WORLD AFFAIRS.

Auckland Star, Volume LIX, Issue 69, 22 March 1928, Page 6

WORLD AFFAIRS.

A WEEKLY REVIEW.

(By BYSTANDER.)

Last week I thought that we had finished with the Zinovieff letter altogether. But Mr. Mac Donald and his friends would not be satisfied without another post-mortem; and now I think that, to use a colloquialism, they must be sorry that they spoke. I have always felt that in this controversy Mr. Baldwin was on the right side, though how solid his ground was, we have had no opportunity of judging until these last disclosures. But it has always seemed to me that there was nothing to prove the Zinovieff letter a forgery, and nothing but vague suspicion to indicate that the Foreign Office or the Government was behind the publication of the letter in the "Daily Mail." Now Mr. Mac Donald has obligingly given Mr. Baldwin an opportunity to prove to Parliament and the world that the letter was genuine, that it was a communication to a private individual, and therefore did not go through the Foreign Office, and that another private individual supplied the copy published by the "Daily Mail." Thus every count in Mr. Mac Donald's indictment of the Conservatives breaks down; and the Labour Party's Leader seems to have come off very badly in his duel with the Solicitor-General, who put some awkward questions that Mr. Mac Donald very significantly evaded or declined to answer. In my opinion the Labour Party will be well advised to leave the Zinovieff letter alone now and to be more cautious in their choice of weapons in the future. The Enemy Within the Gate.

Naturally all this talk about Zinovieff makes one think of Bolshevism, and I observe that both in Britain and France "the common enemies of all mankind" are giving fresh proof of their activities just now. In Paris sentence has just been pronounced on a member of the City Council, a Government official, and a number of soldiers, for being concerned in "an audacious anti-French espionage plan conceived by the Third International at Moscow." The sentences seem to be of a severe and salutary character, and it is evident that the French Government takes the whole matter quite seriously. At the same time we hear through the "Daily Chronicle" that "Moscow has allocated £40,000 to the funds of the British Communist Party," and it is reported from Scotland Yard that the money is likely to be used "for equipping members of the National Ex-Servicemen's League." This League is a Communist copy of the British Legion, and is meant to be a militant organisation, spreading Communist propaganda and prepared for "direct action" when circumstances make this possible. In the face of these things who will venture to say that the Governments of Britain and France are taking needless precautions against the Communists or imposing undue restrictions upon them?

Swifter than the Wind. I am quite tired of reading about disasters overtaking aviators engaged in "stunt" flights, ind I have not much sympathy left for them. But there is at first sight something to be said for such tests of aeronautic skill as that in which Lieutenant Kinkead met his fate. Even the experts who deplore such folly as the Hinchcliffe flight maintain that Britain ought to make every effort to gain and hold the supremacy of the air, and that human lives should not weigh in the balance against national prestige and a reputation for engineering skill. There is certainly something in this argument, but I take leave to doubt whether the results thus obtained are worth the risk and the sacrifice. Ihe British winner of the Schneider Cup flew 285 miles an hour; the Italian, Bernardi, subsequently flew 297 miles an hour on a straight course; and Kinkead meant to average over 300 miles an hour. As a matter of fact, it is estimated that, before the fatal plunge, his machine was travelling 330 miles an hour; and he himself was confident that he could attain a speed of 350 miles an hour. But what then? Is there anything to be learned or gained from these abnormal rates of speed that is likely to be of permanent commercial or material benefit to mankind? I quite admit the need for progress in science and invention, but the price to pay may be too heavy.

The Flapper Vote. What will probably go down to history as the Flapper Bill is now well under way in Parliament, and it is not at all likely to be killed by a contemptuous nickname. But though there seems to me no sound reason why women should not be allowed to vote at 21 years if men are supposed to be competent to vote at that age, I must admit that the possible consequences of the measure seem likely to be so serious as to demand careful prior consideration. The Conservative member who wished to reject the Bill because, while it purported to equalise the sexes in a political sense, it "endowed wpmen with permanent political supremacy," had much to say from his point of view. The "Times" h«ts recently remarked that, under the new Bill, the total number of electors will be 12,200,000 men and 14,500,000 women—a very great disparity. B'.'t the "Times" is even more gravely concerned over the enormous size of the new electorate. In its opinion it is open to question whether "representative government would not be imperilled" by the enlargement of the franchise to this enormous extent. "An electorate of 26 million voters requires a high degree of discernment in order to prevent errors and to learn from them." Democracy is still on its trial, and the weaknesses and failings of representative systems are more apparent to-day than they were half a century ago. Is it not possible that, irrespective of the question of sex altogether, this latest development may be a step in the wrong direction? A Vanishing Monopoly. It seems from Mr. Baldwin's remarks in the House of Commons that the famous Stevenson rubber restriction scheme will shortly cease to operate. Over five years ago the British Government, realising that the greater part of the world's production of rubber was in British hands, and' desiring to prevent the ruinous collapse in price which had been caused from time to time by "glutting the market," decided i that only a certain fraction of the supply might !be sold every year. The enterprise and energy | of British capitalists and planters had secured a virtual monopoly of this valuable product,-and when the supply was thus artificially restricted the price naturally rose. The Americans, as the greatest consumers of rubber, of course felt the increased cost of material severely, but they resented even more strongly the fact that enormous profits were thus accumulating year by year in British hands. "So bitter was the feeling of hostility thus engendered that the great financial interests in America tried to bring pressure to bear upon Congress and Government to make the matter a political issue with Britain, and this course was even advocated by Mr. Hoover, a prominent member of the Government and now a candidate for the Presidency. The attempt happily failed, but the rise in price naturally stimulated rubber-growing, and the Americans have "put money into the business" with such success that the world's supply of rubber will steadily increase, and the price is falling, and as the British monopoly can no longer be maintained the restrictions must ultimately be withdrawn.