BRITAIN'S TRADE

Evening Post, Volume CXXII, Issue 68, 17 September 1936, Page 9

BRITAIN'S TRADE

POLICY BEING FRAMED

THE COMMERCIAL TREATIES

DEFENCE ASPECT

Critics of the National Government who demand that its long-distance agricultural policy should forthwith be defined conveniently ignore the fact, that behind that innocent-looking phrase there lies a whole complex of problems which directly or indirectly impinge on the most delicate and controversial questions of the hour, writes the London correspondent of the Melbourne "Age." Those who lay the blame for vacillation and indecision solely at the door of the Minister of Agriculture probably do so with their tongue in their cheek, for the most cursory survey of the situation shows that Mr. Walter .Elliot's actions are hampered by the claims for consideration of half a dozen other Departments of the Government. Agriculture, particularly in the menacing situation in Europe today, is no longer a purely domestic affair. The Board of Trade claims a right to have a say in any measures taken for its development that may affect commercial treaties with foreign countries. The Dominions Office and the Colonial Office are on the alert to see to it that wider Imperial interests are not sacrificed in efforts to encourage home production of food. On the other hand, the defence departments are insistent that we should not in an emergency be entirely at the mercy of ocean-borne trade for the supplies of food for the forces and for the civilian population. And the Foreign Office itself, which must bear these and other factors in mind, cannot wholly divest itself of interest in what is, at first glance, a purely domestic question. The result is that there is at present much divided counsel. Industrialists and agriculturists are pulling against one another. Those who take a grave view of the international situation and, with some justification, see in the hectic preparations for war 'that are going on all over Europe a definite threat to world peace, declare that a large increase in the production of home food supplies is an indispensable element in national defence that must no longer be neglected. Opposed to them are those who are convinced that peace can best be promoted by a show of pacific intention and the intensified cultivation of international trade. On one side are ranged the advocates of an extension of tariffs and quotas to keep international trade under strict. control. There is a clash between the isolationists and the stalwarts who base their hopes on the development of the League ideal. The imperialists are in a dilemma. A self-contained Empire is a comforting project in times of peace, butuf peace were disturbed it would offer little consolation to the 45,000,000 inhabitants of this island to know that in distant parts of the Empire there were ample supplies of foodstuffs. It is not surprising, therefore, that Britain is feeling its way with caution and is perhaps a little dilatory in framing a domestic agricultural policy. "WORSE THAN 1914." There is plenty of authority from high places to justify a grave view of -the international situation. Mr. Baldwin :is scarcely: a panic monger-,1 -but the serious view he has taken of affairs is a clear indication of what the Government as a whole feels about it. Some of his Ministers have been even more outspoken. The Secretary for War has told us that the condition of affairs is worse than in 1914, and he admits he wants to frighten people out of their wits. His opinion is endorsed in many other quarters. Elder statesmen, like Sir Austen Chamberlain and Mr. Winston Churchill, have not minced words in regard to the matter, and Mr. Churchill in particular is the ginger behind the programme for accelerating progress with the country's defences. He has for this reason now gone all out in favour of an agricultural policy .that should in his view be the counterpart of the business end of the new defence programme, and as usual he brings to bear upon his crusade the oratory for which he is famous. In a speech recently in: support of his campaign for a large increase in the production of home food supplies he was in racy form. One long and carefully constructed sentence, which is typical of his style of oratory, is perhaps worth quoting. "If (he said) the people of this small island suppose that they can continue their happy, pleasant life, easy conditions, mind occupied by all the interesting trifles which newspapers put in their headlines day by day; if they suppose that they can continue this without interruption while on the Continent, which the air has brought so close that we are no longer an island, preparations are continually being made, night and day, to place vast educated, scientific communities in a condition for immediate aggression and war, when everything is laid aside in these countries, and their whole aim is to make themselves self-supporting in every detail—every man trained to arms, and industry converted to the production of munitions, and even children in schools educated from earliest youth upon ideas of war; if they suppose that, while that is going on so close, they can afford to remain in this condition of easy-going selfindulgence without any foundation on which to rest for food or arms to defend themselves, they are not worthy of the generations which have brought Britain to her greatness and power." STILL MARKING TIME. It is, of course, much easier to make such speeches than to construct a policy to meet the times, and it is not to be supposed that the Government is not unmindful of the circumstances to which Mr. Churchill so graphically calls attention. The fact that they are at present marking time by way of temporary extensions of treaties with foreign food-producing countries is one indication of their recognition that policy must be considered as a whole. Under present arran^ements trade agreements with Denmark, Argentina, and Poland will expire between n6w and December nsxt. 'In the early months of 1937 several similar agreements will be due to fall in, while later in the same year the whole of the trade arrangements mads with the Dominions at Ottawa in 1932 will become due for revision. In these days of controlled and regulated trade none of these agreements will be allowed merely to expire. They will have to be replaced by new arrangements. These new arrangements must obviously be considered in relation to Dominions' and domestic agricultural policy, and it is perhaps beraur? the matter is in the melting-pot that so much propaganda is at prorant being indulged in by interested parties. The industrialists are quite frank. The Federation of British Industries, which has just issued a manifesto, admits that it is putting forward only the viewpoint of the industrialists. That, it confesses, is only one of many which must be considered; but it is one on which the federation spsaks with authority. The manifesto deals with foreign and Imperial trade separately, and n-\;kes a number of re- j

commendations on tariff policy. They are of a thoroughgoing variety. CHANGES SUPPORTED. In the F. 8.1, view the present tariff shoulrl be changed for a "three-column tariff,'" the third and highest column of which should be higher than existing rates, and should be applicable to "countries which, without discriminating against the United Kingdom, do not provide a fair and reasonable outlet for our goods." A second weapon with which the Government should arm itself is that of import quotas to be used against subsidised or exchange dumping. Finally, a new criterion of the balance of trade should be adopted by which the balance to be considered is that of domestic produce and manufactures against retained i imports—no attention apparently being paid to re-exports or invisible items. An appendix to the statement contains a recent memorandum issued by the federation on inter-Imperial trade, the main suggestion of which is that British industry is entitled to expect a reasonable measure of protection against competition in manufactured goods from within the Empire, .iust as it is entitled to expect such protection against foreign goods.