U.S. LEADERS CRITICISED

Press, Volume LXXXIX, Issue 27035, 9 May 1953, Page 7

U.S. LEADERS CRITICISED

“No Trade, No Aid” Feared

(Special Correspondent N.Z.P.A.) (Rec. 8 p.m.) LONDON, May 8. “So far, since the advent of the new Administration, policy seems to have taken a turn for the worse, and to have veered well away from the liberalism which President Eisenhower proclaimed in his State of the Union message,” says “The Times” in a leading article on the discussions now proceeding in the United States on economic policy. These deliberations are held to justify the present inaction, as exemplified by the present intention to put the Reciprocal Trade Agreements Act into cold storage for a year. “The Times" says their outcome will be awaited with anxiety. Since January the tendency has been to stand still, and in some cases to put the clock back. The best that can now be hoped, the newspaper says, is that the act will be extended, unaltered, but also unused, for another year. It is still possible that it may contain the damaging clause in the present Simpson Bill, which would deprive the President of his power to over-rule the Tariff Commission. Various untoward signs come at a stage when the rest of the world seems to be finding some difficulty in improving the balance of its accounts with the United States any further. “Much of the gap is now due to increasing defence programmes and increasing American financing thereof. But the free world’s need of better defence is at least as real and urgent a need as any other. “Moreover, although United States exports of goods have been running at more than double their pre-war level, the world’s hunger for ordinary dollar goods is still unsatisfied. At the moment, both aid and trade are required to cover the needs. “If there is to be a hope of going • stage further, and promoting a healthy and reasonably free flow of trade between the United States and the rest of the world, the scope for other countries to trade into the United States must be greatly enlarged. “Aid Cat Not Alarming” “The cut in aid now proposed is not in itself alarming. Mr Stassen’s exposition of the causes was reasonable. It can be cut further in subsequent years, as doubtless it will be, provided that opportunities for trade are given, and provided that ordinary American lending and investment overseas could be increased beyond their prelent inadequate level. “But the expansion of trade depends almost exclusively on American action. Without some one-sided reduction of American tariffs, without the reasonable security which would be given by simplifying the classification as well as the procedure of the American Customs, without some mitigation of import quotas for farm produce. and of the ‘Buy American’ law and practice, the expansion will not

Cqme. “The present proceedings in Washington are far from auspicious in this regard. The Administration is not giving Congress a lead. “And in Congress, as witness the movements to strengthen the procedure for the control and taxation of agricultural imports, and to weaken the discretionary powers conferred on the President by the Reciprocal Trade Agreements Act, the protectionist forces are active and apparently gainas the Administration will not propose anything until it is sure that a Republican majority in Congress will dispose favourably, the outlook will remain bleak. “Aid is a possible policy. Trade, not aid,’ is a better alternative. But no trade and no aid, favoured at least by some Republicans, would mean that the United States and the rest of the free world would be divided, not only by rigid economic and _ financial barriers but also by the inevitable divergence in standards and responsibilities observed in their respective

programmes. . “Angers will be grave indeed, unless the present deliberations in Washington lead to a more definite, constructive and liberal policy, in time to forestall the opposing drive by the protectionist groups in Congress, which, unlike the Administration, know exactly what they want and how they mean to get it.”