IMPERIAL CONFERENCE

Southland Times, Issue 19258, 23 June 1921, Page 5

IMPERIAL CONFERENCE

TUESDAY’S SITTING DELEGATES’ OPENING SPEECHES A SERIOUS ASSEMBLY. (By Telegraph.—Press Assn.—Copyright.) (Australian and N.Z. Cable Association.) LONDON, June 21. The Imperial Conference to-day was confined to speeches dealing with Mr Lloyd George's address. Lord Curzon attended, but did not speak. Mr Meighen occupied fifteen minutes, Mr Hughes sixty, and General Smuts, Mr Massey, and Mr Sastri thirty. It is expected that Mr Churchill will follow on behalf of the colonies. Mr Massey described Mr Lloyd George’s speech as the most important since the war. It would strongly appeal to the dominions and inspire confidence throughout the Empire. He urged that the Imperial Shipping Committee be made permanent and proposed that future conferences be held in Britain and the dominions alternately. Many newspapers publish unflattering and inaccurate biographies of Conference representatives. The Conference is much discussed in ’buses, hotels, and on the underground railways. A new epigram has been coined which is certain to become historic: “There was a time when Downing Street controlled the Empire. To-day the Empire has taken charge x of Downing Street.” The delegates are deeply serious, and the papers now contrast the buoyancy of the past week with the unsmiling assembly which gathered at 11 o’clock. Members, however, thawed while listening to each other’s speeches, each taking the opportunity of expressing his views frankly. The gen eral tenor of the utterances was “all for one and one for all.” Mr Lloyd George and Mr Hughes hope the amiability will continue when the question of shouldering Empire defence is considered. The Daily Telegraph says:—“All the members of the Conference are men who gained the highest place in the councils of their fellow men by ability and character. The Empire is a realm unique and unparalleled, based not on force but liberty, justice, and recognition of fundamental equality. The empire is a League of Nation which stood the terrible impact of the world war. and will find no difficulty in working together for foreign policy, maritime defence, and other objects that call for co-operation and co-ordinaticfli.” The Morning Post says:—“We cannot conceive of any American having any longer respect for England if we were to change out foreign policy, solely directed as it is to our security and independence, in deference to American sensibilities. Power to protect yourself is the best guarantee for peace in this imperfect world. The dominions are already coming to words over the proposal to transfer power, to a sort of super-Parliament, which would disturb the balance and create all manner of difficulties. The present system is not perfect but it works. The principal issues focussed are the policy relating to Japan and the United States, and the problem of the Empire’s naval defence. In fundamentals we believe the views of the Dominions regarding them, coincide with our own. The need is practical discussion on the shape of details of policy to render that harmony efficacious. The Conference is attracting general attention. It is featured more than the strike. All the newspapers put up black headings and display bills. Mr Lloyd George’s speech occupies two and a half columns. Generally there are leading articles all mostly appreciative. The illustrated papers print pictures of the principal members. It is understood the India Office intends side-stepping a conference discussion on Indian rights by proposing that the question be referred to the existing standing committee representing the Parliament of India and the Colonial Office, of which Lord Islington is chairman. The present powers of the committee are limited to Crown colonies in regard to which it has revised regulations operating detrimentally towards Indian immigrants. It will probably be suggested that the committee’s co-operation be enlisted in an advisory capacity in reference to the status of Indians in the Dominion. STRIKING SPEECHES. THE JAPANESE TREATY. LONDON, June 21. (Received June 22, 10.45 p.m.) The third day of the Conference will be devoted to foreign policy. Lord Curzon will set out the British views, and others will state their case. The argument stage has not yet been reached, but it is probable that the Imperial Constitution Conference of 1921 will be abandoned, the tenor of the speeches by the Prime Ministers suggesting that the proposal is unpopular. Messrs Massey and Hughes strongly criticised the proposal to hold a useless conference.

At to-day’s Conference sitting Mr Meighen said he approached the question of Japan with a full sense of responsibility, but the outlying dominions were not disposed to attach the same importance as Britain to the paramount necessity of mitigating racial divisions. If the Conference desired the support of the Dominions they must fully inform the public of their proceedings. General Smuts stated that the South Affrican Parliament approved of his policy with reference to the Conference, which he had expounded in Parliament. Therefore he proposed to adhere to that policy and break new ground. He advocated increased disarmament. The most fatal mistake would be competition in armaments against America. Since the war Britain and America had drifted apart. The only pathway to safety for the Empire lay alongside America. The European situation was no longer of the first importance and therefore they should escape from European entanglements. Undoubtedly the scene had shifted from Europe to the Far East and the Pacific. The problem of the Pacific would probably be the greatest during the next fifty years, embracing Australia, New Zealand, Africa, Japan and America. It was on the Pacific that the next great chapter in history would be enacted. The American Senate had already made the first great move by inviting consultation between the United States, the British Empire, and Japan. The duty of the Imperial Conference would be to help forward that movement. “If it is wisely guided this Confeernce may become one of the greatest landmarks in history,” he added. Mr Sastri said that India had not yet acquired full dominion status, but she was planted firmly on the road thereto. He intended submitting resolutions demanding equality of Indians in the dominions, subject to Lord Sinha’s compromise at the 1918 Conference.

