DEFENCE POLICY

Otago Daily Times, Issue 22827, 11 March 1936, Page 9

DEFENCE POLICY

WHITE PAPER PROPOSALS DISCUSSION IN THE HOUSE STATEMENT BY MR BALDWIN (British Official Wireless (United Press Association) (By Electric Telegraph—Copyright) RUGBY, March 9. “It would be wrong to assume that our striving for peace is an indication of weakness,” said Mr Baldwin, in the House of Commons, when moving approval of the White Paper. He added: “ Neither the Government nor the people of Britain would ever be intimidated by threats from whatever quarter. Much as we regret the necessity for the White Paper proposals, they show that we are seriously in earnest in our determination to make a full effort towards being a deterrent to any would-be aggressor. We, as a nation, can go on longer than others, and if driven thereto shall not hesitate.” Mr Baldwin reminded the House that Britain was still the greatest naval Power, hence it was inevitable that a heavy burden must fall on the British Navy in working out collective security, whether it meant only sanctions or meant war. The new programme represented the minimum in the present circumstances. There could never be permanent peace in Europe as long as suspicion continued between France and Germany. The only hope lay in the achievement of tri-partite friendship— Prance' and Germany with Britain.

“ Defence depends on the foreign policy of all countries,” added Mr Baldwin. “ One nation maV make a war. but it takes 50 to secure peace. Europe has learned much since July. Collective security was unable to prevent war in tho case of Italy and Abyssinia. I am convinced you will be unable to prevent war on the part of an aggressor unless that aggressor knows that his advent into the war will be met at once” [Mr Baldwin emphasised “at once”] “by armed opposition. Europe is a long way from a position to enforce that. Europe will have to consider when the present troubles are over what collective security involves and make up her mind whether to make herself ready to use the necessary measures. “I hope she will. It will not be done in a day. This is a horrible thing to have to say, but, if the countries of Europe want to make the aggressor realise that his action will bring all the other members of the League upon him, they will have to be more ready-for war than to-day. It is a terrible conclusion, but you cannot get away from it. The Government’s proposals did not go beyond what was necessary to fulfil League obligations, and, in the event of collective security not being achieved, to make the country and . Empire safe against aggression. Major Attlee, moving the Labour amendment, said Mr Baldwin had failed to deal with realities and had taken the short view. The Government had never tried to make collective security a reality and had regarded it as something to "which it could give lip service while it talked of disarmament. There always seemed eome reservation for what was called “ our particular Imperial needs.” Mr Baldwin could at least have given the minimum cost of the proposals. Labour did not regard treaties as immutable, but they must be revised with the consent of the signatories. The White Paper contained nothing about the Empire. They asked the Government to make a new start to deal with the causes of,war and try to recall world sanity. Sir Archibald Sinclair (Leader of the Opposition Liberals) said Herr Hitler had torn up the Treaty ho himself had undertaken to respect, but let them give calm study to his constructive proposals. Mr Baldwin promised Major Attlee an opportunity for debate.

It was reported on March 5 that, following a series of conferences of Labour bodies, Major Attlee had tabled nn amendment to the White Paper disagreeing with the policy of “ seeking security through national armaments and intensifying a ruinous arms race inevitably leading to war,” and declaring “no confidence ” in the Ministers, “whose unworthy, ambiguous foreign policy has largely contributed to the present unrest of the world.”