The Guardian And Evening Star, with which is incorporated the West Coast Tines. FRIDAY, JUNE 21, 1929.

Hokitika Guardian, 21 June 1929, Page 4

The Guardian And Evening Star, with which is incorporated the West Coast Tines. FRIDAY, JUNE 21, 1929.

THE FREEDOM OF THE SEAS. Siiokti.y after the opening of the election campaign the British Labour Party circulated a -pamphlet entitled ‘Freedom of the Seas,” to which a foreword was prefixed by Mr Ramsay MacDonald. The general purport of this manifesto, •explains the Auckland Star, is that in the opinion of Labour, “nothing of substance is lelt” of the old doctrines and regulations that once controlled maritime warfare;; and that the only safe course lor Britain is to take her stand on the principles enunciated in the second of President Wilson’s famous “Fourteen Points.” According to President Wilson, it is necessary for the maintenance of the world’s peace to in-

sist upon “freedom of navigation upon' the seas, outside of* territorial waters, aiike in peace and in war, except as the soils may he closed in whole or in part hy international action for the enforcement of international conveiiants.” At first sight it might seem that British La'uour is simply captivated by a pacilist gesture and Ims not realised its lull implications. But in ih.s pamphlet care is taxon <m explain .it length the logical consequences of adherence to me Wilsonian gospel, “tie hold,’' says the Labour spokesman, ‘ that the development and the codirication of international law should .>e made on the assumption that private war and private liLckade, instead of being a legitimate exercise of national sovereignty, is an international crime.” We are told that “the Labour Party stands for the complete renunciation of the right of private war and private blockade.” ATi this means time the British Labour Party is ready to join hands with the Americans on this vitally important matter. Mr Alucl)..nald during his recent campaign told tiie electors that “the question of the Freedom of the Boas must be settled and an agreement reached with the United States on this point”; and this is one of the reasons for the Prime Minister's proposed , trip to Washington to talk with Mr Hoover. It must, of course, be understood that -me British Labour leaders do not stand alone in their willingness to abandon the doctrines of international law regarding neutral commerce. Many men of all parties have decided that ihe time has come to modify radically the rules that have hitherto regulated commerce in war-time. A few months ago Lieutenant Commander Kenwortliy for many years a Liberal, but now a Labourite, set forth the arguments in favour of the new policy in the “Review of Reviews.” We have to face the fact that “America, the only maritime rival who cannot be outbuilt at sea, is determined to resist British claims to interfere- with neutral commerce in time of war.” And eisewiiere in this article he argues that, largely because of the changed condir tion of'the world’s public opinion on this subject, “we cannot enforce the old rules of continuous voyage, blockade, search and capture at sea of neutral commerce with our enemy.” It should be remembered that this proposed surrender of Britain’s traditional maritime rights was foreshadowed twenty years ago in tlie Declaration of London which Sir Edward Grey approved and which the House of Lords declined to ratify. To-day the reason for the revival of such opinions in a more aggressive form is the obvious fact which Lieutenant-Comman-der Keinvorihy emphasises: “We cannot build a supreme navy because of the greater financial resources ol America.” Even in 1914-15-1(5 the Americans protested vehemently against the right of search, contraband and blockade as interpreted by Britain, and the Labour manifesto that we have quoted is probably correct in its surmise that on any similai occasion in the future “we should certainly have to reckon on a protest fai more emphatic than any made in the last war.” On this point Mr Frank Simonds and many other American publicists have left no room for doubt, liiey have told Britain most distinctly that the Am’eijican reason for building up a strong navy is to enable the United States to assert its belief in the Freedom of the Seas in any future war, and that the American Government will enforce its will in this matter without regard to Britain’s interests oilier safety. This we must now take for gran led, and we must he prepared to make some sacrifice accordingly. But arc the Americans also prepared, in Wilson’s words, to assist other nations in “the enforcement of international covenants” against recalcitrant Powers If they will agree to this, it is quite possible that Mr MacDonald and Mr Hoover may come to terms, and the prospects of world-peace may be infinitely improved thereby.