COLONIES, SUPPLIES AND MARKETS

Dominion, Volume 29, Issue 229, 24 June 1936, Page 7

COLONIES, SUPPLIES AND MARKETS

Two New Books on a Pressing International Problem •‘Thin Have and Have-not Business," by Sir Norman Angell (London: Hamish Hamilton Ltd.). "Kaw Materials and International Control,” by H. K. G. Greaves (London: Methuen). (Bl' SCBUTATOK.) As the world depression lifts and the pressure of poverty diminishes, public interest is gradually shifting from the problem of curing poverty (the controversies of communism, capitalism and social credit) to the now more dreaded problem of international relations, war and the .scramble for colonies. This shift in interest, in which as usual New Zealand has somewhat lagged behind other countries, is shown by the flood of books on the latter group of topics that is pouring into this country, two of the best of which are the subject of this review. Bor a long time thought on this subject has been dominated by the picture of certain countries, which have been called the “Haves,” wallowing In the unjustified luxury of surplus colonies and “possessions,” while other lean and hungry “Have-nots” have starved without the inestimable gift of economic self-sufficiency afforded by colonial markets and raw materials. It follows that it is both a moral necessity and iiie only guarantee of peace for the “Haves,” mainly Britain, to surrender their surplus 'to" the “Havenots.” usually cited as Germany, Italy and Japan. With the clarity and forceful reasoning for which he is justly famous Sir Norman Angell sets out to demolish this chain of thought. Why, he asks, if colonial markets and raw materials are so essential to prosperity- has Britain been through such frying experiences, why has America—the most self-sufficient country of all—been so heavily affected by the depression? Why does the group of countries with the highest standard of liv-

(Radio Notes and Programmes on Page 13-)

ing consist, except for Britain and America, entirely of the "Have-nots!” Why, if colonies are an outlet for population, is Britain so much more thickly populated than Germany, Italy or Japan?

Uselessness of Colonies. With many similar rhetorical questions —the main secret of the force and liveliness of his style—and concrete illustrations, he proceeds to' prove the “uselessness” of.colonies. Italy has been -10 years in Eritrea, much of which is exactly like the Abyssinian uplands, during which time she has settled 84 agricultural peasants. For every Italian that migrates to any new colon?, 500 will migrate to America. Despite the advantages Germany boasts of obtaining from her colonies, “there were on the eve of the war, more Germans earning their livelihood in the city of Faris than in all the German colonies in the whole world combined.” Moreover “when Germany possessed all her pre-war colonies —and it would be a very,radical post-war distribution that would give her more—she obtained less than 1 per cent, of her total raw materials from her own possessions. And her export trade to German colonies amounted to a fraction over one half of one per cent, of her total export trade.”

Sir Normal! Angell bases his argument as to the uselessness of colonies on the fact that, far from being scarce, raw materials have in fact been too plentiful, and that colonial markets and investment have been open to all on equal terms. Concerning raw materials his argument is obviously true; they have been too plentiful rather than too scarce and’open to all on similar terms. Concerning markets and investment there is more doubt. The friendly contacts and natural bias of those in ruling positions would be as important as any tariff or preference. Sir Norman Angell overlooks this, nor does he sufficiently stress the fact that these “equal terms’’ last only as long as there is peace and stability—a condition which threatens to become the exception rather than the rule. The fact that Britain invested more in America than in any colonial country, does not disprove the fact that she has invested more in colonial countries than she would have done "if they had not been colonies. Colonies and War. If colonies are so useless, the question naturally arises, why all this fuss about them? Sir Norman Angell ascribes it to two factors. First, he says, it is due to a confusion of ideas, for when we talk of “possessions” and “owning” colonies there is an untrue implication of wealth. England, he claims, no more possesses Canada than it does the United States. So when an American senator in 1932 demanded the transfer of Canada to the United States in lieu of the defaulted war debts payments, Sir Norman Angell convincingly replies that England cannot transfer what she does not possess. Secondly he admits that colonies are extremely important in time of war as sources both of war materials and of soldiers. His view of the present is that countries are making war in or,der to obtain colonies in order to be able to make war more effectively. The cure then lies in no transfer of territory. Did Germany’s colonies prevent her from going to war in 1914? Only by eliminating war through collective security and by informing public opinion of the uselessness of colonies in time of peace can the problem be solved.

Mr. Greaves, who is a lecturer in Political Science at the London School of Economics, would go a long way with Sir Norman Angell—though unfortunately his book is not as well written. He agrees that "a transfer of territory by gift or conquest solves nothing.” He agrees that colonies have their chief use in giving greater security in a world- of economic nationalism and militarism, but he also stresses their use in absorbing the over-saving of capitalist societies in time of peace. Claiming that, it is inipossble to separate poltics from economies he sees a wider cure than the purely political principle of collective security. Mr. Greaves is a planner, and his cure lies in planning international trade to secure that equality of terms for all countries that Sir Norman Angell seemed a little too inclined to take for granted. His study applied more particularly, as the title shows, to raw material, and the student of international affairs will find in it a wealth of instructive detail on the various international agreements about raw material trading that the last decade or so has brought into existence.