Plans

American Post-War Pacific

Interesting Washington Statement Names Several Possible Bases

IX/fANY times, in articles and in radio broadcasts, the editor of the “PIM” has expressed the opinion that the United States will retain bases in the Pacific for some years after the war, to facili tate her work of policing this side of the world against any further attempt, by Axis, or New-Order-in-Asia maniacs, to involve the nations again in war.

Here, now, is the first detailed official utterance of American opinion concern ing this very thing. Needless to say, this is a factor which is of much importance in connection with all post-war planning for the Pacific.

The following, dated “Washington, Nov. 7,” was published in Sydney “Sun” on November 8: AMERICA would need, to retain a base on the Western Australian coast after the war, said the Chairman of the House Naval Affairs Sub-commit tee (Representative Warren Magnuson) to a United Press representative.

In addition, American naval units assigned to police the Pacific would require certain privileges regarding the use of Australian and New Zealand bases.

“I believe those countries would be will ing to grant them,” he said.

Rabaul, Magnuson added, might become one of several new permanent post-war American naval bases.

Strategical needs also called for Ameri can bases at the following places:— GUADALCANAL, in the centre of the British Solomon Islands.

ESPIRITU SANTO, the largest New Hebrides island, at the northern end of the group.

NOUMEA, chief town and port of New Caledonia.

FORMOSA (probably)—the very large island between Japan and the Philip pines, which Japan took from China 40 years ago.

TRUK, now a heavily fortified Japanese naval and air base in the Caroline Islands, due north of New Guinea.

These bases would be used in conjunc tion with bases on American islands.

Truk would become the “Pearl Harbour of the West Pacific.”

MAJOR de Seversky, the air expert, doubts if it will be necessary for the US to obtain a vast number of air bases in the Pacific and other areas to ensure continued peace.

“We surely don’t want to gum up post war relations with friendly countries for the sake of bases which, from a strictly military viewpoint, are unnecessary,” he said.

Major de Seversky believed that as air craft flying range developed, “wayside” stations would lose strategic value.

“That’s why General MacArthur now sees the possibility of using air power in long massive strokes, instead of hopping from island to island,” he said.

Editorial Note

It is a pity that these United States politicians are allowed to go off half cocked in this fashion. The foregoing is merely the personal opinion of one man.

Points to be noted are:— 1. The above plan of bases is obviously incomplete. It would be absurd to have five in a row (Noumea, Santos, Guadal canal, Rabaul and Truk), and none in

the East or Central Pacific (unless Pago Pago fills the need completely), or in the Philippines and Netherlands Indies. It is probable that Mr. Magnu son meant that one of the four places mentioned, in Melanesia, would become an American base. 2. It should be made clear whether America wants only occupancy rights in these places, with no wish to interfere with sovereignty, generally; or whether she wishes a transfer, permanently, of certain territorial rights.

If the latter is desired, there could be no objection, by either British, French or Dutch. America saved our Pacific Terri tories from the invaders, and promises to continue that policy, and the least we can do is to give her all possible accom modation. If she wants Islands bases, let her have them: there are hundreds of suitable islands to spare in the South Pacific. Ports like Rabaul and Noumea, which had developed .large property rights prior to 1941, may present a problem; but there are plenty of other places, with good harbours and little or no develop ment.