IMPERIAL CONFERENCE

New Zealand Times, Volume L, Issue 11662, 29 October 1923, Page 4

IMPERIAL CONFERENCE

PRACTICAL PROBLEMS FOR SOLUTION BRITAIN’S FOREIGN POLICY ABRIDGED FROM “ THE ROUND TABLE”

11. DIPLOMACY. Tho-general direction of Commonwealth >olicy is likely to be the main preoccupation of the Imperial Conference in the sphere of foreign policy. But the quesion of machinery come* only next to it in importance. In the last issue of “The Round Table," No. 51, June 1923, p. 4-75, extracts were quoted from the speeches of leaders of opinion in the Dominions showing that there was a striking unanimity of view that the present system of consultation had broken down, and that some change must be made. The Obanak incident revealed to the public eye what students had long foreseen, that directly the war was over wo should drift back to the pre-war system whereby the control of foreign policy and the chief burden of responsibility would be in the hands of Great Britain, while the Dominions, in theory, and under the constitution equal partners, would, in fact, share neither in the control nor the responsibility. In the earlier part of the present article wo havo endeavoured to show how impossible it is for the system to continue under which Great Britain entered into commitments which the Dominions endorsed or not, as they pleased, and how vital it is that foreign policy in future should be one of which the whole Commonwealth approves. During the war all these difficulties were obviated by the existence of the Imperial War Cabinet. The present unsatisfactory 6tate of affairs, with the unequal distribution alike of responsibility and control, have come about through no deliberate decision, but by the pressu9 of necessity and fact. The overseas Prime Ministers have gone home, aim. the Dominions, so far from wanting to.follow foreign policy, became chiefly concerned, tnce the German menace had disappeared, and the Far Eastern situotion had been temporarily stabilised by the Washington treaties, to be left alone to get on with the task of their own internal development. And these are the facii with which we have to deal today. Accordingly, in the June number of "The Bound Table" it was suggested that the needs of the moment could be met, n£t by any organic change or by stationary Dominion Ministers in London, but by modifying the existing ineffective system of inter-imperial communication into one of a quasi-diplo-matic kind. The real need to-day is that every national Government within the Con monwealth should have agents in London, and. if possible, in each of the other capitals of the Empire, who are specially trained in political and international observation, who do not change with party Governments, of a standing and with pay to enable them to consort with Ministers and ambassadors on equal terms, and whose whole business it should be to maintain touch with the British Secretaries of State, with ambassadors and foreign representatives, and • with imperial and foreign affairs, and so be able to keep their own Governments authoritatively advised of what is going on If this were the case, when crises Aid arise, as they are bound oontinuoue* ly to arise in foreign affairs, each Gov•eminent of the Commonwealth would have a staff which could advise it as to the facts and which would be qualified to serve effectively, as ambassadors do, as intermediaries in the process of consultation about what the policy of the i Commonwealth should be. Thu 6at last i could effective consultation begin. It is! \ certain that the present High Commissioners, already heavily burdened by commercial responsibilities, could not do the work, and that either the High Commissioner should be freed from all other responsibilities to enable him to do it, or a special representative should be accredited to London to deal with diplomatic and international affairs. It is equally important that the British Government should be adequately served in the Dominion capitals. Ex* 'perience in the war showed that it was as difficult to make the British Government understand the Dominion point ot view as it was to make the Dominion Governments understand the British point of view. Progress was only made when each Government sent an agent oc its own to represent it on the spot. This will probably be true also of consultation about foreign affairs, and it may lead to some modification of the existing system of Governor-General. With the absolute separation from politics which their status requires, they hardly seem qualified to act as expert • intermediaries. Nor do we eee any objection to Dominion representatives being stationed for the same purpose in foreign capitals, provided there is previous agreement with ail the other Commonwealth Governments at the Imperial Conference about their powers ana functions, and Srovided it is clearly recognised that no overnment in the Commonwealth can ■ enter into engagements with any foreign Power, save in minor matters of purely i local effect, without full consultation with and the assent of the other nations of the Commonwealth whom its acts commit. In the opinion of ''The Bound , Table" the more direct the contact of all parts of the Commonwealth with the realities of the international world the better, provided always that the cardinal rule of consultation and agreement before engagement or action is observed. There are certain great advantages and economies in having a single Imperial diplomatic service, provided enough Dominion citizens are recruited into it. But there is no reason why that should he allowed to obscure the Dominion contact with foreign Powers. If their advice in consultation is to be effective it must be based upon knowledge. Possibly the solution of the problem of Imperial diplomacy is that each Dominion should develop a specialised diplomatic service of its own, whose primary duty should be to reside in London and also in the other capitals of the Commonwealth, for contact there is hardly less important, but who should not live permanently in foregin capitals, but move about where the centres of international interest happei to be, consult with the British Ministers on the spot, and so ( report continuously to their own Governments on the problems of the world. Such are our views. We do not, however, desire to dogmatise. The Prime Minister of Australia, for instance, is r®port>jd ("Tile Times/* July 25th, 1923) to be in favour of having a resident Minister in London, provided that ho is ; given access to Cabinet documents and consulted on all subjects involving the 1 Interests of the Umpire. There are no 4

