EMPIRE FOREIGN POLICY

Dominion, Volume 16, Issue 171, 7 April 1923, Page 7

EMPIRE FOREIGN POLICY

CO-OPERATION OF BRITAIN AND DOMINIONS A PROBLEM TO BE SOLVED CANADIAN AND NEW ZEA. LAND VIEWS by Telegraph.—Press association. —COPYRIGHT. London, April 5Sir George Perley, ex-High Commissioner for Canada, interviewed by “The Times” on the question of a common Empire foreign policy, said: “At first sight the problem of Imperial co-operation appears insoluble, because the Dominions wish to preserve their self-governing status. Yet there is need for a common foreign policy. “The only possible solution is more frequent and continuous consultation. The best method is to have «. member of each Dominion Government in London with the understanding that they meet the members of the Imperial Cabinet when questions of general concern arise. Thus the Dominion Governments would be more fully advised of foreign relations, end would thus be a consulting- body similar to tho War Cabinet, but without tho latter’s authority.” . Sir George Perley declared that his experience at Geneva and in London had been that the difficulties of Imperial problems largely disappeared when representatives met at the same table. He’ considers a resident Minister preferable to the High Commissioner. The former could approach the Cabinet direct, whereas the Commissioner was supposed to approach it through the Colonial Office. Sir George agrees with Sir Francis Bell that a resident Minister must consult his own Government, but mentions that grave international complications do not arise in five minutes. Such a procedure would have prevented the complications oyer the appeal to the Dominions during tho Near East crisis

Sir James Allen’s Views. Interviewed regarding Sir George Perley’s suggestions. Sir James Allen, New Zealand High Commissioner, said that his personal and unofficial opinion was that a better system of consulting the Dominions was absolutely necessary. It was inevitable that tye great Dominions would not consent indefinitely to commit themselves to a foreign policy in which they had no voice. The status of the High Commissioners might bo altered advantage“At present,” he said, “they do not receive .sufficient recognition from the British Government, but the blame docs not lie with the Imperial authorities, because the Dominion Governments should request a fuller concession of rights for their representatives. However, I cannot see how a resident Minister could maintain contact better than a High Commissioner. “Sir George Perley’s suggestion that the Dominion Tepreeeritatire n should spend part of the year m his own Dominion may be practicable for Canada but it is utterly out of the ques tion for the more distant Dominions. Besides. Dominion Ministers do no mean permanent institutions. It wou bo undesirable to change the represntative in London with every change of Government.”—“Times.”

ECONOMIC CONFERENCE FEDERAL PREMIER’S "V/lEW / Sydney, April « Mr S. M. Bruce, Federal Prime Minister, dealing with the Economic Conference, said: “We must never allow any of the Dominions to get more closely linked with any outside foreign Power than with Britain. He realised that ho was on dangerous ground, but most of his hearers would understand what he meant, rhe Empire contained all the necessities ot life, and it was possible to achieve the idea of inter-dependence. on which Could bo evolved the greatest and strongest economic Empire the world had ever seen or dreamed of. Realising the value of preferences m the Australian market, many roreign Governments had approached the Commonwealth Government with a view to obtaining a reciprocal trade agreement under which proformice would tw- gn.en to Australian goods m exchange tor reciprocal treatment for manufactured goods coming to the Australian market? To all these suggestions Australia had turned a deaf ear, pending the determination of an mter-Empire trade policy-— Vr«ss Assn.