Evening star., 1939-05-01

lean opinion the vital thing is to
make 1t clear that we have no in
tention whatever of being squeezed
or bluffed or parties to another
settlement at the expense of third
parties. That is essential.
Mr.. Hull's Policy,
But 1t is equally important that
we should have a clear compre-
henSion of Mr.. Hull's economic
policy, which has the full support
both Of the President and of the
people Of the United States. Mr..
Hull will probably object to appease-
ment by the transfer of colonial
territories and by barter arrange
ments with the totalitarian powers,
because he is convinced that to do
so would in the end only intensity
poverty, unemployment, economic
enslavement and the pressures to-
wards war. But he would object
even more because from the bottom
OF his soul he believes that only by
liberalizing trade all over the world
can the needs of the nations
possessed of small territories for
higher standards Of living be met
and the competition in ornaments
and the threat of war which result
from poverty or employment, be
removed. There can be no peace so
long as every nation strong enough
to do SO seeks to expand its own
standard of living by the conquest
of territory or the imposition OF
enslaving barter arrangements. The
only real remedy Is to throw the
markets and resources of the whole
world open to everybody who is
willing to trade on equal terms.
This Is thesis which British
opinion will have to consider much
more seriously than I think it has
yet done. While on the one hand
the British government has contin-
ually preached the importance of
freeing the channels of trade and
has signed the Anglo American
trade treaty, it has, on the other
hand, practised restriction in the
Ottawa treaties, by its bilateral
treaties with many countries such
as the Argentine and Scandinavia
and its farming policy at home. 1t
thereby defeats the triangular
ization" of trade and the effective
operation of the most favored
nation clause which is the very
center of the policy of freeing in
ternational trade for all those ma
tions who wish to live under the free
as opposed to the totalitarian econ
omy. I have not space in which to
discuss this question in detail here.
I only want to make it clear that if
the United States and Great Britain
are to pursue common objectives in
the difficult situation which now
faces the world those ,ohjectives
must cover the economic as we'll
the political field. There must be
mutual understanding and conf
dence about both. If there is to
be effective resistance to what
Americans called "gangster diplo-
macy" there must also be agreement
on the solution which the democra-
cies are prepared to offer to the
totalitarian powers dndeed to all
powers) for the economic pressures
which beset them provided they will
agree, in return, to freer trade and
real ending of the competition in
ornaments and of the menace of
world war.
There is, therefore, I think,
ground for cautious optimism. The
dictators are meeting increasing
difficulties as they extend the range
over which they endeavour to secure
results by the ruthless use of force.
The democracies are not only re-
arming, but are learning more about
the technique of power policies, and
are beginning to feel their way
toward system Of protecting and
stabilizing the democratic world
not dissimilar to that of the 18th
century. If in the next few months
we can restore something like a
stable world equilibrium, we can
turn our minds once more to the
larger problem of organizing the
world for peace and prosperity by
some new form of the League Of
Nations.