The Timaru Herald WEDNESDAY, MAY 1, 1935. RIVAL NAVAL POLICIES

Timaru Herald, Volume CXXXIX, Issue 20096, 1 May 1935, Page 6

The Timaru Herald WEDNESDAY, MAY 1, 1935. RIVAL NAVAL POLICIES

Casual observers of the steady growth of national expenditures on naval armaments may sometimes be prompted to suggest that since all the nations deeply concerned are sovereign states which would be expending their own money, no objections ought to be raised to the demands for naval equality. The German poliev of creating armaments and then telling the other Powers, seems to be based on the assumption that the quickest way to destroy the influence of the League of Nations is to defy its covenants and intimidate protesting nations by confronting them with a naval building programme that will give the Germans equality on the seas of the world. In the Pacific, however, the demands for equality are more complicated, and below the viewpoints of the three great nations who are closely concerned, are outlined: Great Britain says: “We Britons live on an island which cannot produce all its own food or supplies, so we must have fighting ships to convoy essentials to our shores in case of trouble. We also live from world trade, which may need to be convoyed. We are part of a commonwealth of nations scattered over the globe, and must have some assurance of communications, and we have possessions in every continent, especially Asia, which are vital to our trade and well-being. We are only 20 miles from the troubled European mainland. Our very preservation demands that we have a navy second to none, distributed in as many units as are practicable.” Japan says: “We are a rapidly growing mercantile state. We, too, have to convoy essential supplies to our coasts. We felt ourselves menaced by uncertainty in Manchuria, occupied the area, and now we must protect ourselves there. Our fast-increasing population demands an outlet, and since we are forbidden to migrate where the climate suits us, we seek outlet in trade everywhere and in an expanding control over the great, badly organised areas near us on the mainland. Thus we need a navy second to none, and besides, your act in placing us in an inferior class deeply injures our pride. But we will gladly abolish big types of ships.” The United States says: “We admit that, being a continental state, we raise most of our own food. Our first duty is to protect our coasts, in two oceans, and espeically the outlying area of Alaska and the connecting link at the Panama Canal. But our national prosperity requires foreign trade, and that we must protect with a navy, not to mention our hazardously placed outpost in the Philippines. We cannot hold this post nor keep open trade across the Pacific with a fleet less than two-fifths larger than Japan’s. Britain gladly grants us equality."

No one will deny that Great Britain’s survival depends upon her capacity to police the seas leading from the food producing countries to her millions who must be fed. Moreover, Japan’s food supply needs assurance, although the source of supply is across narrower seas. The Americans, on their part, are more intensely interested in the promotion of world trade. To quote one well known fiscal authority: “America’s foreign trade will return not at the command of the guns of a bigger navy but when the United States is prepared to change her fiscal policy and trade goods for goods.” But the leaders of neither of the great English-speaking Powers are prepared to accept the genuineness of Japan’s talk of self-defence, since the general impression prevailing is that Japan’s expansion in the mainland is nothing less than a deliberate attempt to secure such a grip on China that will make her mistress of the Orient, providing Nipponese statesmanship can proceed with their building programme without incurring the displeasure of other great naval Powers, who are deeply interested in the Pacific. It is suggested that by failing to agree to Japan’s proposal at the London Conferelice to scrap big ships, the Americans may be missing an opportunity to sink peaceably the only ships which could sustain a Japanese attack on the Pacific coasts of the United States. But to Great Britain and the United States the price of such an agreement with Japan on the future of big siiips, seems altogether too great-—a free hand in Asia. No power is likely to sanction the creation of a big navy by Japan, since every statesman who is not blind can see that Japan would utilise such a navy to buttress a great imperialist advance in Asia. It is quite plain, therefore, that English-speaking unity on broad statesmanlike lines would lie the best guarantee of stability in the Pacific, and the time is over ripe for the best elements within the Commonwealth of British'Nations and the United States to set to work to emphasise the essential oneness of the ideals and aims of the people of these nations which no amount of verbal juggling by tlieir political spokesmen can nullify.