TOPICS OF THE DAY.
IMPERTATI DEFENCE AND FOREIGN POLICY.
IT is probable that very soon after these words appear in print Mr. Borden will make a statement on the nature of Canada's naval contribution to Imperial defence. Every one knows that his recent visit to England was un- dertaken expressly to discuss this subject, and to demand that Canada, as co-operator with Great Britain in the business of naval defence, should also take her share with Great Britain in the direction of foreign policy. No fore- seeing person should shrink from the logical conclusions of a scheme of Imperial defence in which the Dominions will bear their proportionate part. The Dominions are fast- growing nations. Within a measurable period the population of Canada alone will outstrip that of Great Britain ; the period will be a fairly long one, no doubt, as political periods go, but already such a result is humanly certain. The New World, as Canning said in a different sense, may again redress the balance of the Old. It would be absurd to suppose that Canada and the other great British nations over the seas would consent indefinitely to follow in the train of Great Britain without a word to say as to the foreign policy of the Empire. A great sisterhood of nations within the Empire, all acknowledging one allegiance, will make foreign policy their common concern. We do not shrink from that prospect as from a menacing vision. On the contrary, we welcome it. The time is already past when Great Britain could impose an Imperial policy on all the parts of a dumb Empire, just as the earlier period in which England regarded the Colonies as a source of profit (when they were not regarded as a nuisance) passed with the fatal policy of Lord North and George III. We welcome the prospect because a common responsibility, solemnly acknowledged, will be an indis- soluble bond among the various units of the Empire. In a generation beyond our own it is even conceivable that the centre of gravity in the Empire will shift from the Old World to the New. We need fear no developments of that sort—though they are far beyond our present range of contemplation—if we set our feet firmly now in the right path. The bond of union, we predict, will be a bond of common and urgent necessity, a great union of defence, and not an artificial commercial union which would intro- duce jealousies and rivalries, and would kill the sentiment that ',now compels the Dominions of their own motion to come to the aid of Great Britain.
A few years ago the question of helping Great Britain to hold the mastery of the seas was the hobby of the few ; now it is canvassed hotly in every colonial newspaper. And it needs no particular clarity of vision to see that the share which Canada demands in the direction of foreign policy will also be demanded in due proportion by Australia, New Zealand, and South Africa. We are not in favour of any complete ready-made plan of federation. We distrust bril- liance in these affairs. The scheme of Imperial consultation which the Empire wants will grow up gradually in response to particular needs. If we are not mistaken, we shall have the first important contribution to the discussion from Canada within the next few days. Already the principle is accepted, for Mr. Asquith's words on this subject in the House of Commons on July 22nd were welcomed by all. Speaking of the proposal which Mr. Borden was about to put forward, he said :— " Whatever it may be, I am perfectly certain it will be adequate to the dignity and to the patriotic spirit of the great Canadian Dominion, and we shall receive it here with the utmost gratitude as an acknowledgment that we are true co-partners in this great Empire, and that its burdens and responsibilities are shared between the Mother Country and the Dominions, and that we cannot, either in peace or in war, isolate ourselves one from the other. I would add, though I cannot make any detailed state- ment on the point at this moment, that side by side with this growing participation in the active burdens of Empire on the part of our Dominions there rests with us undoubtedly the duty of making such response as we can to their obviously reasonable appeal that they should be entitled to be heard in the determina- tion of policy and in direction of its affairs."
So far opinions in Canada on naval defence have tended to range themselves in accordance with party divisions. The Liberals invented the scheme of a local Canadian Navy to be under purely Canadian control. Sir Wilfrid Laurier even went so far as to lay it down that in the event of war the Canadian Navy would not come to the assistance of Great Britain unless the Canadian Parliament decided that it should do so. We may remark that this reserva- tion is more theoretical than real. Canada, as part of the Empire, could not " contract out " of a war. By being exposed to attack she would be forced to throw in her lot with Great Britain. The only practical alternative would be secession. And it is inconceivable, in any case, that the Canadian people would allow their Navy to remain idle if Great Britain were attacked. The Conservatives, who were in opposition when the Naval Service Bill was launched, criticised it with a view to bring- ing the Canadian Navy in some way more directly under the control of the British Admiralty. The Nationalists have taken up a generally anti-militarist standpoint, and have spoken and acted, most unconvincingly, in deprecation of becoming involved in the naval competition of Europe. Their ambition to remain in permanent detachment is agreeable, but, of course, utterly unreal. The first wish which any outside observer of this situation must express is that the Canadians may be able to compose all purely party differences and agree upon a common scheme. Mr. Borden as Premier is now in the position to throw the whole of the Laurier scheme overboard, but we trust that whatever he proposes may have the great advantage of being sanctioned by the Opposition. We have considerable hopes that this may be so, as the chorus of advice from the Canadian news- papers that party differences should be set aside is very remarkable.
