WORLD AFFAIRS.

Auckland Star, Volume LVIII, Issue 152, 30 June 1927, Page 6

WORLD AFFAIRS.

A WEEKLY REVIEW,

(Bv BYSTANDER.)

Hiere is not much to be gained by saving "I told you so, ' especially at any great distance from the scene of action; but I may be permitted to point out that all the troubles which I anticipated as likely to arise out of the Naval Conference have already eventuated. If I were trying to write American instead of English, I would be inclined to add "and then seme." But just now I cannot say that I feel particularly drawn toward anything American. For our erstwhile friends and allies have behaved even worse than I expected at the Naval Conference. Their delegates have been instructed to inform the world at large that America has made up her mind about what shall or shall not be discussed at the Conference, and what is the limit to be fixed for the size of battleships and the proportion of cruisers that every Power may possess. These decisions, being reached before the Conference opened, are unalterable and will admit of no compromise. So far as the Americans are concerned any question raised is simply "chose jugOe," as we used to say in the days of the Dreyfus scandal. The oracle has spoken, the case is closed, and there is no appeal.

The Spirit of Peace. Is this the spirit in which the Great Powers should approach a discussion that was supposed to have as its object the promotion of international amity and peace? Mr. Hugh Gibson's impossible attitude gave the Conference a very bad "send off," but there was worse to come. One of the most influential New York newspapers greeted the Conference with nil article justly described as "remarkable," in which it pointed out that the course of events has clearly made it necessary for Britain to surrender her old predominance in world affairs and to admit the United States to equality with herself. The ominous implication of these words is made clearer by the assurance that all that our statesmen can do is to "render peaceable Britain's descent." To put the case a little more frankly and bluntly, America has now issued her ultimatum to Britain, and if Britain is not prepared to accept it meekly and to obey, well—there are other alternatives-, and it will not be America's fault.

A President's Holiday Musings. Of course, one may console oneself with the reflection that the "World" is not precisely the mouthpiece of the American Government. But an appeal to President Coolidge does not seem to help matters much. The President is 011 holiday in South Dakota just now, but he has found leisure to indite a message which is hardly calculated to improve the relations between Britain and the United States at Geneva or elsewhere. The President is "dissatisfied" with Britain's attitude, but he is sure that "the sentiment at home" will compel the delegates to accept the American proposals. The American plan, says President Coolidge, is ''in full accord with the forward world sentiment." Xow what does this really mean? It seems to me that the situation thus created at Geneva is intolerable, and the best service that this unfortunate gathering can do the world's peace is to break lip at once and leave world politics to the United States. "End It or Mend It." lieally tho Baldwin Ministry seem to be singularly lacking in sound political instinct. Mr. Baldwin, as if he and his party had not enough on their hands already, has allowed the Peers to raise tho question of the constitution and powers of the House of Lords in a form which must inevitably have the effect of arousing the suspicion and hostility of Labour. Xo doubt it is true that as the Lord Chancellor told the Upper House, "there is a real and urgent problem to solve." But is this the time to solve it? Apart from anything else, Lord Fitzalan's motion included a reference to "the inherent defects of the Parliament Act," which, in view of the frequent threats of tho Conservatives to repeal the Act altogether, was naturally taken by Liberals and Labourites alike as an indication that the Government is already making a move in that direction. Then tho question of "hereditary peers" provoked a number of "noble lords" to rise in their own defence, and their "apologia" at once evoked vehement criticism of the Upper House, inside and outside Parliament. And now Mr. Clynes is demanding that the Commons shall discuss the whole question. Poor Mr. Baldwin! A French Farce. The release of M. Leon Daudct, through an amusing trick played by his friends upon the governor of the gaol where he was confined, is likely to have important political consequences. M. Daudet, tho talented son of an .even greater father, has been mixed tip for years in the Royalist movement, of which "L'Action Francaise" is the journalistic organ, and the "Camelots du Roi" are the champions. Nearly four years ago his son Philippe was found dead, and the Court gave a verdict of suicide. But M. Daudet insisted that the boy had been murdc-red by the political police because of his father's Royalist proclivities; and having said all this, and a great deal more, in his usual emphatic manner, he was fined for libel, and in default sentenced to imprisonment. His sentence was extremely unpopular, and a fewweeks ago he secured both notoriety and popularity by defending his home against the officers sent to arrest him. Xow he has escaped from prison, with the help of what has been described as "the century's masterpiece of practical joking." Unfortunately, there is a more serious side to the episode. I can express no opinion about the death of Leon Daudet's sou. But it seems to me that anybody who 'in France to-day ventures to call himself Legitimist or Orleanist or Bonapartist, and expects to see any descendant of Charles X. or Louis Philippe or Louis Xapoleon sitting on the French throne, must be most grievously lacking in political insight aud practical wisdom. But in spite of this, the position of the Government of the day may be dangerously affected by this extraordinary escapade. For in Paris nothing kills more surely than ridicule, and many a French Ministry has been laughed out of existence with less excuse than this. Our Insurance Premium. Year by year, when naval or military estimates come up for discussion in the world's parliaments, the Socialists or the Communists or the Pacifists of all parties together rise up and protest against the expenditure of large sums of money so urgently needed for industrial or educational or social purposes. And one must admit that the figures in themselves are imposing enough. But when one comes to consider them in relation to the material interests involved, they assume quite different proportions. Mr. W. T. Layton, who is editor of tho "Economist," and a distinguished authority on such questions, has recently pointed out that Britain's naval and military expenditure, which amounts to about £120,000,000, represents only about 3 per cent of the national income, and this is not a high premium to pay for "insurance against total loss." Similarly France insures herself by paying a 3} per cent premium, Italy pays 4 per cent, Germany has to thank the Allies for refusing to allow her to insure herself on a higher scale than lj\ per cent, and the United States pays only 1 per cent premium to insure its national income of £1,200,000,000. Looked at in this way, the estimates seem to me much less alarming than before, and if the alternative to naval and military preparation is the risk that the Empire's wealth may become "a prey to the spoiler," I hope that the insurance premium will j continue to be punctually paid. ■