The Press. Thursday, September 5, 1918. The Economic Weapon.

Press, Volume LIV, Issue 16309, 5 September 1918, Page 6

The Press. Thursday, September 5, 1918. The Economic Weapon.

... Ail important speech by Lord Robert Cecil is' reported to-day. Speaking at a dinner at the conclusion of the sittings of the Allied Maritime Transport Coun- • cil, he appealed for common Allied con? trpl pf all Allied resources. Having described the good Tesults obtained by the existing arrangements for the economical and effective distribution of food and other supplies amongst the Allied countries, he roferred to the value of unity of oommarid in the field, and said that while.tKe appointment of an economic generalissimo might not be practicable, yet "the strength of the Allies " could be, prodigiously increased if only " they could be brought . together in "sotoe similar fusion of the whole of "their economic resources." This great eoonomic alliance, he suggested, "might '' be turned tio the uses of peace after "the war." This speech is a further development of the idea which . Lord Robert put forward in a statement for America in the middle of July. Heeaid that the Paris Eoonomic Policy was really a defensive agreement of those engaged. in the war, and its proposals for Belf-preservation wore still important. ■ But the Alliance as it then existed has grown 'until it includes twenty-four nations, and 1 'it is no longer a ques- " tion of forming some narrow defensive "alliance, but of laying down the economic principles of the association of " nations already in existence now, and "to membership ot which we are com"mitted." These principles were defined by Mr Wilson as " the removal, so "far as possible, of all economic bartriers and the establishment of an " equality of trade among all the nations "consenting to the peace and associ- " ating themselves for its maintenance." This did not mean that the associated nations would be debarred from setting up tariffs and that there would be no. • international competition in trade, but it did mean that co-operation and liberal intercourse should be the common aim of all. The obstacle to this agreement becoming universal, was Germany. "While the war continued the Allies must take nil steps to destroy the economic basis of her military effort, but when the war ended Mr "Wilson'& . test would be applied to Germany. "If she abandons her old "wayß and her restless and aggressive "policy," Lord Robert Baid, "if 6he " ceases to use economic policy as a pro- " p&ration for further war, we shall not "bo ?low to recognise this change, but "the sacrifices for which this war has " called are too great and too bitter to ''permit of oar neglecting the Presi-

"dent's warning -that a complete change " of mind and purpose in her Govern- " ment are the necessary preliminaries "to her admission to participation in "our economic partnership."

Up to the present there has been n< definite step taken in the matter b; either the American or British Govern ments, but in both countries opinion i: ripening towards the conviction tha.' this economic alliance is an extraor dinarily formidable weapon for exhibi tion now and for use after the Thi "Westminster Gazette" and "Thi "Times," .which on the fiscal issue art on opposite sides, are united in demand' ing that the Government should lost no timo in securing the formal declaration of the economic alliance outlined by Lord Robert Cecil. It would be. as the "Gazette" points out, "a powerful "lever on the economic and civilian side to assist the efforts of the armies "in the field." It would bo a real " war measure,'' "The Times'' 6ays, endorsing Sir Edward Carson's declaration that a clear agreement of the Allies as to the details of an economic policy of security would bo an asset as valuable at the Pcace Conference as the possession of territory in various parts oP the world. No doubt the drafting of a detailed agreement is a difficult and complicated matter, but the value of such an agreement, both as a war measure and as a measure for the preservation of peace after the war. is so enormous that no amount of care and labour can be too great to devote to it. All the German writers on the economic future agree that Germany—to quote ono of the most recent scri ,s of articles on the subject, written by'Herr Arthur Feiler — "must be able after the war to carry on n world-trade as wo did before the war, " buying from every country what wo " need, selling to every foreign oountry [ "what our work can offer in payment " for our imports, moving freely on " every shipping lout© and in every port " —and ail this without paying any " special dues, without any differentia- " tion," etc. If the All.os made it clear that Germany could securo these benefits only by suitable renunciations and by that " complete change of mind and " purpose" which Lord Robert Cecil insisted upon, we should speedily see the collapse of German resistance and tho building of a secure foundation for the future peace of the world.