The guiding principle for Englishmen at home in watch- ing events should be that whatever the Canadian Govern- ment proposes should be gratefully accepted without niggling criticism. The one certain thing is that Canada will not give ready help unless she gives it in her own way. We would rather have enthusiastic aid tendered in some un- conventional way, and not theoretically approved of by the Admiralty, than a dead and formal contribution which had no backing from the hearts and heads of the Canadian people. For this reason we welcomed the Laurier scheme, of a Canadian Navy locally controlled, when it was intro- duced. It is easy, at the same time, to sympathize with the technical objections of the Admiralty. It would be more convenient for the Admiralty no doubt to say exactly what ships it required, and how they should be manned, and where they should be stationed, and simply leave to Canada the duty of paying for them. But that would leave Canada a comparatively uninterested partner in the transaction, and we sincerely hope that what may be called the Borden alterations in the original Laurier scheme—for we believe the Borden scheme will amount to such a compromise—will simultaneously satisfy the Admiralty and permanently engage the enthusiasm of Canadians.
In the new number of that excellent quarterly review the Round Table there are two articles discussing the naval question by Canadian writers. One of them in describing the development of Conservative policy, particularly in connexion with the question of the control of the Canadian. Navy, says :— "There were obvious objections to Sir Wilfrid Laurier's solution of the difficulty ; and the Conservative Party perhaps realized these objections more acutely, because it had used them as weapons of controversy. Accordingly some different method of safeguarding Canadian autonomy was looked for. It was found by insisting, not on a division of command, but on a union of councils. The Liberal policy was to preserve the autonomy of Canada by keeping the British and Canadian Fleets separate, each under the orders of its own Admiralty. The Conservative policy, according to recent declarations, is to preserve autonomy by uniting the Fleets, and at the same time uniting the Admi- ralties."
The other Canadian writer analyses the feeling of the people of the Plains about naval defence. In this new land old sentiments which are enough to sway the East count for little. Everything is looked upon as a " business proposition," and is judged accordingly. The population is largely American in origin, but the writer thinks that when the security of trade is seen to depend upon vigorous Imperial defence the men of the Plains will heartily support a strong naval policy as being good " business."
Australia, like Canada, decided at the Imperial Defence Conference in London in 1909 to establish a local Navy. That Navy is already coming into existence. £1,500,000 is being expended this year, and the expenditure will rise to £5,000,000 in 1932. The geographical situation of Australia is so different from that of Canada that her determination to keep her Navy under her own control is easily explicable. As an Australian writer in the Bound Table says :—" Australia's position is strategically weak : it is like the advance guard of the West flung far out into the East. Her position is somewhat like that of Constan- tinople in the Middle Ages, but with this difference, that owing to her maritime isolation it is not to the interest of any other Western nation to prevent her overthrow." The writer insists that the danger of a great yellow immigra- tion being forced upon Australia is a very real one, and that the Australian Navy must be used to ward off that danger. The Navy must be under Australian control, and in the future must be built in Australia. The demand of Australia to have a regular voice in foreign policy will probably be based on reasons rather different in quality from those of Canada, for an independently operating Australian Navy will be at least as great an anxiety to the British Admiralty as the exclusive direction of foreign affairs by the Foreign Office can be to the Australian Government. We should not, however, allow that argu- ment to weigh much against an independent Australian Navy. The Australians, like the Canadians, must do as they think fit. A permanent machinery of Imperial consultation would reduce the danger of inconvenient esca- pades by the Australian Navy to a very small margin.
In conclusion, we venture to hope that the statesmen of the Dominions may consider at this time whether the idea of an Imperial Naval Loan commends itself to them. If there is to be considerable variety in the naval defence of the Dominions it would. be only the more desirable that the Admiralty should be able to rely upon a certain permanent contribution, not for the maintenance of ships, but for the achievement of an extra margin of security. We have suggested that the loan should be raised on the basis of a pound per head for each white person in the Dominions. The money would be expended. by the Admiralty as exigencies required. The total loan would be about sixty millions, and we are certain that such a sum would be an invaluable advertisement of our resolve to build ships against all competition, and would have a wholesome effect in causing our competitors to think more than twice before pursuing a ruinous and futile policy. We are glad to see that the proposal of an Imperial Loan has the approval of the Montreal Star.
Previous page
