WORLD AFFAIRS.

Auckland Star, Volume LX, Issue 138, 13 June 1929, Page 8

WORLD AFFAIRS.

A WEEKLY REVIEW

(By BYSTANDER.)

The event of the week has been the formation of the Labour Cabinet at Home, and even the most implacable enemies of Labour admit that Mr. Mac Donald has done very well with the material at his disposal. The "Morning Post" and the '"Daily Express,'" who are certainly not sympathetically inclined toward the new Ministry, regard it as strong and well-balanced. The "Daily Chronicle" is particularly pleased at the careful exclusion of extremists, and though one needs to be a thorough-going Labourite to endorse the eulogies of the "Daily Herald," we may be satisfied with the general testimony in the new Cabinet's favour. It is still open to us to inquire or to wonder what Mr. Sidney Webb is going to do with the Dominions and how Mr. Henderson intends to reopen relations with Russia on terms beneficial to Britain and the Empire. But we must wait some time for an answer, and in the meantime >ve may fairly congratulate Mr. Mac Donald on his second experiment in the highly skilled art or craft of Cabinet-making.

"The Glad Hand." One of the very first steps that the new Prime Minister intends to take, as soon as his Parliamentary duties will allow, is to visit the United States in order to confer with President Hoover on disarmament and other questions affecting world peace. Xo doubt, as a gesture of friendship, such a visit may have a good effect. But it is open to question whether, in view of the detached and exclusive attitude that the American Government has adopted of late, it is worth the Prime Minister's while to risk a humiliating rebuff. It does not seem to me that there is any evidence to prove that the Americans are anything like so desirous of our friendship as we are of theirs; at all events they are not inclined to make any important sacrifice to gain our goodwill. On the contrary, the advocates of Freedom of the Seas in the United States have been for some time past assuring us that in regulating their naval policy they have not the least intention of considering either Britain's interests or Britain's safety. Of course, Mr. Mac Donald believes in the Freedom of the Seas himself. But in that case it seems to me the more dignified course would be to leave the next move to the Americans instead of going to Washington to propitiate Mr. Hoover.

I Our Duty to Russia. Without discussing at length probable forth- ' coming developments in international relations, [ J would like to make one or two comments on Mr. i Henderson's attitude toward Russia. Since his appointment as Foreign Minister he has stated publicly that ever since his mission to Russia .in 1917 lie has been "anxious to see the closest possible relations established between the peoples of Britain and of Russia." Xow, from the point of view of the cosmopolitan internationalism that both Mr. Henderson and Mr. Mac Donald believe in I can quite understand this. Moreover, I sympathise with the idea of establishing closer and more amicable relations between all peoples with the object of creating that atmosphere of mutual understanding which must be the strongest safeguard for world peace. But the people of Russia are one thing and the Government of Russia is another. What about the Soviet system, the- proletarian Dictatorship, and the Moscow International 'so closely allied with it? We all know that the political theory of the Soviet is merely an extension of the Marxian doctrine of the "class war" to international affairs. We all know that while Bolshevik emissaries at Geneva have been extolling the virtues of peace, Bolshevik agents have been stirring up revolution or preaching sedition in India and China and Afghanistan and Egypt, and even in Britain. Russia (as a State, not as a people) regards Britain as her most dangerous enemy, and she has already proved that she is prepared to go any length to injure British interests. What possible advantage is to bo gained by pretending to shut our eyes to these palpable facts? Andif these things are true, what benefit is it to us to renew diplomatic relations with Russia? As to trade, there is no embargo laid upon trade between Britain and Russia now, and personally I doubt if any material advantage could adequately repay us for associating more closelv with the Soviet State.

An Echo from Germany. While the advent of a Labour Ministry in Britain has naturally hud the effect of raising the hopes of the Bolsheviks, it has had a similar repercussion in Germany, though the form of expression is different. Toward the close of the Reparations Conference it became quite clear that the German delegates were "sparring for time," and a fortnight ago the Paris correspondent of the "Daily Mail" declared on good authority that "if tho Labour Party wins the Germans will scrap the whole of the protracted negotiations." Xow that the Mac Donald Government is in power, German resistance to the claims of the Allies already shows signs of stiffening. The chief Socialist organ, "Vorwaerts," admits that the Committee's report is "a step forward politically" and a proof that "the will to destroy Germany ;io longer exists." But the Nationalist and Conservative papers with one voice condemn the new plan aa tyrannical, arbitrary and fatal to Germany's economic interests. Even Dr. Schacht, the chief German delegate at the Conference, is now protesting against the demand for "so many millions a year." Apparently the Germans have fully persuaded themselves that as they were noc responsible for the war—which was caused presumably by Serbia and Belgium—they ought not to pay any damages. 1 Let us hope that Mr. Henderson will not be unduly impressed by these pathetic outcries.

An Odious Comparison. A few days ago M. Herriot, speaking- at Lyons, made some references to Britain which, as originally reported, were both uncomplimentary in their manner and pessimistic in their tone. He said, so it was alleged, that Britain was virtually doomed to destruction because she had sacrificed her rural industries so completely to her manufactures, while France, largely self-supporting, and ablo to find employment for most of her population on the land itself, could look to the future with confidence. Happily the official version of the speech was couched in much milder terms. M. Herriot is now quoted as having said that Britain would be much happier if, like France, she could "count upon an abundance of agricultural resources to supplement her industrial wealth," at a. time when the development of her Dominions and of other rival nations has encroached so disastrously upon her old commercial and industrial supremacy. Of course, a great many people at Home will take strong exception even to this mild criticism. But it seems to me that there is much force and truth behind it. We cannot afford to forget that when in the middle of last century Britain decided to concentrate chiefly upon her manufactures as a. source of national wealth, it was assumed and asserted not only that Britain need fear no competition from rival manufactures in foreign markets, but that her agriculture would maintain itself .with unimpaired vigour as indispensable to the country's existence. Xow Ave see British agriculture decayed, Britain dependent upon the outside world for her food supplies, and British goods losing their hold on foreign markets everywhere through the • -mpetition of rivals. AM then we waudc; at 2.1. Eoiriotl, i