The Daily News. FRIDAY, FEBRUARY 7, 1919. FREEDOM OF THE SEAS.

Taranaki Daily News, 7 February 1919, Page 4

The Daily News. FRIDAY, FEBRUARY 7, 1919. FREEDOM OF THE SEAS.

In a recent speech, delivered in London, the First Sea Lord (Admiral Sir Roslyn Wemyss) admitted that he did not know what the freedom of the seas meant, and the majority of mankind are in the same state of ignorance, yet much has been made of this convenient eateh phrase. There need not, however, be any longer a doubt as to what meaning the American delegation places on the words, for a Paris message has given their views thereon as follows: 1. No nation shall have a fleet so large as to be able to control the seas. 2. The sea rules laid down at time of peace shall be unchanged while war is progressing. 3. livery nation, whether belligerent or neutral, shall be held to strict accountability by the League of Nations for the observance of the sea rules in time of war. 4. Contraband shall be explicitly defined in time of peace, and no neutral shall ship contraband to a belligerent, nor shall the ships of neutrals attempt to run the blockade. 5. The submarines Bhall be greatly restricted —preferably forbidden altogether.

It is quite probable that these five points have caused an amused smile to flit across the features of all British readers. Taken either seriatim or collectively these views are manifestly intended to deprive Britain of the position she has gained and held as Mistress of the Seas and to put an end to the right to search for contraband It will be noticed that in the forefront is placed the declaration that no nation shall have a fleet so large as to be able to control the seas. There is a refreshing candor about this fiat, but it has to be remembered that the policy of President Wilson is that the American Navy shall be second to none, and even while he is attending the Peace Conference he has sent what is practically a command to his Secretary for the Navy to press upon Congress the urgent necessity for passing the naval programme on which he has set his heart. The American delegates at the Conference deny that the British Fleet is the only fleet in the world strong enough to control the seas without the assistance of other nations. It is manifest that this view arises out of America's new naval pretensions. Therefore it may be assumed that what the delegates mean is that when their navy reaches an equivalent strength to that of the British, then Britain will be at the mercy of America. It will be noticed there is no mention of any restriction on the naval power of any country, so that it may be assumed that the United States is preparing a direct challenge to British maritime supremacy, p.nd thereby stimulating increased armaments instead of pressing for a reduction to accord with the inauguration of an era of peace. Although Admiral Wemyss does not know what freedom of the seas means, he is particularly well informed as to what the British Navy means. "There, was," he said, "one thing they should always realise, and that was that on the Navy, and on the strength o? the Navy, had rested up to now not only the security of the Empire, but the freedom of the world." That strength is the greatest guarantee that any Englishman can look for. Hitherto Britain has been content to measure her naval strength on the basis of the three-Power standard, but if America is to aim at obtaining a preponderance of sea power, then, in view of possibilities, Britain will have to reconsider the position, but it will be a bad day for civilisation when this naval rivalry^takes place, should it ever do so. " The American delegates profess to hold the view that a single fleet powerful enough to defeat the combined naval forces of the world cannot be maintained without giving that Power unfair advantages, "which is contrary to the spirit of the League of 'Nations." In this they evade the crucial point of the whole question. Britain has not built up the most powerful Navy in the world as a means of offence, but for the security of a far-flung Empire that will last long after the League of Nations lias ceased to exist. The Empire is a reality, but the league is an ideal that may vanish into thin air at any moment. It may properly be asked why the United States r, so extremely anxious and determined to build up a fleet at least equal to, if not in excess of, that of the greatest navn! Power? The an;s< wer may, we venture to suggest, h.fr found, ip tlic po&sihi! >* v... a£ j»

future inimical coalition between China and Japan, which might threaten to pay off old scores at America's expense, and though the dc-legates make a parade of their conviction that the British fleet will never be used against America there is evidently a deeply grounded conviction that Britain, in the event mentioned above, would be in a position to dictate terms by reason of her naval strength. The references in the views to sea rules and contraband are merely dashes of coloring to camouflage the real object the delegates have in view. Rules are absolutely useless, as Germany proved, unless there is adequate force for backing them, while any definition of contraband, or any regulations as to the carrying of contraband goods can only be regarded as mere expres ions of opinion. A belligerent will do the utmost possible to outwit his opponent, and whether lie niccerds will depend on his stratr , .'- : " abil. ity and the amount of i'ojcrt t lis command. The main utih,., ,i a League of Nations is to prevent war, and while a useful purpose may be served by laving down rules for the conduct of war, those rules will in all probability be broken, and it will then devolve on the nations forming the League to enter the usual protest and decree what punishment they may think fit, But that course leads to no good end. The American delegates are not disclosing thencards for very obvious reasons. They are somewhat puffed up with President Wilson's success at the Conference, but if the United States is honestly concerned over the best interests of the nations as a whole, then it is manifest that the creation of a naval league among the Allies, America included, would be the surest safeguard for the peace of the world.