70
[No. O.D.C. 585-M.]
+
ANNEXURE TO ENCLOSURE.
Piracy in China Waters.
Memorandum by the Oversea Sub-Committee of the Committee of Imperial Defence.
THE Colonial Office have referred to the Oversea Defence Committee for consideration a telegram (Appendix), dated the 21st February, 1930, from the Officer Administering the Government of Hong Kong, dealing with the question of anti-piracy guards for shipping in China waters.
2. The whole subject of piracy in China waters was, at the instance of the Chief of the Naval Staff, discussed by the Chiefs of Staff Sub-Committee over a year ago, and a report (C.I.D. Paper No. 330-C) was submitted to the Committee of Imperial Defence.
3.
The conclusions of the Chiefs of Staff were as follows:-
(a) We are convinced that no satisfactory action for the protection of vessels against piracy is possible without the whole-hearted co-operation of the shipowners. This is at present lacking. We therefore suggest that pressure should be brought to bear through the medium of the interested parties, or by legislation, to make the shipowners responsible for the protection of their ships and passengers so long as it is within their power to do so, and to cause them to implement as far as is practicable those recommendations of the Sunning Commission which concern them. The following steps we consider to be of particular importance :-
(i) Improvement in the conditions of service in shipping companies so as to attract the best type of personnel. An increase of British personnel in the complement of vessels appears to be desirable. (ii) Fitting of protection to the bridge and other vital positions in the
ship. (iii) The employment of guards, which might be organized at other ports besides Hong Kong, and which should be rendered as efficient as possible.
We fully realise that these proposals are likely to be fought by the companies on the grounds of expense, and also on the excuse that the fitting of protection to the bridge, &c., may contravene the Board of Trade regulations regarding access to boats.
(6) We suggest that the compradore, who is the keystone of the whole structure of shipping trade in China, should, if possible, be given a real interest in preventing pirates from coming on board. At the same time, it is realised that steps likely to incur the hostility of the compradore might seriously affect the companies' interests.
In any case, a more rigid examination of passengers on embarkation and during the voyage would appear worthy of consideration. (c) We agree that patrols by His Majesty's ships for the purpose of intercepting pirates should continue so far as the strength of the squadron in the Far East allows.
(d) While recognizing that, for the present, the provision of regular naval and military guards on board ship must continue, we strongly recommend that the shipping companies should be informed that the provision of these guards will cease in one year's time, and that they will then have to assume full responsibility for the internal protection of their ships.
(e) We suggest that the local authorities should be asked to consider how co-operation in intelligence between the various ports of call can be improved.
5
(f) The root of piracy is firmly embedded in Chinese soil, and piracy can only be effectively suppressed by Chinese action on shore. We therefore suggest that strong representations should be made to the Nanking Government, if possible jointly with other foreign Powers, with a view to action being taken to this end. We suggest that the question of exacting reparation for injury to British lives or property should be considered.
4.
The above report was considered by the Committee of Imperial Defence at their 240th Meeting on the 8th March, 1929, and it was agreed-
་་
"(a) To recommend to the Cabinet that approval in principle should be given to the recommendations submitted by the Chiefs of Staff in paragraph 38 of their Report (C.I.D. Paper No. 330-C); and
(b) To recommend that the Admiralty should be authorised to instruct the Naval Commander-in-Chief, China, that the Anti-Piracy Committee at Hong Kong should proceed on the assumption that the policy recommended by the Chiefs of Staff will be adopted in principle, and should submit in due course detailed proposals for giving effect to this policy.
(c) To take note that the Foreign Office were prepared in principle to make representations to the Chinese Government at Nanking, either on the general question of piracy or in connection with each specific case, though they were not optimistic as to the result.'
5. On Wednesday, the 13th March, 1929, the Cabinet approved the recom- mendations of the Committee of Imperial Defence as set forth above (Cabinet 11 (29), Conclusion 8), and the necessary instructions were communicated forthwith to the Naval Commander-in-Chief, China, the Anti-Piracy Committee. Hong Kong, and His Majesty's Minister at Peking.
As a result of these instructions, the Shipping Companies then enjoying the services of regular naval and military guards were informed that these guards would be definitely withdrawn on the 31st March, 1930, and that after that date complete responsibility for the internal protection of shipping against piratical attacks must be assumed by them.
6. Since the above decision was communicated to the Shipping Companies persistent representations have been made by the shipowners to bring about a reversal of the Cabinet decision. The valuable time expressly provided by His Majesty's Government to enable the Shipping Companies to find a suitable substitute for the regular guards was thus lost, and the shipowners have laid themselves open to the accusation that they cherished the hope that inaction and procrastination in formulating a new scheme for the internal protection of shipping after the 31st March next might result in the provision of regular guards being continued. Representations by the Naval Commander-in-Chief, China, that the Shipping Companies would be incurring grave responsibilities in not taking early steps to provide against the position which would arise on the withdrawal of the naval and military guards appear to have had little effect until last month.
Apart from the principle that the onus of providing adequate measures for the internal defence of their ships must rest with the shipowners, it should also be appreciated that the provision of anti-piracy guards in the Far East has resulted in Considerable disorganization of the forces stationed there. The Navy cannot provide detachments for this purpose without immobilising ships, while the training and efficiency for war of military units are seriously affected by the constant absence of harge number of N.C.O.'s and men.
7. As reported in the second paragraph of the attached telegram, representa- tions were made on the 13th February to the Officer Administering the Government of Hong Kong that he should receive a deputation for the purpose of considering a scheme for the formation of a special force to be created of good-class fighting men from India with an establishment of British or foreign N.C.O.'s, the whole to form a separate unit under its own Commanding Officer, and placed for training and discipline under the Naval Commander-in-Chief or the General Officer Commanding. It was suggested that the cost should be met in the first instance by the Government of Hong Kong and recovered by a surcharge on all shipping visiting the port, assisted by a grant in aid by His Majesty's Government in the United Kingdom, and a contribution from the Singapore Government and other unspecified sources.
7/