Mr Hughes said he hoped the Conference would do something to convince the people that it had found a practical and sure way of bridging the apparently impassable chasm which divided the complete autonomy of the several parts of the Empire from united action upon matters affecting all. “It is essential that we must do something if this Conference is not to be the last magnificent flare of a dying illumination,” he said. There were three outstanding problems, foreign affairs, Japan and defence. The equality of the dominions at the Council table in dealing with these questions was accepted, but for the dominions to have an effective-voice in foreign policy they must have knowledge .which was impossible without improved communications. Referring to the Japanese Treaty, Mr Hughes sad the matter was not definitely urgent. Australia’s attitude had been clearly stated. The treaty could not be renewed precisely in its present form. It must conform to the requirements of the League of Nations. Nevertheless the case for renewal was strong, if not overwhelming. Speaking broadly, Australia favoured renewal, but renewal must exclude the possibility of war with America. The treaty must guard against even a suspicion of hostility or unfriendliness towards tha United, States, JC

the treaty was renewed the Empire would be in a better position to exercise its influence over the Eastern policy than if Japan were a potential enemy. “We will do well for the world’s peace, for China, and for the Commonwealth of British nations to renew this treaty,” Mr Hughes added. Mr Hughes suggested a conference between Britain, America, and Japan regarding renewal of the treaty. In any case they should ascertain America’s views.

Referring to defence, he advocated international limitation of armaments, but whatever was agreed upon Australia must have naval defence adequate for her safety. The war and the Panama Canal had shifted the world’s stage to the Pacific. The world’s future drama must be played in the Pacific. He hoped for an agreement between the three great naval Powers. He admitted that Britain was unable alone to continue the responsibility for the defence of the Empire. The Dominions could not ask to be permitted to participate in the direction of foreign policy without sharing in defence. He was not prepared to say what Australia’s share should be. He considered that Australia’s share per capita should not be so great as Britain’s, because Britain defended the colonies, the dependencies, and India, but whatever was Australia’s share it should apply to all the Dominions on a per capita basis. He refused to subscribe to the doctrine that less endangered dominions should contribute less than more menaced dominions. He did not believe the dominions’ quota should be monetary. It should be expressed in terms of dominion navies.

Referring to the proposed Constitutional Conference, he confessed his inability to understand what the conference could do. The position had changed since the resolution was carried by the 1917 lt was unnecessary because no limitation was placed upon the dominions, which now could even encompass their own destruction by sundering the bonds of Empire if they desired to do so. They already possessed all the rights of self-government enjoyed by independent nations. The proposed Constitutional Conference was causing anxiety in Australia. Instead of giving Australia greater powers it was feared that it would diminish her existing powers. Even that Conference was in the shadow of clouds of suspicions. It even was not entitled to give itself a name, whether Conference, Cabinet, or Council. All were questionable titles. Constitutional experiments meant treading on dangerous ground. Let them leave well alone.

Mr Massey, after eulogising Mr Lloyd George, said he disagreed with the view that the dominions were independent nations which in case of war might refrain from taking their part. He doubted the practicability of holding another conference next year, because elections were due then in Australia, New Zealand, and Canada. Mr Hughes interjected: I am glad Mr Massey mentioned that, because it will be impossible for me to attend next year. Mr Massey continued that in naval defence there was no difference between himself and Mr Hughes in regard to its necessity for the protection of Australasia. The storm centre had changed, and he feared the next naval war would be fought in the Pacific. It was necessary to maintain communications throughout the Empire; otherwise we would be faced with the possibility of disaster. He advocated a permanent Shipping Committee, yearly conferences in different parts of the Empire, improved shipping communications, and cheaper freights and fares. Mr Massey insisted that action was necessary in connection with the present unworkable system of government in the New Hebrides. He urged that British Ministers should visit the dominions. He disagreed with General Smuts’s view that they could do without alliances. He would welcome an alliance with America, and he supported the renewal of the Japanese Alliance.