THE OTAGO DAILY TIMES THURSDAY, December 22, 1938. BRITAIN'S FOREIGN POLICY

Otago Daily Times, Issue 23689, 22 December 1938, Page 10

THE OTAGO DAILY TIMES THURSDAY, December 22, 1938. BRITAIN'S FOREIGN POLICY

To his many recent utterances on foreign policy Mr Chamberlain added another this week in reply to another motion of censure moved, with the usual result, by the Labour Opposition in the House of Commons. An aftermath of the Munich agreement has been seen in the prolific questioning and criticism to which the Government has been called upon to reply in relation to foreign affairs. The effect of the agreement was never represented as affording Great Britain any release from the necessity of rearmament, or any justification for a slackening of the determination to build up the armed strength of the country commensurately with the requirements of the European situation. In his address to the House of Commons on October 3 Mr Chamberlain eaid: " Let nobody think that because we signed the agreement of the Four Powers at Munich we can afford to relax our efforts or call a halt in rearmament." The viewpoint was brought out that if the agreement meant no more than a respite for peace, it afforded Great Britain an opportunity for bridging gaps and making up deficiencies in her defensive preparations against a, possible emergency of which it was admitted by speakers for the Government that the crisis had revealed the existence. It would appear that the ground of protest upon which, according to the Evening Standard, certain junior members of the Ministry are showing restiveness, even to the point, it is suggested, of calling for the retirement of other members of the Cabinet charged with particular responsibilities for defence, is that the opportunity in question has not been made the best use of. that there has been failure to take advantage of the breathing space after Munich to push vigorously ahead with rearmament. The suggestion of failure on the Government's part to intensify its defensive preparations comes rather surprisingly after endorsement by its members of the view that the crisis of September pointed to the necessity of a further speeding up of its programme. In his speech at the foreign press dinner last week Mr Chamberlain spoke of the obligations to her own people, to the Empire, and to Allies which Britain must be ready to fulfil, and added: " The preparations now proceeding are far enough advanced for us to say with confidence that we are in a position to do so." He spoke also of the extent to which the programme originally designed to be carried out in five years had been accelerated and expanded with proportionately increased demands upon industry and the nation. In a speech of the same date Sir Thomas Inskip, Minister for Co-ordination of Defence, who, with the Secretary of State for War, is reported to be incurring the special criticism of some of the younger members of the Cabinet, declared that the defences at Home and throughout the Empire were nearly completed, " so that it would no longer be necessary for Britain to refrain from prompt action or for the Prime Minister to be hampered by considerations of her weakness." Accounts given of what is being achieved in the strengthening of the British Navy do not suggest tardy progress. The feature of Mr Chamberlain's latest utterance of which most notice is likely to be taken abroad consisted in his reiteration of a strong desire that improved relations should exist between Britain and Germany, and that the peoples of these two countries, together with other European nations, should find means to cooperate for the removal of the menace of war. He was still waiting, he said, for a sign from those who spoke for the German people that they shared this desire. But apparently in pursuance of the policy of appeasement he will still have to wait for an explicit response from Germany to these overtures. The commentary of the official spokesman at Berlin is couched in general terms. It is again affirmed that Germany wants peace and has no thought of attacking Britain. But of co-operation for peace there is no suggestion. Mr Chamberlain's attitude towards Germany is, however,

thoroughly logical. The value of the better understanding which he is exerting himself to promote between Britain and Germany must clearly consist in the extent to which it would remove causes for uneasiness in the European situation, and diminish the danger of complications attended with risks of the provocation of a conflict. The American Ambassador to London, Mr Joseph Kennedy, has not hesitated to express the opinion that the alternative to Mr Chamberlain's policy is war and chaos.