FRIDAY, APRIL 13, 1934 IMPERIAL DEFENCE

Nelson Evening Mail, Volume LXVI, 13 April 1934, Page 4

FRIDAY, APRIL 13, 1934 IMPERIAL DEFENCE

OUR readers will have noticed the remarks (printed in summarised form in cur issue of yesterday) which ReaiAdmiral F. Burges Watson made recently to the New Plymouth Rotary Club, in reference to the present strength of the British Navy in comparison with the navies of the United States and Japan. Among other things the commander-in-chief of the New Zealand Division of the Royal Navy said : “Japan is reaching a dangerous state with a rapidly increasing population which she cannot feed entirely from her own resources. ... Do not forget that in tho last 30 years the Japanese have fought three wavs and have always been victorious. ... Is it a wonder that Pan-Asianisin with the ideal of Japan as leader ... is becoming more than a dream?’ Of course the meaning of that is that the navy of the British Empire is not big enough to meet all possible demands which may be made upon it in the future, when the Washington Treaty ends and there may be a reshuffling of the cards, so far as the sizes of the various navies are concerned. That, too, seems to be the opinion of Admiral Sir Ernie Chatfield, the First Sea. Lord of the Admiralty, who recently said : The Navy is short-handed. Its personnel has been cut down ruthlessly. ... It has often "been stated, when 1 have suggested that the Navy should bo made adequate to its responsibilities, that I am warlike and aggressive, but Ford Beatty said 15 years ago that the Navy was not a rattling sabre but a shield. That is as true

to-day as it was then. At the time when the Washington Treaty was signed, more than ten years ago, Great Britain was war-weary, Japan was in a peaceful mood, and the people of the United States were anxious merely to achieve naval equality with Great Britain. The times have changed since then. Japan is asserting herself as a power, not merely on the mainland of Asia but in the Pacific Ocean. It is not to be supposed that she will he content to possess a navy inferior to that of the United States, or to that of Great Britain. The function of the British Navy is to protect the trade-routes by which Great Britain gets her food-supplies and the raw materials for her manufactures, and the territories and ports of her vast and scattered Empire. It might be difficult, if not impossible, for her to concentrate all her naval strength in one particular ocean or sea foi 1 the defence of the British territory or territories located there. In such circumstances if it were found that the Royal Navy were required to act protectively in two quarters of the globe simultaneously, it might 1 ot be able to concentrate in both fields of action in sufficient strength to insure victory in both of them. For instance, she lias great responsibilities in Europe—responsibilities which, in tlio opinion of many, she. should diminish as far as possible.• in her own interests anil in those of the Empire—and she has great responsibilities in the East and in the bar East, to say nothing of Africa, Norlu Aii-rrica, and Australia and New Zealand. Plainly she requires for the protection of her scattered territories a navy greater than that which is required by, let us say, Japan, whose territorial iespousihilities are confined lo the northwestern portion ul' the Pacific Ocean and

- part of the mainland of eastern .Asia. What guarantee is there that this point will receive consideration when the Washington Treaty comes up for discussion by the Powers which signed it, and if it is so considered what guarantee is there that the naval requirements of the British Empire -will he appreciated and recognised by the, Powers assembled. The alternative to a- renewal of the Treaty would appear to he a naval ship-building-race. That might seem regrettable to some but it would be a race in which Great Britain, with the Empire behind her, should be able to win, not only because of her extraordinary facilities for shipbuilding, hut because of the

natural and accumulated wealth of her Empire. These expressions are not to be interpreted as advocating a naval armament-race, but are made for the purpose of showing that if such a race should be forced on Great Britain, she would not, be likely to lose it. Furthermore, it must be remembered that in this matter of naval supremacy the United States are likely to maintain Die attitude which they adopted when the Washington Treaty was signed, namely that then- navy should be second to none in the matters of tonnage, guns, armour, etc. There may not be any rivalry between Great Britain and the United States in regard to this matter in the future : but it is to be expected that if a new or amended Treaty is framed, Great Britain will insist upon possessing a Navy which will be adequate for the protection of the Empire’s trade-routes and the coasts and ports of its scattered territories. In other words, lei the Empire build in accordance with its requirements, and let other nations build in accordance with theirs, and if theAmericans demand equality with the Empire in this matter, let them build up to the Empire’s standard, rather than that the Empire should build down to theirs. Such equality is not to be deprecated, because of the community of interests of the English-speaking nations, and because of their common interest in the preservation of peace.