active hostility against other people. In her desire to seek an outlet for her surplus population, which increases at a much greater ratio than that of the European nations, Japan may at any time take it into her head that she has the right to send her emigrants to the sparsely populated countries in the Southern Pacific, and, in that case, we might find ourselves -in serious trouble if tve Avere without defences of any kind.

OPPOSING DEFENCE EXPENDITURE.

It is ratner a curious commentary upon Labour parties in general that, while Soviet ltussia, as we have already pointed out, is maintaining a large army (allegedly for defence purposes) and is reported to be very active both in regard to naval and air defence, the British Labour Party at Home and the New Zealand Labour Party appear to be travelling on the same lines in discarding all proposals for defensive purposes, and expenditures upon military, naval, or air forces. The Socialist members of the House of Commons, when the Defence estimates were under discussion, showed their opposition to such expenditure by voting solidly against the Baldwin Government’s proposals. <Jn the first of three votes taken on the 3rd August last, of “£38,362,000, for certain naval services including ship-building,” one hundred and seventeen Socialist members voted against the proposal, the remainder of the Labour Socialist members refusing to take part in the division. They adopted the same course in connection with the vote of £27,500,000 for military purposes and, on the third vote of £2,420,000 for air force services, they again arrayed themselves against the Government. From this it would seem that not a single Labour member voted with the Government, and that the British Labour Socialists are not prepared to vote moneys for expenditure upon any form of defence —naval, military or aerial. In the Australian Commonwealth the position is not quite so bad, but there is a distinct leaning on the part of the Labour leaders towards abandoning the defence policy, which was actually initiated during the ascendency of the Labour Party under the Hon. Andrew Fisher, when that gentleman was at the head of the Commonwealth Government. While it is not supposed to dispense with the territorial forces altogether, the period of training is to be shortened, and provision is to be made for every member of the force to retain liis rifle when his term of service expires. A similar proposal, by the way, formed part of the New Zealand Labour Party’s defence policy in 191!). Why? Is there no sinister significance in the idea ? Under that proposal is it not possible that the intention is to arm all those who pass through a course of military training, so that, later on, those of their number who have imbibed the revolutionary idea may be called upon to take part in enforcing the decisions of a Socialist Government, which may find a very considerable portion of the population opposed to its ideas on questions affecting the Constitution and the Imperial connection. It would almost seem that the intriguing Soviet Government has suggested to all three countries, through its agents in their respective Labour Parties, that it would be a good thing to abandon all defence preparations, so that it may be in a better position, when the time comes, to bring about world revolution. As we pointed out the other day, it is absurd to suppose that Marxism is dead, and that the cause of Marxian Socialism is not making progress amongst the world’s democracy. Both have their appeal to a considerable class in every country, for the simple reason that they seem to offer something for nothing and to, theoretically at least, place the workers in the position the capitalists are suppos-

ed to occupy at present. The idea that capital and labour are each dependent upon the other seems to have \ T erv little weight Avitli this class of people, and no one need be surprised if, as the result of non-resistance of the policy of Socialism, the Communistic germs Avhicli are in the background of all socialistic proposals spread further and further. Happily the danger, so far as New Zealand is concerned, has passed for the present Avitli the set-back Labour received on Wednesday.