NAVAL DISARMAMENT

Taranaki Daily News, 5 October 1929, Page 17 (Supplement)

NAVAL DISARMAMENT

VEXED MATTER OF PARITY

(By

“Plato.”)

H<sw much easier it is to dispose of a fleet of battleships -in times of war than in times of peace!. If we desire to disarm a nation, with a state of war as an excuse, we simply blow its fleet out of the water and the deed is done; but if the Powers be at peace, the method is much more modified, and much less efficacious. Then we call half a dozen international conferences, argue for several years, and finally decide that it would be better to keep the old fleet after all, lest our neighbour should become stronger than ourselves.

Perhaps we will yet have to declare another war to achieve peace-bringing disarmament. But then we would be up against a blank wall again, for nobody wants to fight in this era of peace; we simply could not pick a quarrel. There is, of course, the suggestion that the wrong people are handling the problem, arid that . before the world’s ratepayers can be relieved of the cost of maintaining expensive navies the task must be attacked from a different angle. An international referendum would probably show something like 90 per cent, of the civilised people in favour of a drastic reduction of the 'fighting forces. Yet the leaders of those people, it is asserted, wrestle in conference with the problem that the public solved in their own minds years still these’ leaders fail to find a solution. Suppose the public of - the great Powers circulated a petition and presented ft to the disarmament negotiators, signed by so ninny hundred millions of people* all agreeing to and praying for a vast curtailment of the fighting forces! There is no doubt whatever that the -great mass of the people do not want to fight, .and they .certainly do not want to-carry the heavy burden of ■ armaments; at least they would not if thev realised the. position fullv.

There is a fear in some quarters that the. abolition of armies and navies would be the commencement- of- a decline in the nations’ manhood. But surely with a portion of the present cost of fighting forces employed in other directions, that decline could be avoided. Germany offers a striking example. Almost totally disarrhed at one stroke, she -turned her energies in other , directions, with a result that in ten years Germany has became an athletic nation of renown. -The masses, have flaken to sport—organised and assisted financially by the Government' with the fund that; otherwise, would have .. been used for building a . navy and maintaining an army. " ’ ' ' ‘‘:

Women were the most consistent advocates of disarmament, Mr. Arthur Henderson told the British Labour Party conference the other., day. Probably he was correct, for there ,is strong support for the argument that women know much more of fighting than do mere men, who are peace-loving animals. Incidentally the women appeared to; have paid a left-handed' compliriient to all political parties other than Labour, for they said, according to Mr. Henderson, that if disarmament was not achieved during the tenure of the Labour Government, civilisation could not be saved Mr. Henderson said “that what he really hoped to achieve was- to get down to the standard of a police force.'” Surely this is hardly fair to the police!

The fact of the matter is. that many of us are still militaristic at heart. The life is so picturesque and the thrill of being the “top dog” of the world is too enjoyable to be easily relinquished. For England the - excuse has more merit, perhaps, than for any other country in the world. For the greater part of two thousand years the navy has been her life blood,’ and the traditions built up in those years have become a-very real part of our lives. Who does not take pride in the exploits of our seamen ever since England has been England? Perhaps they have not always been exactly polite, but they have always been victorious-and surrounded by a halo of romance. That was more especially so in, the day of the “wooden walls.” But in these days of advanced civilisation navies have a persistent, habit of becoming less romantic arid more expensive, and from undisputed superiority we have come to talk of parify with other Powers. That wounds our pride, so we. may as. well, scrap our navy and “start something, else.” May not our demons of the air in future take the place of the navy in the affection of the people? There is plenty of room for Britishers to be superior as birds of the' air without harming- anyone. Certain .it is 1 that they must be superior at' some ■ great o-ame,' and if the navy- must submit to that dreadful new word “parity,” why not let our civil fliers become our national heroes? If it is thrills our strong men want, surely they are supplied °by such contests as tlie Schneider Cup. Mr. Ramsay MacDonald has gone to Washington full of hope and confidence, having sacrificed the comfort of-his home for tlm hardships of the royal suite on the Berengaria, in the cause of disarmament. He has gone to beard President Hoover in his den but, unlike- Drake, he has an olive branch in his buttonhole. Mr. MacDonald will no doubt hold many earnest conferences with Mr. Hoover. Perhaps he will agree to scrap several units of the channel fishing fleet while Mr. Hoover will undertake to divert a few coastguard cutters to other purposes. Then Mr. MacDonald will hurry home’ to crack a bottle of champagne at the christening of the latest ship in the Queen Elizabeth class while Mr. Hoover combines a good will tour with the trials of the newest thing in Minnetonkas. New Zealand cannot be left out in the cold. Sir Joseph Ward will doubtless be expected to make .a magnificent aesture (happy word), scrap that aweinspiring warship the. mines weepei Waiokura, and undertake to replace it with another H.M.S. New Zealand at a cost of seven million pounds. That is the other meaning of “parity” —replace that which is scrapped.