To Defend New Zealand

Manawatu Times, Volume 63, Issue 42, 19 February 1938, Page 6

To Defend New Zealand

A noted European philosopher described peace thus: “A period of preparation for wars to be.” That definition might fairly be applied to the peace that at present exists in the world. With but few exceptions, the nations of the world are arming feverishly, as all claim, to defend themselves. This world policy of re-armament cannot be logically justified. A senseless policy it is; no other opinion can be held upon it. Unfortunately, the world is not a logical place; passion and sentiment arc all as, or even more, powerful influences upon the corporate actions of mankind than are pure reason and intelligence. Wc cannot live in a dream world of what should be; we must make the best of the world as it is—a world where might is right, one wherein Ethiopia and China provide up-to-the-minute examples of what happens to undefended nations. Likewise do Switzerland and Holland provide examples for peace. These small nations, throughout a century of European turbulence, have maintained their lands in peace. Their achievements are a tribute to a policy of adequate defences. As they have done, so can we, and even more assuredly and readily, with our sole frontier the vast Pacific Ocean.

A black mark upon the record of the present and past Clovernments of this Dominion is the complete lack of any real defence policy. This lack is a grave reflection upon our political leaders, and also upon the people in general. A dearth of vision is indicated. In contemplating a defence policy for New Zealand certain questions must first be postulated. These may be asked under four headings:—ls defence needed? Have we sufficient? If not, is it practicable to defend this country? Finally, what should be done to secure our position? The reply to the first question is: If we wish to maintain our independence, our living standard and our own culture, then it is utterly essential that we prepare to defend ourselves against the grave risk of aggression from overseas. As to the second question, wc have to-day no defences worthy of the name. We appear still to imagine ourselves in the 1890’s, when Britain maintained a “two-Power standard” fleet. It is not realised that Britain some years ago definitely advised the Governments of Australia and New Zealand that she could no longer undertake responsibility for the defences of these Dominions. Clearly, therefore, wc must be prepared to defend outselves, and to stand on our own feet. As yet we have made no effort to do so. The third question is whether it is practicable to defend New Zealand. A considerable body of opinion maintains that our population, being so small, renders this impossible. That opinion is ill-informed, but nevertheless a potent and unfortunate influence. Actually it invites disaster by its attitude of defeatism.

A reasonably well trained citizen army provided with ample modern equipment would be sufficient to guarantee this Dominion against any invasion within the realms of probability.

In a supreme crisis, to defend our hearths and homes, New Zealand could put 300,000 men into the field. Such a force, properly trained and equipped, would be more than sufficient to repel any invading force that could be readily transported to these shores. Sea transport is the measure of any attack that can be made upon us.

The final question is: What should be done to secure our position? A supreme lesson on this point has been provided by Europe’s latest armament “test”—the Spanish war. There the relative importance of man-power and modern armaments has been under field trials.

Experts of all nations are in agreement that man-power still dominates in modei'n warfare. We have man-power of Anzac quality; it is our duty to provide it with elementary training and adequate equipment. This we could do. There are three arms to defence: The army, navy and air force. We can provide the first, but not the second. The third, though, is within our means and should be developed to the utmost. A most necessary part of a sound defence policy is non-military. This is the development of industries to serve that policy, and they must be developed in the right places, away from our seaboard.

We New Zealanders possess a property worth almost £1,000,000,000. That surely is worth insurance. Our supreme national doctrine is the white New Zealand policy. We can maintain that only by being prepared to defend it. Our country is defendable, but not at present defended. How long must it be before that dangerous situation is recognised by all and an adequate defence policy instituted?