The Press MONDAY, JULY 8, 1957. Commonwealth Conference

Press, Volume XCVI, Issue 28323, 8 July 1957, Page 10

The Press MONDAY, JULY 8, 1957. Commonwealth Conference

The original purpose of the Commonwealth Prime Ministers 5

conference this year was to repair links that had been rather badly strained during the Suez operations. As it turned dut, events outdated this purpose; and the Prime Ministers (or their deputies) found that they had other problems to discuss. Their renewed friendliness before the conference accounts largely for the disappointment expressed in London with the communique issued at the end of the conference. Six months ago it would have been welcome evidence that this unique bridge between the European members and their associates in Africa and Asia had been preserved as an example to the world of peaceful co-operation, in spite of such major disagreements as Kashmir. The. association having been taken for granted, some more detailed achievements were apparently, but unreasonably, expected. The most significant fact is still that the Commonwealth is a club where the members can talk to each other about common interests, and tactfully ignore their family quarrels.

The new look of British defence and its effect on the defence policies of the other members was one of the subjects that could not be fully explored. India, particularly, would not want to be involved in anything appearing to support the use of atomic weapons. Economic questions must therefore havq bulked large in the discussions, because here, indeed, was common ground in the desire of almost everyone to raise capital. The report that the initiative was taken by the Canadian Prime Minister (Mr Diefenbaker) with his proposal for a Commonwealth economic conference is not supported by the communique, which mentions

only the routine annual meeting of Finance Ministers, to be held I this year in Ottawa. Certainly the Commonwealth nations should concert their economic policies as far as possible, and a formal meeting might serve some purpose. But the fact is that the delegates went to London with capital require-

ments tliat the Commonwealth cannot meet out of its own resources. The communique, after noting that capital development plans called “for “ high levels of domestic “ saving ” and the “ creation of “ conditions favourable to “investment”, had to acknowledge that investments from other sources than the Commonwealth should be encouraged. Britain last year provided £2OO million in long-term overseas investments, largely at the expense of her own development. Even this creditable scale of investment does not meet the requests of the Commonwealth. India, for instance, wants £ 1000. million to carry through its five-year plan. Nor can the process of British investment overseas be carried too far. U The overriding interest of the Commonwealth is in the stability of Britain as banker to the sterling area; and the building up of Britain’s gold and dollar reserves must be a first call on any expansion in her national income. The importance of the European free trade plan is that it should help Britain to expand her economy. In the immediate future this association of Britain with the European Common Market has dangers for Commonwealth members, particularly New Zealand. Ultimately it should benefit them in several ways if Britain, in the metaphors of the “ Economist ”, becomes “ a gateway to Europe ” rather than “ a moated market ”. This may even lead to a new source of capital by mobilising the. very large Continental savings, which, according to the “ Manchester Guardian ”, are now lying relatively idle. In the meantime the Commonwealth must look to existing institutions to provide the investments its members need. In this connexion New Zealand, which prides itself on its devotion to the. Commonwealth ideal, may reasonably wonder whether it is doing its fair share when it refuses to use World Bank finance. This would not only assist New Zealand’s own development, but would bring new capital into the Commonwealth as a whole.