Untitled

Otago Daily Times, Issue 18856, 8 May 1923, Page 5

THE CRISIS IN NEAR EAST. Last year the Turkish crisis developed. The first intimation Australia had that trouble was probable was a press cable, from which it appeared that war was imminent. The situation, also, seemed to bo rather serious, . ■. The official communication confirming the press telegram came to hand nearly a day later. From all accounts the position was as bad as it. could well bo. We had been informed by the press tjuit Mr Lloyd George had asked the dominions to stand by Britain, and, if necessary, to be represented by a contingent of troops. From the official telegram it appeared that Britain was entirely in the right; whether the Turks w'ero in the wrong was not so clear. As the Australian Government saw’ it, there was only one thing to do. V\e said that the commonwealth should stand by the side of Britain,- and would, if necessary, be represented by as many troops as the circumstances called for. At the same time the Government instructed its representative to bring the matter before the League of Nations—then in session—whose business it was to preserve peace, and urge its intervention. It is unnecessary to follow the subsequent developments nf this matter. They aie quite fresh in the minds of the people or the Emnire. So far. war has been averted. Britain has loon firm, mid, as I see it. entirely in the right. Lord Curzon handled the situation in a masterly fashion, and the attitude of Australia helped in some measure to strengthen his hands.

But the point I am making is that in this case, as in that of Egypt, we were only consulted when the situation had got out of hand. Wo were told (first by the press) that somethin? had been done, and asked by the. British Government to approve it.

It was, of course, optional for Australia not to do so. But Gallipoli is a name graven upon our hearts. Turkey in arms meant the Near East and eventually the Far East in flames. It is not suggested that had we been consulted in time events wotdd have taken another course. But conceivably they might have done so. And that is the pivot of the whole position. A little fire can be put out with little <hmeulty; a groat conflagration is quite another matter. The dominions’ concept of what is the best policy for the Empire does pot always coincide with that. of Britain. DOMINIONS HAVE NO EFFECTIVE VOICE. This in practice is how the foreign policy of the Empire is managed m those later days. The dominions, except when their re. presentatwes are in London, are told when things are done that they have been done. It may be said that the dominion Prime Ministers when in conference have a voice in deciding-' the broad general principles upon which foreign policy is based. So they have. But they are there seldom, and do not stay long. What is to happen when they go back to their respective domains? It is the application of prmcip es that is the chief cause of trouble. The busy worm outside cur doors does not stand still. Who can peer into the future and foresee what a day may bring forth? _ . . ’The stage of foreign affairs m an Empire like ours is so vast, so crowded with events, great and small- —the great of to-day cUMnciling to the insignificant of to-morrow; the negligible waxing gargantuan as the clays pass —that unless the dominions are kept fully .informed on every question affecting or likely to affect the _ Empire before the policy in regard to it is shaped, the share of the dominions in foreign policy is a thing without bone and substance. It is one thing* to say and quit© another thing to do. I am not criticising, but showing what is done and who' does it. . As I have shown, the dominions too frequently hear of things after they_ have been done. They may have a voice in _ deciding general princples: they have no voice at all in applying them to concrete cases. In theory we have a voice in shaping foreign policy. In practice our voice is generally a mere echo. It can hardly be said, therefore, that there has been any change of control over foreign policy, or that the dominions have any more effective share in. shaping it than before the war. And, of course, they have no share in carrying out foreign _ policy. Now, it can hardly be said that this practice is satisfactory or that its continuance is not a danger to the unity of the Empire. One of these days something really serious may haopon. A position may be taken up from which there can be no receding, and upon which feeling in the dominions is lukewarm or hostile. In such a case, if the dominions have not been given a chance to make their voices heard, not only before the die is cast, but while the question is malleable and so possible of being shaped as the whole Empire wishes, there probably will be most serious trouble. ' .

FOREIGN bOLICY AND BRITISH PARTIES.

The recent elections in Britain serve to remind us that the Empire has, like Topsy, “growed up.” Foreign policy affects the Empire as a whole, but as things are it is shaped by the parly which has a majority in the British House of Common's. And. to put it quite plainly, the policy which affects and makes or mars the whole Empire is steeped in the vat of British party politics. Much may be said in support of this practice. Britain, of course, is the pro dominant partner in the Empire. Tier population is larger, her wealth and power greater, her interests wider than any or all of the dominions. She is entitled to exercise an influence on foreign policy proportionate to her position in the Empire. But so are the dominions.

It may be urged that all parties in Britain recognise that foreign policy imposes such grave responsibilities upon them that it ought not to be made the football of party politics. The fact remains that each party has its own concept of foreign affairs, and in practice foreign policy is moulded by the'party which has the majority in the Commons, modified from time to time as the views of thg.t majority change in response to public opinion or other influences. No doubt the views of the dominions —when they are known—are taken into account when shaping foreign policy. But the dominating influences are the exigencies of British party politics. , This is, ot course, quite natural, and rests upon the comfortable cushions of ancient habit. No one questions its propriety—indeed, no one notices it. It has always been so. And it may be said that it has worked well enougli >in practice. But whether it works well in practice or not, one thing is certain, it cannot continue much longer. It was all very well when the dominions were like children, hanging upon their mother s skirts. It is very dangerous now that they are grown up. Among the issues the British electors were called to decide at the recent elections was the policy of the Government in the Near East. Of course, it was quite right that the British people should have an opportunity ot saying what kind of a policy they desired should be pursued towards Turkey and other foreign countries. If war broke out they would have to light, and pay. But so should we; yei our voice, of course, could not be heard. The people of Britain. I say, elected a Parliament to give effect to their views on foreign policy in the Near East and elsewhere. As it happened, the policy of the new Government bore a strong family resemblance to that ot the Government it had displaced. There was. in' fact, no change at the Foreign Office! Lord Curzon remained in charge, and, I assume, pursued the same policy. ■ But it could easily have happened that a Government that knew not Joseph came in and reversed/the policy of its predecessors. The Labour Party, for example, might have done so. In that case, what would Australia’s position have been ?

If, as I have said, Hie right and only thfhg for a dominion to do, when the policy of the Empire towards other nations Iras been dearly pronounced, is to stand alongside Britain, and we, having done- this and being committed before the world to such a policy, were calmly told by the now Government that they _ proposed to make a volts face and repudiate their predecessors’ policy, where should we be ? Would not Australia be made to appear ridiculous in the eyes of the nations, and its Government be a thing to jeer arid point at?

In such circumstances, and they may arise any day, and must do so eventually, the unity of the Empire would be very gravely menaced. No dominion could tolerate such a position. Yet if the Empire must turn a united front to tho outside world, the dominions would have no option but to eat their own words, repudiate the policy of yesterday which they bad declared to be right, and support a quite different one. But this would he a course so humiliating and sr. inconsistent with their status as nations that relations with Britain would be strained to breaking point. All this has been recognised -by the British -Government, which, as wo have seen, has expressed a strong desire to give the dominions that share in the government of the Empire to which they* are entitled But there are many lions in the path.