The Waikato Times MONDAY, MAY 22, 1944 SECURITY AFTER THE WAR

Waikato Times, Volume 194, Issue 22354, 22 May 1944, Page 2

The Waikato Times MONDAY, MAY 22, 1944 SECURITY AFTER THE WAR

There is no necessity for the United States to acquire the ownship of further bases if an international organisation is to be established capable of ensuring the security of all nations. This reply has been made by Mr Sumner Welles, former Under-Secretary of State, to those in the United States who are agitating for the permanent acquisition of the bases at present leased to the United States for 99 years in return for the transfer of 50 destroyers, and possibly other bases in the Pacific and elsewhere. This attitude, described by Ml- Welles as imperialistic, is certainly at variance with the policy declared by the United States throughout the war. The defeat of aggression and the securing of peace and not the acquisition of territory have always been, and still are, the aims of the United States and of the other United Nations. There remains, of course, the disposal of territories such as the mandated islands of the Pacific, but they are in an entirely different category. These islands never did belong to Japan, and any right to occupation of them was forfeited by Japan when she violated the terms of the mandate by erecting fortifications. It would be ludicrous to again trust Japan with such mandates. But the bases immediately under discussion are those off the east coast of the American continent which Britain has leased to the United States. Between such friendly nations the issue need not become a serious matter. The point is likely to arise at the end of the war when the new international structure is being built. If, as Mr Welles says, there is to be an effective international organisation for the maintenance of peace, the argument ot those seeking the acquirement of ownership of the bases will fall to the ground. But the United States, and the British Empire, will need to be assured of security. Failing an effective organisation both will want adequate facilities for defence. The procedure indicated, then, is that the final peace should not be decided until the new structure has been brought into being. The dangerous interval is that between the armistice and the signature of the final peace terms. In any case the best guarantee of future peace is the complete unity of the United States and the British Empire in mutual defence. Between them they already possess defence bases which will mean security if operated with a common purpose. There is certainly no need at this stage, or in the next 99 years, to haggle over the transfer of sovereignty in any case. Adjustments of some kind are necessary in the Pacific to ensure that Japan shall not again creep into a position to threaten the whole of the Far East. Whether the new system in the Pacific will consist of mandates or of permanent transfers remains to be decided. The mandate policy is not entirely satisfactory, as has been shown by experience. It will be far better for all concerned if at the end of the war sufficient time is allowed for a comprehensive settlement before the new order of things is signed and sealed. If an efficient international disciplinary organisation is not then in sight Britain and the United States, as well as other United Nations, will certainly need to secure themselves against the banditry of the Axis.