THE New Zealand Herald AND DAILY SOUTHERN CROSS SATURDAY, JULY 29, 1939 EMPIRE FOREIGN POLICY

New Zealand Herald, Volume LXXVI, Issue 23411, 29 July 1939, Page 12

THE New Zealand Herald AND DAILY SOUTHERN CROSS SATURDAY, JULY 29, 1939 EMPIRE FOREIGN POLICY

The much-discussed preliminary agreement made at Tokio brings into prominence the part played by the Dominions in the formulation of the Empire's foreign policy. Mr. Savage has said that his Government was aware of the negotiations, but not of the actual terms of the agreement any appreciable time before their' publication in the press. What part either the Australian or the New Zealand Government took in the negotiations is, of course, unknown, but last month, when public feeling throughout the Empire was roused by Japanese treatment of British subjects in China, it was reliably reported that both Governments had asked Mr. Chamberlain to proceed with extreme caution. The inference is obvious. The just indignation of the Commonwealth and this Dominion must be tempered with the knowledge that a breach with Japan might expose Australian and New Zealand citizens to the first consequences of Japanese retaliation —a sobering reflection for those supporters of the Government who deplored the preliminary agreement. It is no doubt true, as a British Government has asserted, that the Dominions are "international units individually in the fullest sense, of the term." But it is equally true, when the burden of defence is largely borne by the Mother Country, that the United Kingdom stands head and shoulders above the other members of the Commonwealth as a force in international politics. Mr. Savage has indeed recognised this position. Asked to comment on the attitude of the Dominion toward the ill-treatment of its agent in Tientsin, he said that it was not usual for the Dominions to act independently in such cases, which were handled by the Foreign Office on behalf of every unit of the British Commonwealth of Nations. Such an attitude is entirely proper, although it is more characteristic of Australia and New Zealand than of the other Dominions. Mr. Savage is merely continuing the traditional adherence of New Zealand Governments to the notion of the diplomatic unity of the Empire. This Dominion has shown greater willingness than any other member of the Commonwealth to accept the course of British foi-eign policy. Alone among J Dominion statesmen Mr. Coates and Sir Francis Bell approved the Locarno Pacts, although Dr. Berriedale Keith says that the Dominions were not associated in their negotiation. It is significant, indeed, that the Pact expressly provided that it should not impose any obligation upon a Dominion unless the Government of such Dominion should accept the Treaty. In the result the United Kingdom alone was bound. A similar dependence on the armed, strength of the United Kingdom has caused Australia, like New Zealand, to hestitate in taking a strong line in foreign affairs. But a stronger natural position and an energetic defence policy which this Dominion would do well to emulate have enabled the Commonwealth to take a more emphatic part in Empire foreign policy. It might perhaps be added that, in Mr. Hughes in experience and Mr. Menzies in intellectual distinction, Australia has two statesmen well qualified to; take an important part in a field of action so vital to the Empire to-day. Mr. Menzies in particular has contri. buted to the principles of inter Imperial consultation. While he stresses the independence of each member of the Commonwealth, he urges us to think more and more in terms of British unity. That unity, in his view, will be preserved as . a force for peace and justice by the British Government speaking for British people all over the world and consequently reaching its decisions, as far as possible, only after hearing Dominion criticism and attaching proper weight to Dominion views. Mr. Menzies has clearly recognised that even with modern methods of communication vital and urgent decisions must still be taken at Downing Street. The final arbitrament of war should be the result of united Imperial action, unless indeed it is forced upon us by a dread and sudden attack. The Dominion of Canada, on the other hand, demands that anything involving the risk of war must first go before Parliament. Mr. Meighen's proposal that a referendum in the form of a general election should first be held would mean for some time the virtual neutrality of the Dominion. The shock of a totalitarian war leaves no room for such constitutional precautions. Mr. Savage's generalisation on the function of the Foreign Offico should not go unqualified. It is undoubtedly true that where the Dominions have not separate diplomatic representation, they may and normally do use British diplomatic machinery. They may in such cases communicate with foreign Governments through the Foreign Office or in routine matters through legations and embassies. But it is quite a different matter where the Dominion has its own diplomatic representative. In the case of the sinking of the vessel "I'm Alone," in 1929, the Canadian Minister in Washington eventually assumed the burden of negotiation with the United States and the British Government itself affirmed his competency. The situation and the population of Canada have thus enabled it to take its part in the world of diplomacy. Our dependence on the United Kingdom has led us to lean more heavily upon ths Mother Country in the conduct of foreign affairs. Our voice in their determination will speak more . insistently when we aire better prepared to resist aggression. In the' 1 words of Mr. Menzies we can best I contribute to a wise Empire policy I \ by a real Empire security..