The Evening Star TUESDAY, JANUARY 8, 1918.

Evening Star, Issue 16626, 8 January 1918, Page 6

The Evening Star TUESDAY, JANUARY 8, 1918.

It -would bo a mistake, we think, to take Mr Lloyd George’s Fats of the interesting reference Gorman Colonics, to the subsequent disposal of the. German colonies as the final declaration of the Imperial Government and Dominions and the Allies on this important subject. Indeed, the Prime Minister’s statement on the question seems to ns to be the only flaw in an admirable speech, that rightly has been received with more than ordinary enthusiasm throughout the allied countries. Undoubtedly the> principle of the schema promulgated, by Mr Lloyd George is in what may bo termed diplomatic sympathy with the insistent democratic demand for the adoption of a policy of no annexation and, no indemnity. But the projected methods of the disposal of the enemy’s oversea possessions are crude, if not perilous. The proposed basis of territorial settlement is the right of the golfdetermination or the consent of the governed. This principle is more or less feasible in respect to the future settlement of the European territories now under the heel of a merciless military Power, whose war aims are nob racial development and economic productivity at all, but are based on > sheer world-domi-nation and tyrannous and terrorising government: but it appears to be hopelessly impracticable if it were applied to those occupied countries whose native inhabitants are still groping even in the twilight of pre-war civilisation, andi whoso knowledge of international commerce and industry is almost confined to the exchange of a shipload of cocoanuta for a sackful of ornaments “made in Germany.” Mr Lloyd George confidently declares that the ’general principle of national selfdetermination is as applicable in the cases of tropical territories as it is in those of occupied European countries. It looks as though Downing Street has yet, to learn something of the actual conditions and capabilities of the natives of tropical countries. Who would put faith, for, example, in the-future and fate of German New Guinea if they were shaped at the will of the natives, and thrust by a sorb of pantomimic plebiscite under German kultur as demonstrated, in war with civilised peoples 7

The British Prime Minister again explains that the German colonies are being held for disposal by a conference, whose decision must primarily have regard to the wishes and interests of tho native inhabitants, and that one of the main purposes of the selective administration must be to prevent, their exploitation for the benefit of European capitalists or Governments. This principle .would not challenge much thought or criticism if the native inhabitants, by self-determination, sought an administration that would stand for racial progress aiid economic expansion within their territories, rather than for the establishment of strategic advantages adjacent to white peoples whoso aims are peaceful and progressive on lines of democratic freedom. But what is to be the constitution of the proposed conference f Is it to be the suggested League of Nations or the final Peace Conference 7 Mr Lloyd George leaves this important point to conjecture. Granted that the exigencies of war settlement may sweep «aside the old rule that possession is nine-tenths of the law, it has still to be acknowledged that in respect to the disposal of the oversea colonies of a military dynasty which, by an immortality of infamy, has forfeited tho confidence of all civilised countries there is a great deal more to be considered than

the interests of untutored native inhabitants. The scramble for rich oversea possessions was undoubtedly one of the origins of. the present catastrophe of world war; and once this conflict has been ended—and ended for all time, let us hope—the question of their administration can hardly be loft almost entirely to the caprice of the native inhabitants. The British-speaking peoples who are distributed sparsely overseas must secure a dependable guarantee of security for their pioneer enterprise and their honest efforts to carry the colored population with them' on the road of peaceful progress. In other words, and to put the matter plainly, the security of the .Pacific must be the basis of tire final territorial settlement of Germany’s oversea colonies. The South African- Union, the Commonwealth of Australia, Now Zealand, the United States of America, and; the Dominion of Canada are all vitally concerned in the disposal of the German colonies in the Pacific. They have had enough of the Gorman menace, and require a guarantee of dependable freedom from strategic competition. That guarantee cannot be seen In the tentative scheme outlined by Mr Lloyd George. It is essential, of course, that native interests should bo adequately represented at the contemplated, conference; but the wider interests which, involve the question of the maintenance of peace and secure freedom in the Pacific must also be given adequate consideration.

It is a commonplace to say that this war has been fruitful of Tha Imperial commercial oxpediGovernment cuts. Equally it goes and Wheat. without saying that the many enterprises of the Imperial Government in the management of industries and tho control of markets are rich in instructive lessons for the present and the future. Many a Socialist’s pulse has quickened and many a Radical’s eye has kindled at the many instances of State Socialism which the exigencies of war have evoked. They think they see signs of permanence in a goodly number of tho experiments in collective control which have been made during the past three years. No doubt States everywhere will have fingers in more industrial and commercial pies in the generation succeeding tho war than they had in the generation preceding. But at present wo wish to draw the attention of our readers to a failure in State qpterprise—at least, a failure measured by usual commercial standards.

The Imperial Government set up a Wheat Commission to control the British wheat market in the interests of the consuming public, and no financial limit was placed upon their operations. The Commission have used their powers to exclude competitive buyers of wheat, and have entered the market, for instance, of Australia as the sole buyer for the British people. The largest purchase made was 14,000,000 quarters of wheat, bought from the Australian Commonwealth Government for £26,000,000. The bargain was a splendid one for the Australian producer, but has turned out a disastrous one for the British Government. It has thrown upon that Government the whole loss arising from the dislocation of shipping which has been such a serious impediment to ocean traffic for a long time past. The plain truth is that the British Government were unable to provide for the transport of the wheat, and the great bulk of it is still in Australia. The Commission have arranged with the Commonwealth Government for the storage of the flour into which the wheat is now being converted; but “it is to bo feared,” report the Select Committee appointed to inquire into national expenditure on war, “ that much of the flour must be wasted if the ships are not soon provided—a contingency which seems not to have been sufficiently taken into account.” The Commonwealth Government gave a guarantee as to the quality of the wheat stored, but this guarantee expired on the 51st December last; so that all the risk as to deterioration of quality now' falls upon the Imperial Government. The Select Committee have urged that all the wheat be manufactured “ into some commodity capable of being preserved until it can be brought into consumption.” Some idea of the costliness of'the British Government’s venture in the buying of. wheat is indicated by the fact that up to August last the Wheat Commission had drawn from the Treasury £67,000,000. One item in the loss on the year’s operations for last year of the Commission was £2,000,000. It arose from an effort to strengthen the wheat reserves in Great Britain. ■ Against the undoubted losses to the State must be set, however, the undoubted gains to the consumer. The action of the Food Controller in keeping down prices, or rather checking their rise, has forced the Wheat Commission to sell them wheat at a price often lower than that paid for it. It is estimated, for instance, that' the Food Controller’s decision that the 41b loaf must be sold for 9d will involve the Wheat Commission in a loss of £40,000,000 a year.