doubt advantages in such a scheme, but n there is also a formidale practical ditfi- _ culty. As long a 6 little or no interest 0 is taken by their public in foreign affairs, leading Dominion statesmen are t. unlikely to be willing in normal times 0 to go and reside in London, where they t> would be out of touch with their col- <* leagues, their constituents, and domestic s politics. Where, however, there is a g * will, a way may be found, and if the i. Dominions, or any of them — for uniformity is not indis- / pensable—should decide to send a e Cabinet Minister hero, ire should welcome it. Once a start is made, experience will 0 show which is the best method. The a ultimate test will be whatever that which « is selected stimulates interest , and a sons© y of responsibility where at present they are lacking. i’ 111. DEFENCE. i , At the present time, as poipted out in - tho last issue of this review, there is no e urgent question of general Commono wealth defence. Germany is disarmed, and. tho Washington Conference has tome porarily stabilised tho situation in tho 0 Pacific. None the less, we are living in , a world in which hate, ignorance and v * suspicion are still powerful, and every e nation “has still, in the last resort, to velv upon itself for its safety and its rights abroad. Armaments, in point of tact, are greater in Europe than ever, and Great Britain has recently been forced reluctantly to expand its own provision for air defence. There is no ~ laying what the future may produce, and ■ whatever hopes we may entertain of the 1 eventual of tho League of Na- " tions, obviously no nation to-day can ' afford to be utterly unprepared. The ’ only alternative to universal armaments » is not disarmament, hut law governing J the nations, and for the moment we are * not making much obvious progress towards that goal. f Fortunately there is no need for the b Commonwealth to expand its armaments l at present, save in the air. The naval b arrangements concluded at Washington - have stopped naval rivalry in the meet important categories of vessels of war. t It is rather a question of considering l the best geographical distribution of t 6uch strength as we now possess, and the r financial distribution of the burden ini volved. This, to-day, is so much an ? expert question that wo do not propose . to examine in detail such matters as . the merits of the proposal to fortify . Singaioro. We will simply print some J figures showing expenditure to-day, for t they point their own moral. Wo give , them as correctly as we have been able \to obtain them. As regards naval expenditure, according to Mr Bruce, tho [ latest figures show that Great Britain is ; expending on her Navy 26s Bd, Canada Is 4d, New Zealand 4s 7d» and Australia ! ; 8s 2d per head. ESTIMATED EXPENDITURE ; —1922-23.+ 1 Great Britain.—Army, navy, air, *.£lll,- j 000,000; service of war debt, *£323,990,- j , 000; world war pensions, *90,513,000; j total, *£525,503,000; per head of popu-) lation, «£ll 18s 7d (for 1023-24; Army, j navy, air, <£122,011,000; service of war i debt, .£35,000,000; world war pensions, * £74,148,000; total, £546,159,000; per head ! of population, £l2 7s lid). j Canada. —Army, navy air, nearly .£3,- i 000,000; service of war debt, say £21,561,038; world war pensions, about 7 million; total, <£31,603,812; per head of population, <£3 Us lid. i Australia.—Army, navy, air, <£4,587,862; j service of war dobt, £20,582,810; world ! war pensions, .£6,920,049; total, £82,090,- j 721; per head of population. £5 lßs. South Africa.—Army, navy air, £915,840; service of war debt, say <£1,390,433; world war pensions, about 1 million; total, <£3,306,279; per head of population, <£2 3s 6d. New Zealand.—Army, Eavy, air, £611,338; service of war debt, £4,667,500; world war pensions, about 14 million; total, £6,890,369; per head of population, £5 13s. fExcept where an asterisk appears, these figures are not actual, but estimated expenditure. The war debt service figures for Canada and South Africa are rough approximations. For the Canadian figures we have taken 6 per cent, on tho total war expenditure (to March 31st, 1922) of £359,350,638, and for South Africa 6 per cent, on war expenditure out of loan funds from 1915-16 to 1921-22 inclusive. For the Canadian figure the exchange has been assumed to he 4.70 dollars. The corresponding British figure covers debts from William IT.'s reign, though at the outbreak of war the service was only 244 million. It is far higher for 1923-24 than for previous years, because £40,000,000 for the debt to America is now included. The figures "per head of population/* etc., are based on the 1921 census statistics The first three groups of figures do uot exhaust Imperial expenditure. Great Britain, for instance, spends a considerable sum every year on the diplomatic and consular services, the colonial and the middle Eastern servioes and others, which are included in. Class V. of the Civil Service. The estimate of this class for 1922-23 is 12 million. Expenditure on fuch objects as the assistance of ex-soldier emigration and settlement and aa repatriations is omitted, becauso it is temporary and transitory, and our object is to compare the permanent annual expenditure of Great Britain and the Dominions. In tho case of South Africa we have only taken account of tho white population of 1,519,488, but there are, besides the whites, 5,409,092 ooloufled people. In ooniparing the figures generally, the relative purchasing power of money in the different countries concerned must be ' taken into account and allowance made. Money is the cotnfcer in which wealth is reckoned and has a different value in different countries. Its purchasing power is still much higher in Great Britain, generally .speaking, than in the Dominions. We have given no figures above for Newfoundland or India. The population of the former is relatively small; the conditions of the latter arc different. Newfoundland's war. expenditure was £3,617,021. She contributed! 9000 soldiers and 2053 seamen. India contributed in money £100,000,000, and in personnel 1,457,000 men, of whom 949,000 served overseas. The cost of troops was met abroad by Great Britain, but in India by India herself. The estimated cost of her military services for 1922-23 is £-15,235,778 18s, taking the rupee at Is 4 l-22d. On July 30th, the estimated expendi- i turn on defence per head of white oopu- i lation was given by SirW. Joynson-Hicks as follows Great Britain (1923-24), £2 > 18s sd. Dominions (1922-23) : Australia, 1 17s lid; Canada, 6s fid; New Zealand, 11s ! 4d; South Africa, 12s Id.