AIR POLICY

Otago Daily Times, Issue 22566, 9 May 1935, Page 18

AIR POLICY

STRENGTH OF THE . POWERS GOVERNMENT PLANS DEFENDED INTERNATIONAL ACTION.' (From Our Own Correspondent.) (By Ain Mail.) LONDON, April 6. A conference intended to survey developments of aviation and their effect on international relations has been in progress in London this week. It Was arranged by the League of Nations Union, and speakers holding diverse opinions were invited to participate. No resolutions were moved or passed, as the intention was to ventilate the subject rather than arrive at definite conclusions. The interest of the meetings lay in the fact that the Government's and the technical expert's views wece heard along with those of speakers who pin their faith to action. Lord Cecil of ChelwooU, who presided, said the fundamental and most im'portant question would prove to be political. If they were agreed on any particular line of international policy it would be relatively easy to insist that the technicians should furnisff the best way of carrying out that policy. Mr Arnold Forster (son of a former' Minister of War), putting forward, the extreme views of those who favour international action and an international air force, blamed the British Government very largely for the failure of the Disarmament Conference, and censured it for increasing our Air Force. The fallacy of his speech seemed to -lie in the assumption that what othej nations said and proposed was always perfectly honest. The corrective to the peace-at-any-price attitude came from Sir Philip Sassoqn, Under-secretary for Air, who was the first speaker. " There have been various attempts to attain international agreement on the ps)blems of both civil and military aviation," he said. " They have failed, and little good can follow now from attempting to apportion the blame for that failure. The road we all want'to follow is one which will enable the world, to utilise the enormous advantages which the conquest of the air affords, without running the equally, enormous risks which to-day seem to accompany those advantages. We have not yet found a road which all nations are prepared to pursue; I but that does not mean that such a road cannot be found. The Government of this country is earnestly seeking for that road. I ask you not to let any recent step which, the Government has felt compelled to take blind you to that fact. i . "Mr Baldwin, when announcing the decision to increase the Royal Air Force, has said that . the Government's ; policy ' remains one of international disarmament.' In the eight months "which had passed since Mr Baldwin's words were delivered;, so far. from there being any evidence of reductions by Powers, there had been, on the contrary, new evidence of and rearmament among European and other Powers. Both in Japan and in the States of America there haß been a definite/trend towards the expansion .of jir forces. Russia, in addition to setting up a huge army of 900,000 men, now* claims to have the largest air force in the world. We do not know exactly how large it is, but' there is good reason to believe that its strength exceeds 2000 aircraft. " It may be said that Russia, Japan, and the United States .are all a long way off. So they are frorn Great Britain; but there are/other parts of the world for the safety and welfare of which Great Britain is responsible. Moreover, no limit can be set to the range which aircraft will attain. Distance which gives safety today may be a wholly inadequate defence to-morrow., EUROPE AS IT IS. "The rearmament of Germany is a matter which obviously affects us scarcely less than it' affects France. 'lt 'has been the object of intense interest, not to .say anxiety, to the people of Great Britain for a long time past. There is reason to believe that the pace of rearmament in Germany has been definitely accelerated. The dominant factor to-day was that Great Britain's endeavour tfo persuade other nations to reduce air armaments to her own modest level had met with no success.' ~~ , "It is evident that there is. difficulty in getting them to charige their present policies. We have not given up hope. We shall not give up trying. But we must deal with Europe as it is. The geographical situation of Great: Britain is, such that no British Government which accepts its responsibilities for the lives and liberties of our population can adopt, permanently, any lower standard of air strength than that of equality with any other Power which is within striking dis'tance of our cities. That, I take leave to say, is fundamental. It is our declared policy and is accepted as such l by other nations. .',-".

BRITAIN'S STRENGTH APPROVED". "If Great Britain is to be, a useful participator in such a* pact, it must be strong enough to offer adequate assistance when called upon. If we are. forced Btill to contend in Europe or elsewhere with.'Such as do build their faith upon the holy text of pike and gun? we must be suitably equipped ■to do so. To my mind, that alone would be sufficient to justify our expansion programme and to answer any criticism that, by increasing our air force, we are jeopardising peace. The precise opposite is the case. It is idle to think that Great Britain can effectively promote a policy of 'mutual, security on any other basis than that of giving to others an assistance equal to that which it may seek from them. But once a policy of mutual assistance based upon an equality of air strength is firmly established, the chief obstacle to a general reduction of air armaments Mill nave been removed. Nations are re-arming to-day to give themselves security. Tod<iy all feel that they are dependent otf their own anaided strength; with the result that every increase by One Power leads to an increase by its neighbours. "We are to-day the one exception to that rule. We alone are in the fortunate position that the increase in our air force is far less likely to be regarded as a threat than to be welcomed as an additional guarantee of peace. But, once the turning wheel is stayed, and nations can bo brought to look for their security to a system of mutual guarantees, the reason for constant 'increase of independent air strength will be pone. "A reduction of strength, if shared equally by all; will lead to no loss of security by any., AIR FORCE POLICE IMPRACTICABLE.

"None of ihe proposals for the establishment of an air force police under the control of the League of Nations has yet produced any eolution of the practical difficulties of location, recruitment, administration, financing; and, lastly, control and operation iii the event of the exercise of force. Even if those difficulties could be overcome, there remains the obstacle that 'the maintenance of an armed force by the League would be incompatible with its present constitution and its essential principles. The idea was put forward when the League was first constituted, and was deliberately and eniphatically rejected. Even if Great Britain were to accept shch.a change in the League, we know, for we have "been iold so in unmistakeable terms, that the dominions would reject it.

'• I honestly Lelieve," Sir Philip concluded, " that in the proposed Air Tact we have a practical nieaas of replacing insecurity by security, and of so removing the prime cause of excessive armaments and war. Now. as much as ever, it is the earnest, desire of the British Government to attain iyi international policy which will check competition in armaments between civilised nations and lead to the establishment of mutual security and lasting peace."