The Sun 42 WYNDHAM STREET, AUCKLAND WEDNESDAY, DECEMBER 4, 1929 THE COST OF DEFENCE

Sun (Auckland), Volume III, Issue 837, 4 December 1929, Page 8

The Sun 42 WYNDHAM STREET, AUCKLAND WEDNESDAY, DECEMBER 4, 1929 THE COST OF DEFENCE

IT lias been well said that one can no more attack tlie principles * of the Kellogg Pact for the outlawry' of war than refuse to accept those enshrined in the Sermon on the Mount, without finding oneself on the wrong side of the moral pale. Every civilised nation in the world has signed the No-More-War Treaty, and all of them, including- the two nations which have been warring in Manchuria, agree that the settlement of international disputes by force of armaments is not only futile, but is a mockery of civilisation. Their agreement on that fact, proved grimly by “a pile of eight million corpses in Europe” as a result of the World War, is embodied in the Pact. Moreover, each nation claims with honesty of purpose that its present and future interest in military and naval defence is and will be confined entirely to the defensive requirements of peace. Yet the position today, without anyone resorting to an indulgence of cynicism, represents a grotesque contradiction of theory by practice. Fifty-seven nations which support the Kellogg Pact as the hope of the world against war, seek peace, but are armed to the teeth. The President of the United States, in his annual address to Congress, has found it necessary to recommend American legislators to give earnest consideration to the possibilities of prudent action which may afford relief from the Republic’s continuously mounting military expenditure. Mr. Hoover sees the incongruity of renouncing war with the voice of idealism and, with the hoarser voice of materialism, deciding to spend a colossal sum annually on armaments. Of course, the President has made it perfectly clear that such expenditure and the use of the equipment it provides is merely for defensive purposes. “From the defence point of view,” he has explained to his country and other nations, “our forces should be proportioned to this national need, and should therefore to some extent be modified by the prospects of peace, which were never brighter than they are today.” No one will oppose the sentiment and common sense in Mr. Hoover’s recommendation to Congress, but it may at least be pointed out that every national leader throughout the world speaks or has spoken with similar wisdom. But fine words do not reduce international armaments any more than they butter no parsnips. Today, the peace-proclaiming world is spending at the rate of nearly £900,000,000 a year on armies, navies, airforces, and equipment solely for defensive purposes. This expenditure is about 30 per cent, more than was spent on international armaments twenty years ago, when there was neither a League of Nations for the maintenance of world peace nor a Kellogg Pact for outlawing war. An illuminating report on the subject has been prepared for “The Economist” by a member of the Economic Section of the Secretariat of the League of Nations. It is a remarkable document, providing awakening realities for Utopian dreamers. The present world expenditure on armaments is somethinglike £890,000,000 a year (excluding Germany’s restricted expenditure). Of this gigantic total 60 per cent, is expended by European countries, about 20 per cent, by the United States, and a similar percentage by the rest of the world. Great Britain, the Dominions and India spend £171,000,000 on defence, as compared with £107,000,000 in 1913—an increase of 57 per cent. Even allowing for the posf-war rise in prices the Empire’s expenditure on armaments is as high as it was the year before the war that was to end war for all time. It is true that both Great Britain and France have reduced to some extent the former portion of their national income devoted to armaments. The percentage has risen in Italy. It is pointed out in the expert’s report that the United States, with about 35 per cent, of the income of the world, accounts for under 17 per cent, of the world’s expenditure on armaments, while Europe, with a similar income, is responsible for 66 per cent. America and Australia spend less of their national income than any European country on armaments. Altogether, however, the nations that stand for peace and have agreed to outlaw war, still spend more on defence than they spent before the Great War. Thus, there is ample scope for disarmament on a large scale. Perhaps it is not surprising that “The Economist” counsels its readers to take a long view of the hopeful prospect of world peace.

THE WATERFRONT ROAD

THE few days that have elapsed since the opening of the completed portion of-the Waterfront Road have sufficed' to show its popularity with both motorists and pedestrians. After long delay the road between Campbell’s Point and Orakei has been opened for traffic at a peculiarly appropriate season. It is a road that exhibits to the fullest advantage the summer charm of the harbour frontage east of the City. All along the sweeping curve of the embankment the waves lap garrulously against the stones at both high water and low, and the wayfarer is given a sense of pleasant intimacy with the waters of the Waitemata. Then, at this season, the burgeoning poliutukawas will soon be a blaze of crimson blossom and, with the water on one side and the cliffs with their overhanging trees on the other, the road between Orakei Point and Okahu Bay captures an enchantment duplicated nowhere else about the City. Just at present the road beyond Orakei Point and on by way of Okahu to Mission Bay, is not open for regular wheeled traffic. Even between Point Resolution and Orakei there is a good deal of work to be done. The temporary bridges are “one-way” only, and pedestrians have to be alert to make a safe crossing. The charm of the Waterfront Road is such, however, that people will insist on using it in spite of these minor disadvantages, and this evidence of popularity supplies an excellent argument for the prosecution of the remaining stages of the work. The Orakei Point-Mission Bay section has yet to be consolidated and metalled. When that has been done, the road will extend around the waterfront as far as Kohimarama. It will still be necessary to link Kohimarama with St. Heliers, and that part of the work should undoubtedly be executed as soon as possible. It is interesting to reflect on tlie bearing the Waterfront Road should have on the future of the eastern suburbs. Hitherto, their development lias been hindered by the roundabout means of approach, and the Orakei block and other large tracts of open country have remained practically intact in the face of a steadily advancing outward movement. Now that the Waterfront Road brings Orakei within a few moments’ of Queen Street, the past isolation is removed. Soon fleets of buses will be carrying their regular patrons between Kohimarama, Orakei, and the City. More and more homes will rise to fill the green gaps between the existing subdivisions, and thus with the progress of the district the influence of the long-awaited shore access will extend over the whole of the West Tamaki Peninsula.