THE New Zealand Herald AND DAILY SOUTHERN CROSS SATURDAY, FEBRUARY 18, 1939 THE PRICE OF SECURITY

New Zealand Herald, Volume LXXVI, Issue 23275, 18 February 1939, Page 12

THE New Zealand Herald AND DAILY SOUTHERN CROSS SATURDAY, FEBRUARY 18, 1939 THE PRICE OF SECURITY

In the White Paper issued to the House of Commons on Wednesday and in the speech of the Chancellor of the Exchequer made the same day, the increasing cost of Britain's preparations for defence is plainly exhibited. It is not a pleasant revelation. O.nly a conviction that the huge outlay is an imperative necessity can relieve, in any measure, the feeling of disquiet aroused by the figures. They are terrible in their gigantic totals; a year or two ago they would have been incredible. Estimates for the three defence Departments of State in the next financial year amount to about £523,000,000; ; when associated expenditure is added, the round figure reaches £580,000,000. The following table makes grim reading: 1936-37 .. .. £150,000,000 1937-38 .. .. .. 262,000,000 1938-39 .< .. 388,000,000 1939-40 580,000,000 A backward look beyond the initial year of this comparison intensifies the disturbing truth: for the year 1930-31 the outlay was £95,000,000, | and the average annual pre-war total, over five years in which the international outlook was darkening, was £64,000,000. From £95,000,000 to £588,000,000, in the brief space of ten years, is an appalling rise. It cannot be faced with calm; to deplore it is an inescapable reaction, whatever can be said in justification of the financial facts, and wherever the responsibility lies for so exacting a drain on national resources. Nor is the prospect beyond next financial year, as the Government views it in care for sustained national security, at all consoling. An indication of what is in store is given in the White Paper's reference to excess of expenditure over what can be met from revenue, and in Sir John Simon's announcement that he is introducing a bill to increase the borrowing limit, for the five-year period ending in March, 1942, from £400,000,000 to £800,000,000. This means, as he explains, • that as the expense of rearmament met out of borrowed money, up to the present year, was about £200,000,000, there will be statutory authority for future borrowing of £600,000,000. The cold facts —if such facts can be called cold —compel grave thinking. Included in such thought must be contemplation of the vast sums being devoted to armaments in countries other than Britain. In the news of this week is further evidence of the mounting cost of defence programmes; Eire and the United States, to cite examples of small and great outlays, furnish particular proof of the general state of things; most of the nations of the world, including those cherishing a policy of established neutrality, are standing to arms. But in all honesty a distinction must be drawn between those deliberately cultivating a belligerent posture and those driven by this behaviour of others to take precautions against being bludgeoned into surrender of rights. There need be no beating about the bush to find those mainly to blame for the horrible plight into which the world is being thrust. By word and deed they are self-declared. Their loud threats are only less reprehensible than actual onslaught, that is all; and some of them have not scrupled to engage in war, either by entry into a domestic quarrel outside their own homes or by ruthless invasion of a neighbour's land to enlarge their own. The White Paper declares "It is everywhere recognised that British armaments will have no aggressive purpose." Maybe the quiet manner of this assertion will cause its truth to be minimised in some quarters, but it is true nevertheless; and the mounting cost of Britain's preparations for defence can be reasonably taken as the measure of the evil intent of "the men that delight in war." Britain will unfeignedly welcome the day when such expenditure can be safely reduced, still more the day when it can be safely €'.nded altogether. She has thoroughly tried one-sided disarmament, to no purpose. "Never again," said the Labour Prime Minister whose administration perilously made the quixotic gesture, and the temper of the nation, convinced of the error and sorely tried by the continued flouting of peaceful overtures, is to day behind such a decision. Of Britain's attitude the White Paper speaks clearly: "She has already indicated that when other nations are prepared to consider some arrangements for limitation of armaments this country will be prepared to play its part, but in the absence of a general reduction of armaments it is inevitable that this country should continue to take steps necessary, in the light of present developments, for its own protection and for the discharge of its responsibilities elsewhere." It is of no use to say, in answer to this, that it is an attempt to evade responsibility; for the one thing achieved by Britain's otherwise futile gesture of disarmament was to shut for ever the mouths of those inclined to demand plausibly that she should now begin. That way lies further derision, not persuasion. British rearmament on an effective scale has had a sobering influence already. For the eako of the world, she must not weaken. The Netherlands Foreign Minister has well said, when deploring the revival of military strength, that it is the only factor counting to-day in international affairs; his meaning applies closely to the steep rise in ' Britain's expenditure. The figures may be staggering, but more staggering would be a neglect of defence, resulting in the downfall of an essential bulwark of world peace. - . • ,\