NATIONAL DEFENCE.

Otago Daily Times, Issue 21146, 2 October 1930, Page 6

NATIONAL DEFENCE.

TO 188 EDITOB. Sib,—l thank your correspondent "M. B. for his courfcjey in answering my questions. He admits that defence forces are necessary, but does not think that Now Zealand should provide her share of that defence in proportion to her popula**on - J 3 re , aßon for this attitude is that New Zealand representatives have no eay in the making of Britain’s foreign policy. This statement, I take it, iheans that if we had some say in the making of Britain’s, foreign policy “M. B." would approve of developing our full share of military and naval activity. Such activities may be hateful and deplorable,- they may _ foster undesirable militaristic tendencies, and may even lead to war, but even M. B.” admits that at the present time they are necessary—in Britain. His avowed reason for not sharing in them is feeble in the. extreme, because New Zealand,., through her representatives, already has some say in toe, of foreign policy. Mr Forbes is in London for that purpose at present, and the Home Government is in constant communication with the Dominion Government on these questions. It is probable tb&t New Zealand has as much influence on British foreign policy as, say, Yorkshire. In any case, if 'influence were based on voting power Britain would outvote the whole of the dominions by two to one. Gan “M. B.” not trust Britain? Does he imagine Britain as a predatory Power, anxious to become an aggressor, and. only kept in check by the dominions? His assumption that peace-lovers are only to be found among those who are determined to shirk our share of the sacrifices,. which he admits are necessary, is quite gratuitous. Lovers of peace are not confined to those who accept _ the security provided lor them by Britain, but who would save the contents of their pockets by quibbles about the degree of influence on foreign policy enjoyed by different- sections of our Empire, There is no question of increasing the aggregate forces required for defence. The only question ie how to distribute the burden fairly. It is unfairly distributed at present, as in a previous letter “M. B. has shown. As 1 said beforfe, compulsory service may not be the best method by which New Zealand could assist, but the alternative I suggested was apparently not acceptable -M- B. Has he any alternative to suggest? All he says about public opinS’"" th e League of Nations, and the Kel--Bact are entirely beside the point. 'f the other day a commission of the ■League found fault with Britain because she had not kept a larger military force in Palestine. Permanent peace may be attained. I agree with “M. B.” that it m the duty of everyone to work for it and make sacrifices for it, but it will not be attained by shutting our eyes to facts or by leaving to the Mother Country the burden of providing the defence forces without which we could not- sleep in security.—l am, etc., James Beqg.