Poverty Bay Herald PUBLISHED EVERY EVENING GISBORNE, SATURDAY, OCT. 3, 1936. N.Z.’S FOREIGN POLICY

Poverty Bay Herald, Volume LXIII, Issue 19136, 3 October 1936, Page 4

Poverty Bay Herald PUBLISHED EVERY EVENING GISBORNE, SATURDAY, OCT. 3, 1936. N.Z.’S FOREIGN POLICY

“Now Zealand,” said the High Commissioner-elect, speaking at Genova, “is prepared to join with other members of the League in the collective application of force against a future aggressor.” This may not, perhaps, be the most forceful of the many statements made by Mr. Jordan before the Council, but it serves more than any other to emphasise the seriousness of the stand taken on behalf of the Dominion and to direct the attention of the people whose future liberties of action are thus pledged to the far-reaching implications of the foreign policy—if such it can be called —of the Labour Government. It is to be assumed that Mr. Jordan has not spoken lightly with the. object of drawing attention to himself, but there are- so many inconsistencies between what lie has said and what has been accepted as the policy of the Government that some further explanation. is required. For Mr. Jordan to align himself with the Soviet delegate in opposition to those from Britain and Australia might serve to focus the spotlight up'on him, but can it be said that this attitude- truly represents the opinion of t'ho great majority of New Zcalandens? Can it be reconciled with the assurance of the Prime Minister that it is desirable to work in close harmony with Great Britain in League affairs, with Mr. Semple’s declamatory assertions that the unity

of the British Empire is the last, bulwark of democracy, and with the recent statement of the Lender of the Legislative Council that New Zealand must rise or fall with the British commonwealth of nations? Which, then, is the policy of the New Zealand Labour .Government? Or are there two policies, or, perhaps, three —one to enable Mr. Jordan to make a spectacular dcbuit in international affairs, another for the British Government when trade expansion is sought, and a third for purely home consumption? Mr. Savage stated, in answer to a question in Parliament, that there was nothing inconsistent, in Mr. Jordan’s speech and the policy of the Government, but if this really is the ease it is high time that the policy of the Government was far more clearly defined.

There can be little doubt that the people of this Dominion solidly support the principles for which the League of Nations stands, but that, surely, does not signify approval of the effrontery of interfering in the domestic affairs of other nations, oi of committing the people of this country to a detailed policy that has never been submitted to them. It was Mr. Jordan himself who suggested that other nations should hold plebiscites to ascertain their views, but the people he represents apparently arc not sufficiently intelligent to be consulted; the Government pro sumes to speak for them. That attitude would be understandable had the issues been raised by the Government, or were they not so inconsistent with the avowed policy of the Ministry. The New Zealand Government, if not the New Zealand people, is prepared to light on behalf of some other country against an aggressor The principle is sound, but it is the application of the principle to con Crete cases that has caused so much difficulty in the past and will cause so much more in the future, for the people of Now Zealand, just as much as those of any other country, arc liable to hold that circumstancesalter cases. On present appearances, the country most likely to be invaded is Russia. Is the New Zealand Government prepared to go to war to make Russia safe for communism? If so, can it speak with authority on behalf of: the people? And if this is the case, is it logical for the Laboui Party, which the Government represents, to ban Communists from its ranks, and for Ministers to tour the country venting their wrath againsi the Communist Party? Alternatively, Russia might tire of German threats and take the initiative. Are Mr. Jordan and Mr. Savage prepared to fight—or send others to fight—to make Germany safe for fascism? Of course not, and it is precisely because these questions present themselves that t'hc whole problem of collective security bristles with difficulties. Then there is the domestic aspect. Can the Government, which is so apt to talk about the mandates it has received from the people, fairly claim that it has received any mandate to send its youth to war to fight other people’s battles? The average New Zealander, were he asked, would say that he understood that the policy of the Labour Party was that it would never consent to troops being sent to fight overseas, and the answer could easily be justified by reference to the remarks and conduct of leaders of the Government. Where, then, does the Government really stand on this vita) question? Since it claims to speak for the. people, the people arc entitled to know. Finally, there is Mr. Jordan’s bald assertion that New Zea land is prepared to fight, on behalf of the League. Nothing could be further from the truth, for the Dominion is not even prepared to defend its own shores. The Government admits that it has a half-trained territorial force of 5000, and then permits its delegate to talk glibly about sending troops overseas to fight, an aggressor. It may -be the case that the spirit is willing, but the flesh is weak, but in that event surely the first duly of the Government is to strengthen the flesh, and so far it has sliowi. little intention of doing so. It comes down to this: If the Government of New Zealand is really willing to throw its full weight into the system of collective security and , military sanctions it has a definite responsibility to provide an efficient and up-to-date military force; if it is willing to permit an international organisation to conscript its army for service overseas, then it must itself be prepared to conscript the manhood of the country for the training that is necessary to make that army available. If the Government Ls not prepared to take these steps, then it virtually admits that it is not speaking for the people and all Mr. Jordan’s talk at Geneva is reduced to empty and meaningless "gesture.