The Daily News. FRIDAY, JANUARY 3, 1919. FREEDOM OF TIE SEAS.

Taranaki Daily News, 3 January 1919, Page 4

The Daily News. FRIDAY, JANUARY 3, 1919. FREEDOM OF TIE SEAS.

There are few phrases that have of late been so common in the cable messages as that of the "i'redom of the seas." It is one of those abstract subjects on wlyeh an infinity of views and explanations can be stated. President Wilson in his peace conditions alluded to the principle as " absolute freedom of navigation upon the seas outside territorial waters, alike in peace and war, except as the seas may be closed in whole or in part by international action for the enforcement of international cov- j enants." It will be noticed that the exception is as vaguo as the original phrase itself, and even President Wilson himself has been obliged to admit that each of the nations "might retain its own viewpoint" upon this question. Mr Lloyd George put the matter yery cogently to the French Premier recently whsn he asked whether the latter agreed that without the British France could not have continued the war,, following this t>t> by a farther query ; to whether, under sv.'.'.h conditions, France would be inclined to prevent Britain renewing the same services again. To tne former inquiry a reply was returned in the affirmative, and to the latter a negative. The main point of President Wilson ia. apparently, that freedom of transport shall not be interfered with except by international agreement, but it is mani- j fest that in Germany's ease, for instance, an agreement n so much waste paper. It is also clear that ] when .nations are at v/ar it is inevitable that the strongest uaval power will rule the seas, and it is probably on that account the desire has arisen in America to possess a navy second to none. The London Times asserts that the British traditional view of the maritime law is likely to be accepted at the Peace Conference, and we do not see how it could be otherwise. The subject of the freedom of the gcas, so far as the British Empire is concerned, has to be regarded from the viewpoint of an island Power, and in no circumstances can such a power consent to what is called "the freedom of the seas" if that term carries the meaning which has usually been attached to it in Britain. What meaning President Wilson reads into this phrase we cannot tell, but to British national life the problem of superiority in sea power is a vital necessity, both for defebce and sustenance. History shows conclusively that since Britain lias been unrivalled as a sea •power, that power has been used not for the benefit of herself alone, but for the liberty of the world. She took the great risk of inferiority on land, in order to at-

I tain superiority at sea. Moreover, until Germany decided to challenge Britain's strength, no effort was made by Britain to se- . cure a preponderance of naval -strength. It would certainly seem ; that the average American had no exact knowledge of what | British. sea power meant. He probably knew that during the Napoleonic wars American trade suffered, just as did the trade o£ neutrals during the recent war, and it is quite probable that abuses occurred. While as a political catch phrase the freedom of the seas may lie popular, yet no great nation which sets out to seek justice can allow itself to be guided by a phrase capable of misinterpretation and misapplication. The idea underlying President Wilson's proposal seems to be that when two nations are at war, the struggle should be limited to the land, and that the seas outside territorial waters are to be regarded as the common possession of the whole world, and therefore not subject to warlike operations. Against this view may be advanced .the contention that to an island power the sea is a highway and not a mere abstract open waterway. The more President Wilson's theory is examined the less tenable it becomes. Logically carried out it would give a belligerent power to use the sea &3 a !/safe highway for his troops up to the three mile limit, wherefrom be could make a dash and invade his opponent's territory. Such a proposition is unthinkable and stands self-condemned. In these days of modern armaments the sea ia no barrier of itself against either raiders or invaders. To expect, for instance, Britain to look on with, folded arms while enemy transports were bearing down her coast is to ask. a great nation to commit suicide. Nor do we think the United States would be likely to abstain from interfering if Gc-rmany sent transports loaded with troops and guns to within three miles of the American coast. To paralyse naval power and have military power uncontrolled ma? be regardc-d as the worst injury which international laws could inflict on man.kind. If it is legitimate to interrupt road and railway traffic in war as a matter of course, then, by parity of reasoning, the same rule should apply to sea transit. In theory there is much to be said accademieally for President Wilson's proposal, but in practice it has no chance of proving anything but a failure. So long as warfare is carried on under the established principles of international law that is the utmost which can be conceded, and in order to secure thin the nations should combine, and herein come? into the realm of practical politics that League of Nation?, project which is receiving so much attention at the present time. Until this new order has come into force there can be no change in the policy which Britain ha?, so successfully carried out in relation to the freedom of the seas.