WHAT ABOUT THE PACIFIC?

Gisborne Times, Volume XXXIII, Issue 3681, 16 November 1912, Page 3

WHAT ABOUT THE PACIFIC?

THE HON. JAMES ALLEN’S WARNING.

NAVAL SCHEME OF 1909 DEAD.

LONDON, Sept. 27. Tho Hon. James Allen’s complaint about the neglected state ox tho Pacific in tho naval scheme of the Empire and tho unsatisfactory connection < f New Zealand with tho China unit, was cabled to England at an opportune moment, and it has given “The Times”* a text for a -strong leading article calling for more frequent conferences on the whole question of defence. “The Times’- also approves the suggestion that each Oversea Dominion should always be represented on tho Committee of Defence by a member of its Ministry. An Australian correspondent, writing to “The Times,' 1 points out- that xmder tho stress of rapidlv changing conditions the whole naval policy of 1909 —the considered product of the Defence Conference of that year has gone by the board, and he complains that nothing lias been doim to i l ''place certain parts of the 1999 s'-heme, which have V'on abandoned. The result is that Australia now finds herself with a fleet unit almost complete, isolated in the Pacific, without support either from New Zealand or from Canada, iand faced with the responsibility of maintaining alone the prestige of the Empire in the Pacific. Uo remarks: “Tin’s unit alone, not joined np and associated with other units, and without any complete plan of combined operation is without the necessary support to retain and secure tlie. interests that are vital to Australia, and in which tin* other parties are also interested.” Tie says that while Australia has never wavered for an instant in her decision of 1909, “the other parties to' the agreement have done absolutely nothing. There is tip -Canadian ship on"the Pacific yet except a training shin. The New Zealand Dreadnought, which was to have been stationed in one of'the Eastern units, is to In* kept in Home waters. Of the Admiralty’s two Eastern units, no further word has been heard, or, as far as the ordinary observer r -an distinguish. ever will be.” The writer eomnlains that the failure of the Admiralty to divulge its Pacific policy does not “encourage , the Dominions to enter into agreement with the Home authorities. The Admiralty has aided end abetted, fostered and encouraged the local Australian licet, and is now leaving it virtually to maintain alone British power and prestige in the Pacific. How is .the Admiraltv going to fashion tho infant colonial navies into useful auxiliaries bv such policy?” “T 1 le‘.Times” is inclined to defend the Admiralty on the ground that since 1909, and even since the conference of last year, history has made ■ forced marches and taken the latest

schemes in flank. It admits that the position regarding Australia and Now Zealand is unsatisfactory, inasmuch as they had hern led to believe in 1909 that four fleet units would bo created in the Pacific, by Australia, Canada, and the, British Admiralty (through which New Zealand gave her assistance) “which would be so trained together as to constitute a formidable Pacific fleet.” In some respects there has been “a complete abandonment of tbo ideas of 1909,” and we do not know even now whether Canada proposes to revive the Vancouver unit, which was part of the 1909 scheme. “The Times” will not agree that the Admiralty and the other partner Governments are to blame for leaving Australia in tbo lurch over the 1909 agreement. History lias moved so fast that no Government or Admiralty could deal with the continuous changes by means of periodical conferences. It holds that the nrival arrangements in Eastern waters do not call for immediate change, and compliments Australia and New Zealand on facing “their national responsibilities with courage, foresight, and zeal.” despite the “malicious, efforts that have been ■made to belittle or distort the systems of universal training which both have patriotically introduced.” It adds: “This steady and considered development in Australian waters is probably all that tbo moment requires; but it obviously cannot suffice alone for the future security of Imperial interests in the Pacific.”