TOPICS OF THE DAY
NAVAL DEFENCE, PEACE AND ECONOMY
DURING the past week the problem of Naval expen- diture—the question whether we are to have a new ship-building programme and more cruisers at two million pounds each—has held the attention of the country. As so often happens in matters of National Defence, while there is a pretty general agreement as to the principles, there is fierce disagreement as to the practice, that is, as to the application of the agreed principles. Every man whose mind is not paralyzed by fear on the one side, or fanaticism on the other, feels two things in regard to National Defence. He feels, in the first place, that in the present distraction of the world, and in the very special conditions in which this country stands as to its food supply, its commerce, and its duties in regard to Imperial Defence, we must make the safety of the nation and the Empire our first charge. But this is not all. Every man feels also that it is a duty, a matter of national honour, and here again in the long run a supreme matter of national safety, not to spend a single penny more than is necessary upon safety. Further, he feels that in our higher interests, and in the interests of the world, we' must set an example, not only in good ,faith, but in patience and wisdom. There is nothing more true and also nothing more obvious, in this affair of compe- titive armament, than that panic is at the bottom of it. -Though there may be ambitious statesmen and rulers in certain countries filled with the desire to influence and to dominate, and so to interfere with the internal affairs of other countries, the majority in no country is in favour of war and aggression.
• Yet, this very dread of war is a cause of danger. The nations fear war so much that all of them are liable to gusts of panic, prompted by the thought, " We must spend money on defence. We must look out for allies, and when we have got them keep them up to the mark in their contributions to the common object of defence." Fear for the future is the influence that is luring the nations to the edge of the precipice. In view of that fact, it is the special duty of a country like ours to avoid anything which may encourage this sense of terror. Our duty, though it is a duty which must be guarded by reason and common sense, is as far as possible to set a good example to the rest of the world by avoiding panic preparations. Though we are so apt to criticize ourselves and to regard our own Governments as blind and foolish, the world in general considers us as directed by an almost uncanny instinct for self-preservation and self-aggrandizement. We are apt also to be looked upon as the political barometer of the world. If we show steadiness and coolness we are almost certain to get followers and imitators throughout the world—men apt to strengthen the cause of peace and to make the lovers of peace in every country say to their rulers, " Look at Britain. She is not feverishly arming. She is taking things seriously, but not tragically. Why cannot we do the same ? " If, on the other hand, we show a loss of confidence the world at once thinks that the people who know best, and whose interests, owing to their far-flung commerce, have most to dread, foresee war in the future and are preparing for it. The moment this idea gets into men's heads they conclude that they, too, must be up and doing in the way of armament. Now, to inspire that feeling is to set up once again the old competitive fever, to force the nations to begin new naval programmes and once more to bid against each other for supremacy on land and sea. We have got a Covenant and League of Nations, and we have laid solid foundations for settling the difficulties between nations which must arise on a just basis. What remains to make our Treaties and our Covenants really " worth while " is to secure Disarmament. There is the crux of the whole question.
But how can we further the cause of Disarmament or preach Disarmament and Arbitration as the way out if, at the same time, we are increasing our naval forces and filling foolish people with the idea that we should never do this unless we contemplated using that increased power in order to get the better of our neighbours ? As Lord Oxford showed so well in his speech last Saturday, we are building peace walls with one hand and pulling them down with the other. In view of these facts, and after very careful consideration of the debate in the House of Commons on July 16th, we feel two things. In the first place, it is necessary for the Admiralty and the supporters of more cruisers to show that our ability to secure National Defence is being seriously imperilled. As far as we can see, they have been unable to show that —unable to prove that they are not acting on the panic supposition that other Powers are planning our overthrow. And, in truth, this is not all. Even if we grant the panic proposition, we are by no means sure that the proper way to give us security is by building more cruisers. Power to protect these islands and to protect our supplies we must have ; but he would be a bold man who would say offhand that this can best be secured, or secured only, by expenditure on the building of big naval units. We cannot admit that it has been settled that action in the air and submarine action are not in process of altering the balance of power between the three elements of earth, water and air. Yet, again, we are by no means sure that we are getting value for our money in the Navy. As Commander Hilton Young pointed out in his excellent speech on Thursday, July 16th, there is a growing feeling even in naval circles that the dockyards of Chatham, Sheerness and Pembroke are wholly unnecessary and that any efficient business firm would have closed them down ten• years ago. That is only a sample of the waste that is going on. In our belief our whole expenditure on defence requires to be surveyed from top to bottom. It must be considered as a whole, and not in part, and further the special parts must not be held to have a prescriptive right to financial privileges. Safety we must have, but we must have it at the minimum of cost and with the maximum of efficiency. As Lord Cromer was fond of pointing out, efficiency is very apt to vary, not directly, but inversely with the money spent. Take as an illustration our outposts of Empire. They are apt to be both inefficient and expen- sive. For instance, can our expenditure on Gibraltar be defended on business grounds ? Are we getting value for the money that we spend on it ? Might it not be better to exchange it for Ceuta, and incidentally to help the Spaniards to withdraw from their African commit- ments without loss of prestige ? It might also help the cause of Peace in the area of the Riffs. -We do not want to see Abdel Krim crushed, but we do want peace at the Gate of the Mediterranean. Once more, -before we plunge into increased Naval expenditure, let the whole problem be reviewed. If any particular item is said to be " necessary," is it being secured without
Previous page
