BRITAIN,' AMERICA AND THE WORLD
By• SIR ARCHIBALD HURD THE peace of the world depends more than on any other factor on the co-operation of all the English- speaking peoples in the arts of civilization. Is it not a self-evident proposition today that if the peoples of the British Empire and the United States were to think, speak and act in general accord on all the major problems which arise from time to time a new and brighter era for humanity would open ? Such an understanding would prove an effective sedative to a nerve-wracked world. • If it be urged that such an understanding is a dream that can never be realized, the obvious response is that nothing is impossible in the political field. Who among, the statesmen of the Continent of Europe in the early clays of Queen Victoria would have believed that for one hundred years the frontier dividing one part of the British Empire, Canada, from the Northern States of the United States would remain unarmed ? Who among the rulers on the Continent would not have smiled in- credulously, even as late as the opening of the present century, at the thought that a day would come when the British and American forces, naval and military, would be making common cause at sea and on the battlefields of France and Belgium ? No political conception affecting the relations of the British and American peoples need be ruled out as impossible if the will to peace, rather than the will to war, be cultivated.
What grounds for dispute exist between the English- speaking peoples ? So far as the British Empire is concerned, the Great War which was, in the opinion of some prophets, to have shivered it into fragments, merely served to consolidate it. The daughter nations became sister nations. Would it not be a natural step from the realization of this league of sister nations to hold out a friendly hand across the oceans to the American people, seeking not an exclusive alliance or anything of that kind, but an understanding based on common ideals ? The English-speaking peoples fought for civilization side by side in the memory of most of us. Is it certain that they cannot present a united front in order that the fruits of their sacrifices may not be squandered ?
If relations between them be examined, it is evident that on only two issues is there a serious division of opinion, apart from the War Debt problem, which time, in association with invincible economic facts, will solve sooner perhaps than some people imagine. The United States are determined to have a navy second to none, and they are equally determined to maintain, as an auxiliary to that navy, an adequate merchant fleet for their needs in peace and war, and especially in war.
As to the first problem, the Washington Naval Con- ference- has been regarded -by masses of people on both sides-of the Atlantic as the one outstanding achievement in the field of the limitation of armaments. Men of good will hope that it may be possible to continue this agreement in some varied form. During the Great War the two fleets served side by side on' 'the Atlantic as well as in the North Sea. Between the officers and men under the two flags a brotherhood *as cemented. There was no naval secret behind the doors of the Admiralty that Admiral William Sims and his colleagues did not share. Is it too late for the British Government to state, in all sincerity, that this country does not regard the American nation as a probable or possible enemy of the British Empire and that, so far as naval power is concerned, we are ready that the English-speaking Peoples, possessing the same political ideals, should share the trident ? • Such a declaration, in view of the coming. Naval Conference, would clear the air, removing all chance of unfruitful controversy.
The problem of commercial sea power would have been regarded a few years ago as offering serious obstacles to a solution satisfactory to both countries. British shipowners, and indeed the British people generally, regarded with little satisfaction the resolve of the American people that they must have a large Merchant Navy, cost what it might, as a complementary force to their ships of war, since war ships must be attended by merchant ships. It is calculated that in pursuit of these aims the American taxpayers have spent no less than £1,000,000,000. When the money was poured out the Treasury at Washington had " money to burn." In the result, American sea-going shipping ranks next in tonnage to the British Merchant Navy, but it can be operated at sea only with the support of grievous sub- sidies. These payments have hitherto been criticized on this side of the Atlantic, especially in their influence on the Atlantic and Pacific trades. We can fight out the issue at a price, disregarding the American plea that it costs them far more to build ships (nearly twice as much) than they can be built fur in British yards and that their operating costs are higher. That means a war of subsidies and possibly a war of rates with all the ill-feeling that such a struggle would cause, poisoning the springs of action in the political field.
No one had faced this issue until Lord Essendon, a former President of the Chamber of Shipping, who con- trols more tonnage under the British or any other flag than anyone else and who has played a notable part in bringing about the North Atlantic merger, spoke out on a recent occasion. In referring to the possibility of an International Shipping Conference being held this autumn, he said that there was good reason for belie wing that many nations, particularly those of the Northern European countries, were prepared to confer together with a view to putting the shipping industry on a sounder footing, and there was also evidence t but the United States were willing to modify their past policy. With this preamble, he remarked—and the significance of his words is far-reach- ing—that in considering the subsidy position from the United States' point of view, we should recognize that they are a naval power and have come to the conclusion that they must have an adequate mercantile marine. " However much we may lament the fact," Lord Essendon added, " that is their policy, even though we may be able to carry their products cheaper than they can do themselves, as in fact • we did before the War." He admitted that lir view of the higher costs in America, principally in construction, they could not have a mer- cantile marine without subsidizing it, and so long as the subsidy did not-exceed these higher costs his own personal view was -that no serious objection could be made.
That is the situation so tar as naval and mercantile shipping on the two sides of the Atlantic are concerned. What can either the Americans or we ourselves gain by bickering, except loss of money, loss .of temper, and loss of influence in promoting the cause of civilization ? Whether we like it or not, America has appeared on the horizon as a great sea power, taking the second place from which the Germans were driven as a result of the Great War. Would it not be wise to acknowledge the American claim, thus removing irritating • causes of difference, which time will not remove but will accentuate ?
Previous page
