ECONOMIC DISARMAMENT.

Evening Star, Issue 20993, 6 January 1932, Page 6

ECONOMIC DISARMAMENT.

With the near advent of the February conference, disarmament is in the air. It is becoming increasingly seen, however, that the national armaments that must be reduced consist not only of cruisers, battalions, and guns, but also of tariffs, boycotts, and embargoes. There have been trade wars just as bitter as those waged with weapons, and while on the whole there are many encouraging signs that nations are drawing together in agreement to reduce guns and cruisers, economically they are drawing more sharply asunder. Yet never was co-operation in international trade and finance more necessary. The economic struggle which paralleled the military and naval battles of the Great War did not cease with the signing of the peace treaties. In modified form it continued with great intensity, and even former allies were soon desperately competing with each other for markets because of their serious financial straits. As weapons of attack in their trade wars nations have used cut-throat competition, dumping, subsidies, bounties, commercial espionage, and similar practices to expand their own trade at the expense of others. Similarly, nations with money to lend have frequently used their financial power to extort political or economic concessions from the borrowers. The general trade position has been very much complicated by interallied debts and reparations, with their inevitable reaction on the foreign exchanges. As weapons of defence in economic warfare nations have used tariffs, safeguarding duties, embargoes, and boycotts in an attempt to protect their home markets from aggressive attacks of other nations. An. indication of the wide extent of this economic struggle is the fact that in the last few months more than forty countries have increased their tariffs. Yet in practically no case has it helped any country to escape the prevailing economic depression. This, like a disease, leaps over frontiers, ocean barriers, or mountains.

As long ago as 1927 tlio Geneva Economic Conference pointed out the dangers of tariff warfare. Yet a move forward can only come by mutual action through agreement among the nations. Some cabled remarks this week by Sir Walter Layton, editor of the ‘ Economist/ draw new attention to the danger and point a bettor way. “ Some solution of the tariff issue, which is growing worse,” ho said, “ must be found. There are in many countries not only tariff's, but strangleholds, on trade through exchange control. Every conceivable device is being operated, each country trying to save itself, hut meanwhile strangling its neighbour.. The

world’s commerce is consequently down to something like half its volume of two years ago.” Sir Walter urges for the introduction of sanity in regard to tariff questions, and points out that this need not mean that,every country has to bo Freetrade, Tariffs are inextricably bound up with questions of revenue and other local effects in each country concerned. But there is a call to aim at a group of “ sane tariff countries.” Writing in the one-time conservative ‘ Spectator,’ Sir Norman Angell very pertinently suggests how this shall be done. He points out that a scientific tariff simply must take into account the effect upon the solvency of our foreign customers and debtors. Why, then, should it not be drawn up in consultation with them? “ Any inquiry or investigation which precedes the imposition of a tariff should afford an opportunity for consultation with them, and tariff-making becomes, what it has never been in the past, a matter of international conference and agreement. So long as it proceeds, the assumption which tariff-making in the past has always done—that its effect upon our debtors and customers is something we need not trouble about—it can never do aught in the long run but worsen the trouble it professes to cure.”