ECONOMIC INTERNATIONALISM.

Auckland Star, Volume LXIV, Issue 155, 5 July 1933, Page 13

ECONOMIC INTERNATIONALISM.

"H.T.R." takes my "gibe" at inter- j nationalists a little too seriously. Ij hope I have no need to point out that the "jibe" was directed, rather, at the naive 18th century chauvinist who wrote the book, and that the whole article was intended lightly. However, since your correspondent has opened up the more serious side of the matter, perhaps I may be allowed a further word. There is, I believe, more nonsense talked about this question of internationalism than | about any other subject of popular inj terest. A great deal of what "H.TJt." says is true. Nations are being drawn closer together, and much is to be gained by these contacts. But his plea for miscegenation is a little overdone. Nationalism is considered by Sir Arthur Keith and others to bo a "permanent biological factor" in the evolution of the human race. And one suspects that the French, the Germans, the Russians and many other peoples besides may have something to say about English becoming the language of the world. Fascism will disappear (I hope), but Fascism is not nationalism, any more than blood pressure is good health. But my point is this: The desirability of fostering cultural relations between the different peoples is being used, at the moment, for ulterior purposes. Wo are told by Mr. Ramsay Mac Donald that "no nation can stand alone." Viscount Snowden, in a moment of spleen, puts it more frankly: "The only way to restore prosperity is to restore the conditions of international lending." Now "international lending" is no longer possible on the old scale, even if it were desirable. While there were undeveloped countries willing to borrow the huge surplus of goods turned out by the industrial countries, this large-scale exporting of goods on credit was possible and helped to hide the constant deficiency of purchasing power in the industrial countries. In the course of time the smaller countries became more and more self-sufficient, and the markets for foreign investment naturally closed up. But England and America and Germany still had a surplus of goods unpurchasable internally because of lack of purchasing _ power. The m&i-ket for foreign trade (i.e., export on credit) having narrowed, the alternatives were two only: An increase in purchasing power by supplementary consumer credit within each country; or a more and more intense _ struggle for the diminishing opportunities for foreign lending, culminating in war. We know what happened in 1914. Is it to happen again? The main purpose of the present conference is to stabilise currencies so that the trade war will be fought out on level terms. But need it he fought out at all? If the conference succeeds, the struggle is going to be more intense than ever it was before 1914, and the final outcome can be nothing but another war. I am not arguing against genuine free trade—the exchange of goods for goods. But I am most decidedly arguing against those Powers who deliberately confuse the economic and the cultural aspects of internationalism in order to preserve an outworn monetary system, the continued operation of which must inevitably lead to war. A. R, D. FAIRBURN.