THE New Zealand Herald AND DAILY SOUTHERN CROSS. WEDNESDAY, OCTOBER 11, 1911. DEFENCE AND ARBITRATION.

New Zealand Herald, Volume XLVIII, Issue 14808, 11 October 1911, Page 6

THE New Zealand Herald AND DAILY SOUTHERN CROSS. WEDNESDAY, OCTOBER 11, 1911. DEFENCE AND ARBITRATION.

Loed Avebctry has long been an ardent- advocate of arbitration, ; and it is wholly consistent with his record that he should urgently demand the reference of the Tripoli dispute to the Hague Tribunal. But when he declares, in a letter to the Times, that. "Italy's precedent will: throw back * the cause of peace by a hundred years unless the neutral States insist on the question being referred to arbitration" he greatly overrates the development of the Peace Movement. Mr. Roosevelt, while heartily supporting the general character of the Arbitration Treaty between Britain and the United States, opposed the inclusion in its text of matters , affecting the national honour. The popular ex-President held that war was inconceivable between the two English-speaking countries, and that it was therefore most desirable to provide for the equitable 'settlement of differences, but that it was equally inconceivable that certain possible, though improbable, questions would be submitted to any tribunal. The basis of AngloAmerican , concord was, he pointed out, their mutual goodwill and their genuine desire not to misunderstand one anotherif that goodwill ever failed and if this genuine desire ever ceased to exist Mr. Roosevelt evidently '•■ regarded war between them as not to be prevented by. any hesitation in tearing up a treaty. This position seems as reasonable as it is frank, and it' is certainly in

keeping with pur historic knowledge of nations. - Lord Avebury, who has not Mr. Roosevelt's practical temperament, assumes that a reliable international compact can be arrived at and maintained without any basis of international goodwill, and that the authority oH a Hague Tribunal can be upheld by the police action of ■ nominally" disinterested neutrals. On paper this is excellently good doctrine and in practice it may be applied to petty States whose existence depends upon the tolerance of powerful neighbours. Greece can be disarmed. Guatemala and Nicaragua may be / tutored into orderliness. But who is to disarm Italy while Germany and Austria stand behind her, as who is to command Germany to submit the Moroccan question to the Hague Tribunal For the Moroccan imbroglio was on all fours with the Tripolitan problem. Nobody summoned Germany into the courts' of international law when she uttered her veiled threats against France and to suggest that Italy should be coerced into arbitration lest the -cause of peace be thrown back by a hundred years is _ mere sophistry. Doubtless it would be well if arbitration could be instituted •as a general law among nations, but those who lean upon it as 'an immediate solution of international problems put ..their trust in an exceedingly weak reed. Those countries will arbitrate, in the future as in the past, who are friendly to one another and seek to gain no advantage over one another; those counj tries will fight,; in the future as always, who are inimical and who ! seek to gain territory at each other's expense.

To attach overmuch importance to the arbitration movement of recent years predisposes the deluded to underestimate the value of national defence. Lord Roberts, who is making another of his stirring appeals to the British nation onj behalf of social reform, Imperial unity and defence, declares that " the Imperial Navy is rapidly being approached ;by other navies, while the army is quite unfitted to meet the demands which might be made at any moment." < In this serious charge there is much truth. All Europe is an armed camp. There is not a nation between thS Mediterranean and the Arctic Ocean, between the Atlantic and the Ural Mountains, which cannot muster to the colours its entire manhood. In the Pacific Russia and Japan alone i train every man to arms, and it is j only the mutual animosity of Russia j and Japan which * minimises the J deadly danger- either and both offer | to Western civilisation in these waters. The value of a navy in preventing the • effective embattlement of armies is constantly made evident. Turkey cannot reach either Italy or Tripoli because of the great superiority of the Italian navy, and as a result is reported to be considering the cession of Tripoli and the termination of the war by surrendering to the : Italian demand. Germany was undoubtedly made amenable to reason in 5 the Moroccan dispute by the knowledge that the superior British Navy would be ranged with that of France should war arise. The superior American Navy prevented Spain from molesting any part of the United - States, and enabled the Government of Wash; ington to "liberate" Cuba and to strip the Spanish Empire bare. As long as the British Empire is guarded by a navy superior to any combination which - may be: arrayed, against it, the British Empire is safe. But it' is quite useless to pretend that our ancient maritime supremacy is being strenuously maintained. The difference between the British Navy and possible combinations is being steadily decreased, . not only in Dreadnoughts,: but in those light yet deadly craft which in heroic hands may, do heroia deeds. While we talk of » arbitration ' and discuss the advantages of Hague Tribunals, the shipbuilding yards of the Continent work overtime in the making of marine monsters which are more influential in the deciding of national destinies than all the Hague Peace j Congresses ever convened. The j danger lies in the fact that if the British Navy is once overpowered the British Empire is done. If the Channel can be freely crossed by Continental army corps there is no force in the country capable of effective resistance. This situation must chain the British Navy to the narrow British seas, and may fatally weaken it for strategic uses. The Imperial safety lies in an unhesitating . determination that the British Navy shall be sufficient and that our British men shall be as able to? defend their Empire as foreigners are to attack it. If the Empire had no stronger safeguard than the Hague Tribunal, we should be more defenceless than Tripoli and • might well despair. ■ ■ , •