The Gisborne Times. PUBLISHED EVERY MORNING. TUESDAY, JUNE 1, 1909. CAN PEACE BE ASSURED.

Gisborne Times, Volume XXVII, Issue 2516, 1 June 1909, Page 4

The Gisborne Times. PUBLISHED EVERY MORNING. TUESDAY, JUNE 1,1909. CAN PEACE BE ASSURED.

To tho average person it must seem an astounding and deplorablo fact that millions of pounds should be wasted annually by the peoples of Britain and Germany in warlike preparations when neither of them really desires war. Under the circumstances what should bo easier than to arrange an arbitration treaty whereby each of these two modern Powers shall agree to limit their armaments? Unfortunately the ■ more the matter is investigated the more difficult does it apuear to be to frame a basis for such a peaceful arrangement. The English point of view is one that wo arc familiar with. We inevitably resent the action of the Germans in preparing to build a huge fleet of 33 Dreadnoughts and look upon such action as a direct challenge to Britain’s naval supremacy and indeed a menace to the safety of our Empire. Tho Germans deny any aggressive intent, and declaro always that they aro simply building the fleet to protect their rapidly expanding commerce. Britain would be foolish to accept such a statement as a basis for its naval policy, and has no option but to prepare for the day when those 33 Dreadnoughts may bo given the. task of preparing for an invasion of England. So one Power continues to build against the other with disastrous results to both. It is understood that British statesmen have informally sounded those of Germany on the question of arranging an understanding that will lessen tho present intolerable strain, but it lias so far not been found possible to lay down even the broadest lines upon which a conference could take pla.ee. On this point Sir Edward Grey, Foreign Secretary; recently said: — “It is, in my opinion, no ground for complaint or rqproach against the. German Government that they do not enter into any agreement. We should be glad if they did, but we have never suggested that it should be a ground for complaint against them if they do not. On what basis would any arrangement havo to be proposed ? Not on the basis of eqhality. It must bo the basis of a superior British Navy. Prince Bulow, tho German Chancellor, sot forth the German attitude very clearly- in a recent speech in the Reichstag. He said that: — “The general position of the Federated Governments towards tho disarmament idea had been stated in his speeches of April 30, 1907, and Dec. 10, 1908. Since then no formula bad been produced which would take account of tho great geographical, economic, military, and political differences between the peoples. So long as a practical basis of discussion was lacking, the German Government could see uo promise, of success in negotiations between, two or between several I owers. , . ~ i “They claimed that their atiitude was based upon considerations of nu-manit-v and of peace, in full accord with the peaceful tendency o. .ho ufio.c po’ioy of Germany for many decades •past. Their maintenance cf tins point of view was no evidence of an vie friendly disposition, and that none tho 'less because they made <n their natural right to refuse u> eiscuss German domestic questions wd-i loioign countries. They would continue to pursue their policy of peace. Another instance of the Gennan viewpoint on this vital topic is given in an .extract taken from the Conservative Berlin organ, the “Kreuz Zeitung”, which says: “England’s foreign policy now, as ■formerly, seeks to reduce Germany' to an inferior position. ‘Only on this basis does England think of concluding with Germany an arrangement concerning armaments, whereby England woul at any time be free to make an end forthwith of Germany’s position as a sea Power and of her overseas trade, ■for Sir Edward Grey ,says, with creditable candour, that such an arrangement could not be concluded on a basis of equality, but only on one of superiority for the British Irieet. Of course no- Power which had not a heady lost hope in itself and was despan mg of tho future could enter into such an arrangement. Only dying PK’i’- 0 could assume the role imputed by Ln a - A careful consideration, of these points will show how very difficult it is to conceive an acceptable basis for a reduction of armaments between the two great nations. England at present holds paramount place in the world’s afeairs, and is desirous of retaining it, whilst Germany very naturally is anxious to attain that same position. .Lo suggest that an energetic, virile, capable and ambitious people such as the Germans are, should voluntarily agico to have a limit placed upoij their na-

tional expansion is to ignore obvious facts. The Germans do not recognise tho British as their superiors physically or mentally, and it is unreasonable to oxpoct that they should. And so as the issuo in the 20th century rests upon Dreadnoughts each nation will continue tho fierce and terrible rivalry which is such a travesty on our boasted civilisation. There is one point which can reasonably be made in favor of the British standpoint, namely, that supremacy on tho seas is absolutely indispensable to tho national existence. This is not so with Germany, for although inferiority on tho sea will probably <nterfere with her national expansion, it need not imperil the safety of the nation as it exists to-day. Unfortunately, the Germans are not likely to give much consideration to this aspect, and so tho position remains as unsatisfactory as it can well be short of actual war. Tho London “Spectator” suggests as tho only remedy that Britain should put on a terrific spurt in navy building and so let the Germans ’ see that it is quite impossible for them to ever overtake the fighting capacity of their great rival. This idea could scarcely bo carried into effect by Britain alone., but it would be within tho capacity of the Empire as a whole. The sacrifice -would be a tremendous one, but if it abolished Germany’s ideas of being able to rival the British fi°ct within the next decade) it would be well worth the making.