IMPERIAL DEFENCE

Otago Daily Times, Issue 19966, 7 December 1926, Page 8

IMPERIAL DEFENCE

The published summary of the utterances at the Imperial Conference on the important question of Empire defence balanced instructively the views of the different dominions, particularly in regard to their obligations in respect of the maintenance of naval forces. In his allusion to the Singapore base Mr Baldwin virtually invited a direct answer to the question whether the dominions that are more directly interested could co-operate in the development of a naval station, than which, he said, there could be no more valuable contribution to the defence of the Empire as a whole. Australia and New Zealand have always recognised the importance of the Singapore project. Both were originally prepared to contribute to its cost. But when the British Labour Government, under Mr Ramsay MacDonald, abandoned the policy of its predecessor in relation to Singapore, it interfered with their intentions. The Commonwealth Government committed itself to a five years’ naval programme involving the building of two cruisers at a cost of £4,250,000 and of two submarines at a cost of £716,340. With the return of Mr Baldwin to power the base at Singapore became an integral part of the naval policy of the British Government, but, greatly interested as Australia is in the project, she is no longer in so favourable a position to assist it as she was formerly. Speaking at the Imperial Conference Mr Bruce was able to point to a contribution on the part of Australia towards Empire defence winch makes that of any other of the dominions appear somewhat trivial. And, though he could not have spoken more strongly than he did respecting the necessity for the establishment at Singapore, it is not surprising that he did not hold out much hope of a contribution on the part of the Commonwealth towards the cost of the base. On behalf of New Zealand, Mr Coates was in a better position to hold out a prospect of a larger contribution towards the burden of naval maintenance, and his undertaking that the question of an annual contribution towards the work at Singapore would be submitted to the Parliament of the Dominion at the earliest opportunity was given in circumstances that presage a. different result from that attending a similar procedure in the Commonwealth.

Among the representatives of the dominions at the Conference only Mr Bruce and Mr Coates appear to have manifested any really keen, interest in the maintenance of the Empire’s first line of defence. Mr Coates put a pertinent question when he inquired whether the burden of the construction of the necessary ships could not be borne in greater proportion by the dominions which did not consider themselves so vitally concerned. The contention that the cost of defending the Empire should be distributed over the Empire on an equitable basis is possibly carried too far in some quarters. On the other hand, the discrepancy between the proportion of that cost that is borne by the British taxpayer and the proportion of it defrayed by the people of other parts of the Empire is very pronounced, the more so in view of the claim of the dominions to participate in the shaping of the foreign policy of the Empire. Figures have been quoted to show that, on a per capita basis, the people of Great Britain are contributing towards the defence of the Empire nearly twice as much as the people of Australia, four times as much :is the people of New Zealand, nine times as much as the people of Canada and over twenty times as much as the white population of South Africa. During the financial year 192526 the expenditure per capita on navy, army, and air force by Great Britain and the dominions was as follows: £ s. d. Great Britain 2 11 1 Australia ... 17 2 New Zealand 0 12 11 Canada 0 5 8 South Africa 0 2 6 The discrepancies between the expendir tures of the dominions themselves on defence are very marked. Australia and New Zealand, stimulated no doubt by their dependence on the security of the Empire’s lines of communication, alone make any real endeavour to meet their responsibilities. Canada has never attempted to shoulder a proportionate share oi the burden of Empire defence. In his speech on the subject at the Imperial Conference, Mr Mackenzie King does not seem to have said anything that was deemed worthy of reporting. In an article on the Canadian attitude on this question, in the Round Table, it is stated: “No party in Canada, no public naan of weight, no newspaper of influence supports.an increase in naval expenditure to-day, whether by way of building up a Canadian fleet or of providing funds for the Admiralty. There appears to be no likelihood that this attitude will change.” As the Canadian people take the view that their country has not the same need of the protecting arm of the British navy as Great Britain and, some of. the other dominions have, it is difficult to convince them that their view of Imperial defence is either narrow or one-sided. But the standpoint from which they regard the issue does emphasis© the point that the question of apportioning the cost of Imperial defence is not a simple matter of arithmetic.