AMERICA'S RIGHT TO A BIG NAVY

Hokitika Guardian, 13 February 1928, Page 4

AMERICA'S RIGHT TO A BIG NAVY

, “Wo in this country would he unwise to imagine that our naval • I .‘■itrongtli should lie kept on a parity > with that of America. Wc should let 1 America go her own way in warship building, in the full assurance that I I hostilities between iter and its are sint- ! ply inconceivable.”—“Liverpool Post.” ' I There are some peoples, says “I‘iibI j lie Opinion,” who are alarmed at the ’ . increase in the American Navy, fore- ' shadowed by Air Coolidge’s speech, ’ | coming as it does after the British 1 announcement of a reduction in the - ] proposed new cruisers. There is a de- - I termination however, on the whole, to light any attempt at naval rivalry, - I but that there is an uneasiness lest I the situation may drift out. of hand cannot lie gainsaid. ■ I The news that, the President is con- • sideling a programme for the next • five yesTrs. which calls for twenty-six. ■ j 10,13)0-ton cruisers, three aeroplane - carriers, live submarines and eighteen j destroyer leaders, shows that America 1 is both prepared to build and to pay. ■ I “There is no need for excitement on . this side of the Atlantic over Prcsi- ■ dent Coolidge’s announcement- of the growth of American naval estimates and the construction of more eruisI ors,” says tlie “Daily Express.” I “There is no need even for criticism, ! and as for the propaganda which Air Coolidge warns the world ‘will not cause us to change our course.’ itwould, if it came to this country, lie out of place and even offensive. | “When Germany was building up a great fleet she was doing it for one 1 special purpose, and that purpose was to threaten and to smash tlie seettr- ! ity of the British, Empire. The naval situation its far as it affects and is | affected by the United States is wholly j different. j “Any idea that Great Britain’s interests would suffer through a greater 1 American Navy is so ludicrous that it hardly calls for denial. America lias the right to look after her own business and to have a big navy if she cares to pay for it.” “With a population of 42,000,000, England has twice the debt of the United States.” points out the “Evening Standard,” “and is paying not far short of three times the interest on debt—to be precise, £353,000,000 against £134,000,000. Hi five years the annual saving in America on interest alone has been £42,000,000. “The circumstances of the two countries are in many ways not comparable, and the United States National Debt, which, of course, is the debt of a Federation, and not of a unified State, is not quite the same thing as our own. But all this does not affect i the main fact that there has been ‘consriletive economy’ in a very large scale, with the highly desirable result that the rate of interest has felleti, and the State is able, when opportunities of redemption come, to re-borrow on progressively advantageous terms. “A great, even a very great Navy is a bagatelle to the American people. A navy barely sufficient for our needs is a severe burden on us, and must he increasingly oppressive unless and until ‘stern self-denial in public expenditure,’ with its favourable effects on trade, improves our finaneivl position.” "The British Navy has its own responsibilities overseas.” comments the “Tin es.” “It has to defend, for instance, India, Canada, Australia, and South Africa, not to speak of a number of other territories. AVe are. moreover, an island and not a continental Power, so that our very existence is dependent on the adequate protection of our trade routes. “Essentially our naval policy is determined by the vital necessities of our national defence, which do not conflict with those of the United States but are altogether different ill range and character. It is for the Government and people of the United States to estimate their maritime requirements. AVe can only consider our own. AYhat has always been made perfectly clear is that we shall not dream of building in competition with the United States. Our needs cannot be determined by theirs.” “AYiil the spirit in which the whole 1 armaments policy of the United States is conducted under the new regime ot freedom and independence lie of a kind to help op the cause of interna- ] ional peace ?” asks the “Glasgow Her- 1 aid.” “A\ r e find it difficult not to see in the attitude which America has adopt-

cd all through this year on the naval question a reflex of the abounding prosperity to which the President’s message bore such eloquent tribute. The Government and the people of the United States are almost painfully conscious of their wealth, their enterprise, their national vigour, and the superiority of their standards over those of the Old World. • “In their outlook there is in consequence more than a touch of arrogance. They find it surprising and distasteful that any State should,.even appear to dispute their claims in such a matter as naval armaments; and tlie danger is that in their resentment they should be tempted to abuse their position and to take a course of action which will appear to less fortunate nations to be dictatorial. .Such may well be the outcome of the naval policy which Mr Coolidge announced. “There may be no conscious commencement of competitive building, but the desire to display America’s material power and assert her liberty of action may have much the same result- as if an armaments race had been deliberately begun. The next two or three years will be more definitely a testing time for American character than the President’s complacent platitudes ever suggest.’’ “Whether parity should consist ol rough equality of strength or of exact equality in every class ol ship is by comparison a small matter,” is an issue raised by the “Manchester Guardiani.” “though the latter conception. which is the American, u ill clearly make competition the more acute. But niether conception is compatible with the assertion, repeated with equal solenmmitv on both sides of the Atlantic, that we arc not building against each other. That assertion will only be true on the lips of the Government which is hold enough to sav that its building programme will he entirely unaffected however many ships are built by the other. That is the assurance for which wo wait in vain.”