THE New Zealand Herald AND DAILY SOUTHERN CROSS MONDAY, DECEMBER 30, 1940 THE NAURU DISASTER

New Zealand Herald, Volume LXXVII, Issue 23851, 30 December 1940, Page 6

THE New Zealand Herald AND DAILY SOUTHERN CROSS MONDAY, DECEMBER 30, 1940 THE NAURU DISASTER

Closely following the destructive

attack on British shipping off Xauru Island on December 8, a German raider has now appeared at the island and, in a few minutes of accurate and concentrated shelling, has effectively disrupted its important phosphate trade. This latest German exploit has drawn shouts of rhetorical anger from the Prime Minister of Australia, Mr. Menzies, but the fine political frenzy thus generated should not blind anyone to the fact that the tremendous damage done is primarily due to the culpable negligence of Mr. Menzies' Government. The Australian Prime Minister claims that since Xauru is entirely undefended it should be immune from attack. One hardly expects such ingenuousness even from so seasoned a politician. Xauru was attacked because it was undefended, and for the lack of defences—even such elementary defences as would be sufficient to repel an armed merchantman--the Australian authorities are to blame. Xauru is held under mandate from the League of Xations by Great Britain, Australia and New Zealand, but the administration from the outset has been entrusted to Australia. It has been carried out with such foresight and efficiency that the richest island in the world, a monument to British industrial enterprise and endeavour, has been crippled by an enemy attack which was always within the bounds of possibility and of which, in point of fact, nearly three weeks' warning was given.

The latest raid on Nauru was an example of naval daring and skill which, had it been provided by a British ship, would have been enthusiastically acclaimed. The fact that Nauru was undefended, "and must lie so under the terms of the League of Nations mandate," was known to the enemy, and this, says Mr. Menzies, "removes any justification whatsoever for his (the enemy's) action." Has it ever occurred to the Australian Prime Minister. his colleagues and members of the Labour Opposition, all of whom have been so busy playing at politics, that this is a total war in which industrial equipment must be regarded as an important military objective ? By striking at Nauru, the captain of the German raider knew that he was striking at the productive capacity of Empire farms which require heavy and constant supplies of artificial fertilisers in order to maintain their output of foodstuffs for Britain. In doing so, and in showing at least some r«gard for human life, he was guilty of nothing more reprehensible or illegal than the sinking of a British merchant ship after providing for the safety of passengers and crew. So much for Mr. Menzies' first red herring. His second is that Nauru could not be defended because of the terms

i of the League mandate. The three countries responsible for the manj date are all at war with two Powers j which left the League, bellowing I defiance, and which have time and : again openly flouted its Covenant.. Could there be any valid argument, legal or moral, against the installation of defences? The bulk of the blame for the blunder at Nauru rests with the Australian authorities, but the New Zealand Government also has some responsibility in the matter. Intensive farming, as practised in the Dominion, demands a ready and constant supply of materials for manufacture into superphosphate, and of these Nauru is the richest source. Surely the Government owed it to the producers to demand all reasonable precautions in safeguarding the supply of essential materials and, if necessary, to cooperate in the taking of those precautions. If any representations were made, they are a matter between Governments and are not likely to be discussed in public at this stage. Difficulties in naval dispositions are admitted, but the fact remains that two or three coastal batteries, covering the great cantilever wharf at Nauru, could certainly have prevented the serious damage that has been done and could have ensured the continued working of the phosphate deposits at the maximum of efficiency demanded by war. As it is, that protection will still be needed, but for months to come, perhaps longer, it will be protection for a loading system which is antiquated, slow, costly and dangerous. The whole sorry affair, with its implications of complacency and ineptitude, suggests that Australia and New Zealand must get closer together and display much more resolute action in the discharge of their responsibilities and obligations in the Pacific.