Feb, 17.
Events are moving rapidly in reshaping British policy, or rather in inducing the Government to make its policy better attuned to the significance of recent disclosures. The war fear in Europ2 has been accentuated by the manifest decline in the authority of the League. The accepted doctrine of support of the Covenant, impressed on the Government by the General Election and ils aftermath, has now been reinforced by insistence on the recovery of the nation's power of self-defence. Led by "The Times," opinion on both sides of the House of Commons has interpreted this feeling by raising the question of the proper ce-ordination of the three fighting services, whether on the federal system which secures cooperation under a civilian organiza tion or by the unification of the services under one executive chief.
Weighty views have been expressed by experts on this subject and it may be assumed that the with drawal of Admiral Sueter's Bill wilt bbe followed by prompt attention to the formulation of a Government scheme for effecting the reforms! desired. Drastic revision of service policy will be required, as well as fearless consideration of the changed conditions created by the scientific development of modern warfare. As an example of the kind of opposition which this effort {s bound to meet, the experience of the French Government in pro-war days may be noted. The success of Bleriot's Might across the channel, led to discussion of the possibility of using the aeroplane in warfare. Objection was raised on the ground that the aeroplane would usurp the functions of the cavalry and destroy a glorious tradition. It not sufflelent to point out that the objection was eventually overruled. The mere fact that it could be solemnly weighed was significant one who has read the story of the Tanks in the Great War can blithely deny the probability that) history might repent itself in the struggle between the conservatives and the innovators, both patriotically desirous of strengthening' national defences. It is admitted that the sub-committee of service chiefs, set up under the Imperial Defence Committee to ce-ordinate technical views, avoids controversial issues in order to preserve its capacity for practical achievement.
This may not mean the creation of a single Ministry of Defence which has been usually regarded as} unsatisfactory, but rather the recon= struction and development of the machinery sct up by the Imperial Defence Committee. Financial con~ siderations favour such a step. Confronted with the need for: expanding national defence the Government will be ready to adopt} any measure which can ensure economical treatment of the prob-Join. 'The elimination of overlapping, for example, is one of the advantages of a really effective ce-ordination. It has been obstructed in the past, by the existence of no properly' overriding authority to weigh and adjudicate upon the maintenance of technical branches which are common to the three services. Above all it Is essential to ensure that the high policy of defence is being worked out \by the three services In unison. "Under modern conditions the Importance of combined operations has greatly increased, Tt has become almost the basic factor in any scheme of defence, instead of being, as it was Judged fo be in. the' past, an accidental feature of certain aspects of a campaign. British defence policy thus enters upon a new] phase. It is closely linked up with the national policy which to support, of the League now adds the obliga~ tion to make that support of real physical value. In associating herself with the collective system, Great Britain has discovered that she cannot afford to rely, at this stage at all events, on its intrinsic qualities to protect her aguinst! eventualities. On the other hand,_ if she be strong enough to maintain her own defence, her contribution to that system-and, therefore, her ability to share in its advantages—is all the more impressive. The suggestion that to counterbalance the weaknesses of the League she should concentrate on a more precise understanding! with the United States of America is not really practical. Taking the' Tong view, Anglo-American friend~ ship should increase as the years pass. The interests of the two countries in preserving world-peace are unmistakable. It would be. straining the otherwise healthy con~ cord obtaining between them to attempt to superimpose on it a Jconerete structure of formal alliance. That point is recognized on both sides of the Atlantic.
British friends of America cannot blind themselves to the fact that, to a large section of the American public, Great Britain is by no means persona grata. American nationhood was built up less than two centuries ago on the basis of resentment against the Empire' whose yoke the infant Republic had. broken, Ties of language and tradi~ tion and blood have helped to soften that resentment but the habit of regarding the imperialist policies of Great Britain with critical suspicion persisted. It received and Jcontinues to receive sustenance from the yearly influx of European immigrants into the American popula~ tion, Time will, no doubt, exert corrective influences, as American public opinion becomes better instructed and British perception of American problems more acutely defined. In the meantime Great Britain would be only deluding herself if she ignored the implica~ [tions of America's present aloofness from European affairs or failed to realize the fact that an American politician who ventured to champion British policy would be inviting extinction. It is true that respon= sible journals and courageous statesmen in America have a shrewd grasp of the importance of Anglo-American friendship, but Mr. W. A. Hearst is not necessarily fanatically anti-British when his} papers, like the "New York Ameri can" find themselves compelled to present the Ethiopian issue, in terms of a scathing indictment of British good faith:
England, on the other hand, can command very little respect fu the eyes of thinking and. unprejudiced finds because she ts ridiculously insincere. As a. self-constituted Schoolmaster of the world through the League of Nations she, in. view of her past. performances, Proposterous 2 gute to-day. as History. has to offer. "After having frabbed almost half of Africa, she beets on high moral grounds to Moly occupying Ethiopia. inthe fame manner by armed force that she herself pursued In. staking: off neatly hal of the world, To American readers of that diatribe just_as much sympathy should. be extended as to the" bewildered dimly imagines that to the League of Nations and the Covenant the linly imagines that to the Lea British Empire gave its support to secure the favour of America, as the putative parent of those instiuitions, and who cannot under stand to this day how it was that the Covenant did not bear an American signature. In short any attempt to. base British polley on the assumption that American sympathy will certainly produce cooperation cannot be logically justi fed by past. events. It would be unfair to Ameria to take any. other point of view. Thus, had it been considered desirable to impose all sanctions as the result of the League's recent inquiry, there should have been no attempt make the imposition dependent on. America's decision. "Fortunately the League seems likely to be saved from that error the folly of which was sufficiently exposed in the out {come of the Lausanne Conference of 1932. This is said in no reproach of American policy. Tt simply takes {nto account the paramount considerations which must guide Ameri-fan decisions. In the same way, Great Britain's preoccupations with the Furopean issue and with the [world-situation as. affecting her Empire across the seas, should not misjudged. Her commitments under the collective system can only, be fulthed by sedulous pursuit of a policy which enables her adequately, discharge the obligations of self defence in reliance on her own resources. She has run grave risks
Text read from the printed page and cleaned; old type leaves the occasional error.