U.S. HELP TO BRITAIN

Evening Post, Volume CXL, Issue 148, 20 December 1945, Page 7

U.S. HELP TO BRITAIN

PRESS, OPINION

APPLYING AGREEMENT

(Special P.A. Correspondent.) Rec. 10 a.m. ' LONDON, Dec. 19. With the Washington monetary agreement accepted by Parliament, Britain's black mood of last week has lightened to one of making the best of a hard bargain. There is general approval for what is regarded as a brilliant speech by Lord Keynes to the House of Lords. It is observed that he intervened just at the moment when anxiety seemed to degenerate into bitterness, and brought with him a genuine whiff of the American atmosphere. While doubts and uneasiness remain, the tone of the comment is one of hope that the agreement may not, after all, turn out to be too bad and that it will, in fact, strengthen Anglo-American relationships. . Remarking that the settlement, # for all its defects, is, in Lord Keynes s view, worthwhile, "The Times" refers to his comment: "We are attempting a great step forward towards the goal of an international economic order For the first time in history, the United States is going to exert its full, powerful influence to the direction of the reduction of tariffs, not only by hersejf, but by all others." TREMENDOUS DECISION. This, declares "The Times," is the crux. "The issue at stake is not simply the practicability of achieving the transition to peace by the means proposed at Washington; that is only the first part of a much wider and more significant question," the newspaper says. "A tremendous decision is hurriedly being made in a world still distorted and thrown out of balance by war. It is being forced upon this and almost every other country by the pressure of American economic power and the desire to open markets to American goods. "The decision is to revert by all possible means to the system of uncontrolled world trade which prevailed before the first Great War. It is imperative that the assumptions of this decision, in contemporary terms, should be frankly examined." "The Times" continues: "The removal of trade barriers is, indeed indispensable for expanded prosperity; foi that alone the Washington proposals must be and have been welcomed. MORE POSITIVE NEED. "International trade and order will surely break down if Purchases and loans from America cannot be matched by sales to America. „_.♦*,._ "Yet the experience ot an enure generation has shown that, something much more positive will be required to achieve the equilibrium without which expansion will be impossible and slumps inevitable. International prosperity through freedom of world ti^e must be organised with purpose and intelligence. Only by 'full energy' m the export drive and in a campaign toi the highest industrial output and efficiency can Britain hope to surmount the present crisis. .. _ "Only by the fullest co-operation with other countries can the conditions of recovery and advance be sought There is a great opportunity .befoie Britain and the United States in this project to which they have jointly set their hands. But the assurance of success will remain out of reach and the risk of catastrophe will persist until full acknowledgement is made of the positive and concerted action that is demanded to set the international order on a firm foundation." CAUSE OF MISGIVING. The "Daily Telegraph" says that no one is happy about the agreement but we are in need of money, and no one has found any practicable alternative but to accept it and swallow the teims. "The misgiving centres mainly on tne financial conditions of the loan itselt, upon the limitation of its economic freedom which Britain is required to accept, upon the premature arrangements for restoring the convertibility of sterling, and upon the reduction from five years to one of the transitional period envisaged in the original Bretton Woods draft. "Even Lord Keynes, for all the skill and eloquence of his exposition, tailed to dispel any of these anxieties, most of which he, indeed, shared himself."

The newspaper adds: "Lord Cran- , borne spoke the plain truth when he said the terms of the agreement have come to the public as a serious shock. MUST MAKE IT WORK. "Yet now that Parliament has brought out all the arguments, and the views of members have been stated with refreshing candour, it would illbefit us to perpetuate a mood of disgruntlement. Having accepted its obligations, honour and expediency alike enjoin us to do all we can to make it work. "That it represents a compromise between widely different standpoints is manifest, but the task of both partners must be to close the gap in a common endeavour to gain the benefits of the ordered economic relations which the agreement, however imperfectly, seeks to promote." The "Manchester Guardian" comments: "While we have every right to consider the terms hard, as well as unwise, it would be folly to go on nagging. If there is any good hope of making the system work it lies only in close and trusting collaboration between Britain and the United States.

WOULD DESTROY BASIS. "By allowing criticism to sharpen into hostility we would wilfully destroy the only possible basis of success. Whatever may have been the choice of policies open in 1942 when the Coalition Government accepted the lendlease 'Master Agreement' with its famous Article "Seven, and thus laid the foundation of the present scheme, there is no such choice now. Not only would rejection endanger AngloAmerican co-operation in the political field, but we are no longer in a position, if we ever were, to consolidate the sterling area and Western Europe into a strong economic association. "All plans and preparations for the post-war exoansion of British trade have been made for several years past on the assumption of an AngloAmerican settlement. There is no road back." „_ , The "Daily Herald" says: 'Lord Keynes placed the loan in its proper perspective as one necessary part ot a series of agreements which together constitute 'a great step forward towards the goal of international economic order.' Until that goal has been reached, peace itself will not be secure. CONGRESS MOVE AWAITED. "Lord Beaverbrook strenuously proclaimed a narrow Imperialist view, but against the great background which Lord Keynes had painted his speech sparkled as harmlessly as an indoor firework. "The agreement now has the authority of the British Parliament. We await that of Congress, eager to set about our future tasks as a nation and as a leader in the world economics partnership." The "Daily Mail" says: "Lord Keynes finds the American proposals, taken as a whole, of 'unprecedented liberality.' What country, he asks, ever treated another country like this for the purpose of rebuilding that other country's competitive position?

"When a matter is put like that, it is seen in a' new light—or should be. Judging from what has been written and said in the past- few days, there are many who consider America is entitled to no viewpoint at all. "Comment has been bitter and reckless. America has been upheld as a Shylock and blood-sucker. And why? Because she is making Britain the biggest loan in history at 2 per cent., or to be strictly accurate at 1.62 per cent. INSULTS TO AMERICA. "This is a strange doctrine—that when you ask a man to lend you money you first insult him. The 'Daily Mail' has never hesitated to criticise American actions which conflicted with British interests, but we confess that on this issue we have been startled at the acrimony of the charges levelled at the United States. "The result has been inevitable. Angry anti-British comments have already been made, and we must expect venomous attacks on this country in Congress. It is only to be hoped that the strength given' to the American onnosiHnn by cur own irrcconcilaWes will not cause the rejection of the loan. "We know very well that America does not hold all the cards. We a^ree

that better terms might have been made. But the hard fact is that Britain needs the money and America does not." CLASH ON POLICIES. The "Daily Express" says that the House of Lords debate was a clash on fundamental policies. "Beyond the immediate issues of loan and the return to new and the expurgated version of the bad old gold standard, there lurks a vastly wider question: On what basis shall the commerce of the world in general and the British Empire in particular be organised? "The loan is now settled so far as Britain is concerned. The nation has undertaken, with almost universal misgivings and flouting every bitter lesson of the past, commitment to gold. But the underlying question of commercial policy, the system on which goods are produced, consumed, and exchanged— this is still, in a measure, a, matter for argument and decision. "What, then, is the choice? It is between, the Keynes way and the Beaverbrook way. "Lord Keynes wishes to restore the old methods of free'trade, sincerely believing that what was good enough for our grandfathers is the best for us now. Lord Beaverbrook, the most uncompromising among many advocates, declares for tariffs since tariffs are an indispensable instrument of Imperial preference. And Imperial preference is a sound, -simple, sure safeguard of prosDerity ?nd the. development of the British Empire.

"This is the choice which the British peoples must make in their heart and mind between now and the assembly of the world trade conference."