Wairarapa Daily Times [Established Third of a Century.] THURSDAY, JANUARY 9, 1913. THE DOMINIONS AND THE COMMITTEE OF IMPERIAL DEFENCE.

Wairarapa Daily Times, Volume LXIV, Issue 11561, 9 January 1913, Page 4

Wairarapa Daily Times [Established Third of a Century.] THURSDAY, JANUARY 9, 1913. THE DOMINIONS AND THE COMMITTEE OF IMPERIAL DEFENCE.

The problem of Imperial defence, to which fresh prominence has recently beeii given by the proposals of the Canadian Government, still occupies a great deal of space in the newspapers. It is likely to occupy a good deal more before any satisfactory solution of it is arrived at. Here we are concerned more especially with naval defence, and the problem which it presents embodies three main questions, besides a whole host of subsidiary ones. The three questions are: —

(.1) The strategical question—that is to say, the strength and disposition of the naval forces of the Empire so as to provide adequately and efficiently for any probable combination against us. (2) The burdeu is to say, the share of each part of the Empire in naval defence. (3) The policy question—that is to say, the relations which arc to exist between the defence authorities and forces of each part of the Empire, and the conditions and terms upon which the Overseas Dominions are to assume responsibility for their sharp of the burden of naval defence.

It will be remembered that the proposal of the Canadian Government embodies the suggestion that the Minister of Marine should reside in London and have a permanent seat ou the Committee of Imperial' Defence. We discussed

this proposal at some ■ length j pointing out the objections which can be levelled at it, at the time, it was made, and we are glad to notice it has not escaped serious criticism elsewhere. As those who have followed recent cablegrams bearing on the matter are aware, the Secretary of State for the Colonies is reported to have invited the governments of the Overseas Dominions to state "whether they desire closer association with the Committee of Imperial 'Defence." Commenting upon this invitation, which suggests the extension of the Canadian proposal to the whole Empire, the "Lyttelton Times" says:

No colonial Government is likely to make au offhand reply to a question which involves the whole problem of Imperial relationships, and we may assume that Parliament will be consulted before this country is committed to a new policy, or, indeed, to the retention of an old one. But without entering upon a detailed discussion of Mr Harcourt's suggestion, it may bo said that the self-governing States of the Empire will want to understand the position clearly before they accept direct representation on the Defeuce Committee. If a member of our own Ministry sat with the representatives of Britain, Canada,' Australia and South Africa in London, the Government in Wellington would be almost bound to accept his recommendations, and Parliament in its turn would hesitate to question tho wisdom or justice of a decision based perhaps on information of a confidential character. .Representation, in fact would involve responsibilities, although an - actual majority of the members of the committee would lie nominated by the Home Government. This point has been discussed in Canada lately, and a writer in the last, number of "The Round Table." says that the Canadians realise that they would be "uniufluential in determining in any crisis in Europe or elsewhere whether peace should continue or Avar be declared." He adds that "there would be nothing in the nature of tribute in any appropriations voted or any navy, established by free action of the Canadian Parliament. But it is a question for the dominions to consider before they reply to Mr Harcourt how far their right of "free action" could be maintained after they had accepted direct representation, perhaps on a population basis, on a central body.

This appears to us to be a very succinct statement of the problem from the point of view of the Overseas Dominions as we have endeavoured to expound it in these columns from time to time, and until the difficulties it obviously suggests are satisfactorily cleared up, we are afraid that the Canadian proposal is scarcely likely to be generally endorsed. Indeed, as we know already, it does not command the support of the Australian Government. Apart from every other objection, the Canadian proposal entirely fails to give the Dominions any voice whatever in the determination of the foreign policy of the Empire for the best of all reasons that the Committee of Imperial Defence is not called upon to decide what that policy shall be. That is a question for the Cabinet, and it is one the responsibility for which the British Government is not prepared to share with anybody, if the very definite statement on the subject made by Mr Asquith last year to the Imperial Conference means anything at all. In his opening address to the delegates, the Prime Minister said: "Whether in this United Kingdom, or in any one of the great communities which you represent, we each of us are, and we each of us intend to remain, master in our own household. This is, here at home and throughout, the Dominions, the life-blood of our policy. It is the 'articulus stantis aut cadeutis Imperii,' " and speaking of foreign policy, in reference to Sir Joseph Ward's famous proposal, Mr Asquith said that to share authority iv that would "be absolutely fatal to our present system of responsible government." In fact, as we have pointed out ou many occasions, the demand for an effective voice in the control of foreign policy—a demand which, we admit, is quite natural in view of the growing importance of the Overseas Dominions —must involve and can only mean a complete reconstruction of the constitutional relations at present existing in the Empire, and for any form of federation involving the sacrifice of local autonomy we are convinced public opinion is not yet ripe in any part of the Empire. But this does not, of course, dispose of the problem of Imperial defence. With or without control over foreign policy, that problem has still to be faced, and in view of the very real and at present, as we think, insurmountable difficulties in the way of any scheme of federation, it would be better to consider proposals which leave awkward questions in abeyance. In other words, would it not be better to discuss a development of the local navy principle whereby each autonomous state, or groups of them, should become responsible for Imperial naval defence within certain spheres, receiving perhaps some assistance from the Home Government until the whole cost could be defrayed locally? We have no space on the present occasion to develop this idea in detail, but we are convinced that it is along some such line that the problem of Imperial defence must be solved, and for this reason the proposal which has lately beeu made for co-operation between Australia and New Zealand in naval defence is one which ought to receive very serious attention.