THE OTAGO DAILY TIMES SATURDAY, JANUARY 18, 1916. THE FREEDOM OF THE SEAS.

Otago Daily Times, Issue 16592, 15 January 1916, Page 8

THE OTAGO DAILY TIMES SATURDAY, JANUARY 18, 1916. THE FREEDOM OF THE SEAS.

It may be remembered that in conveying a Christmas greeting to the German nation Herr Ballin, president of the Hamburg-Amerika Shipping Line and a personal friend of the Kaiser, had some advice to offer for the benefit of the men .who might be called upon to settle the terms of peace. They must, he urged, prevent this sanguinary war from being followed by an economic war, and they must demand the freedom of the seas. "The seas," he argued, " are always free in, peace time, but in war time we have again found to our cost that the strongest fleet rules the seas. Hence means must and will be found to guarantee the freedom of the traffic of the mercantile fleets both in peace and war time." The admission contained in Herr Ballin's statement,- though it tells us nothing of which we are not already cognisant, is not unwelcome. He makes no secret of his serious concern as to the future of the German mercantile marine. He insists that the freedom of the seas shall from, the date of the end of the war onwards secure that future against apprehension, though of course he does not presume to say how Germany is to bring about a consummation, so desirable to herself. On the next occasion when Germany is at war she must, according to Herr Ballin, not be embarrassed in her efforts by having the seas closed to her as they are in the present war. The implication is that some arrangement and guarantee are requisite to secure German mercantile fleets from interference even in war time. Germany formerly had other thoughts as to the manner in which the seas were to be kapt open to her in war time. The lesson which sha has received from the navy of Great 3ritain has' convinced her of the need of approaching the question from a different standpoint. Germany has everything to gain by recommending to the world a new doctrine of the freedom of the seas, because she occupies an exceptional position as a military Power. So long as the existing conditions at sea continue her army is virtually imprisoned and cannot move beyond confines which she has found too narrow for her ambitions. It is her idea, we may assume, that if once she could prevail upon the nations to agree to hsr conception of the freedom of the seas, world domination would no longer beyond the sphere of her possible achievement. Of course, this is not quite the manner in which the doctrine of the freedom of the seas is represented by its German exponents. Some months back Herr Dernbnrg wac responsible at New York foar the statement:, "The

whole fight and all the fight is on one side for the absolute dominion of the seven seas: on the other side for a free sea — the traditional ' mare liberum.' A free sea will mean the cessation of the danger of war and the stopping of world-wars. The sea should be free to all. It belongs to no nation in particular—neither to the British, nor to the Germans nor to the Americans. The rights of nations cease with the territorial line of three miles from low tide. Any domination exercised beyond that line is a breach and an infringement of the right of others." Such an utterance as this is a little bewildering. It betrays some confusion of ideas in respect to the question at issue. Herr Ballin has vouched, as he well might, for the freedom of the sea in time of peace. Moreover, it is obvious that the sentiments or ideas expressed by Herr Dernburg do not harmonise with the purposes for which the great navybuilding programme of Germany was inaugurated. Not unprofitably may be recalled some of the earlier utterances of the Kaiser such as "I will never rest until I. have raised my navy to a position similar to that occupied by my army"; or "our future lies on the water"; or "the trident must be in fist." No inspiration is required to discover that Germany's yearning after the " freedom of the seas " is the outcome of her failure to secure the command of the seas. Moreover, she desires the former in order that it may be the forerunner of the latter. In an interesting discussion in the Fortnightly Review of what he terms Germany's new policy Mr Archibald Hurd observes: "A widespread and insidious effort is being made by German agents to undermine the influence which we exercise in virtue of our fleet. The German campaign against what is described as ' British navalism' is peculiarly dangerous, because it makes an appeal to sentiment and passivism." Mr Hurd then goes on to point out how, having failed to get the trident into her own hands, Germany would now demand that the trident bdl abolished. What would be the consequence, he inquires, of such action as the German Emperor and his agents now cry for? On the assumption that the idea of a " freedom of the sea " alliance could be carried out, there could be no guarantee, he points out, that any one of the signatory Powers would not secretly construct battleships or submarines. In the conditions suggested by President Eliot of Harvard University—conditions implying the creation of " a strong, trustworthy, international alliance " —a very small naval effort on the part of one aggressive Power would be sufficient to secure command of the seas, since no other Power, actuated by honest intentions, would possess the ability to defend its sea-borne interests. "The obvious rekilt of such an alliance, if effective," Mr Hurd continues, "would be a discontinuance of the construction of warships and the organisation and training of personnel by all honest Powers of the world. There would be no navies worthy of the name, for the main purpose for which navies exist would have been abolished. And once navies had been disestablished they could not be rapidly called into being again. The result would be that the command of the sea would pass automatically to the nation possessing the greatest ability for organisation in secrecy. President Eliot's conception of the freedom of the seas would provide the ideal conditions in which Germany would be able to secure the dominion of the seas." The German position in relation to this question, really an old topic of controversy, is, however, hopelessly illogical. For herself and for the world it would be an unfortunate day upon which Great Britain relinquished her right to command the sea in time of war against her enemies*