Press Comment On Approval Of U.S. Loan Agreement

Northern Advocate, 20 December 1945, Page 5

Press Comment On Approval Of U.S. Loan Agreement

(Received 10 a.m.) LONDON, December, 19. WITH THE WASHINGTON MONETARY AGREEMENT ACCEPTED BY PARLIAMENT, BRITAIN’S BLACK MOOD OF LAST WEEK HAS LIGHGTENED 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 be intervened just at the moment when anxiety seemed to degenerate into bitterness and brought with him a genuine whiff of American atmosphere. While doubts and uneasiness remain, the tone of comment is one of hope that the agreement may not, after all, turn out to be overbad and that it will in fact, strengthen Anglo-American relationships.

Remarking that the settlement for all its defects is in Lord Keynes’ view, * worthwhile, “The Times” refers Fo his comment: “We are attempting a great step forward towards the goal of international economic order. 3|or the first time in history, the United States is going to exert its full and powerful influence to the direction of the production of tariffs, not only by herself but by all others.” ISSUE AT STAKE “This,” declares. “The Times,” “is the crux. “The issue at stake is not simply the practicability of achieving transition to peace by the means proposed at Washington: that is only the first part of a much wider and more significant question. “A tremendous decision is hurriedly being made in a world still distorted and thrown out of balance by the 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 x’evert by all possible means to the system of uncontrolled world trade which prevailed before the first Great Wax’. It is imperative that the assumptions of this decision in contemporary terms should be frankly examined.” END OF TRADE BARRIERS j “The . Times” continues that the removal of trade barriers is indeed indispensable for expanded prosperity; for that alone the Washington proposals must be, and have been, welcomed. International trade order will surely break down if purchases and loans from America cannot be matched by sales to America. Yet the experience of an entire generation has shown that something much more positive will be required to achieve the equilibrium, without which expansion would be impossible and slumps inevitably. International prosperity, through freedom of world trade, must be organised with the purpose of intelligence. 1 Cnly by “full energy” in an export drive and in a campaign for the highest industrial output and efficiency can Britain hope to surmount the present crisis. Only by the fullest cooperation with other countries can the conditions of recovery and advance be sought. GREAT OPPORTUNITY “There is a great opportunity before Eritain and the United States in this project to which they have jointly set their hands,” “The Times” continues. “But the assurance of success will remain out of reach and the risk of catastrophe will persist until full acknowledgment is made of the positive and concerted action that is demanded to set international order on a firm foundation.” I The “Daily Telegraph” says no one I is happy about the agreement. I

“But we are in need of the money and no one has found any practicable alternative but to accept it and swallow the terms.

“Misgiving centres mainly on the financial conditions of the loan itself, upon the limitation of 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 his skill and the eloquence of his exposition, failed to dispel any of these anxieties, most of which he indeed shared himself.”

SHOCK TO PUBLIC The “Daily Telegraph” adds: “Lord Cranborne spoke the plain truth when he said the terms of the agreement had come to the public as a serious shock. Yet, now that Parliament has brought out all the arguments, and views of members have been stated with refreshing candour, it would ill befit us to perpetuate the mood of disg'runtlement. “Having accepted its obligations, honour and expediency alike are enjoining us to do all we can to make it work. “That it represents a compromise between two 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 ordered economic relations which the agreement, however imperfect, seeks to promote.” FOLLY TO NAG 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. “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 7 and thus laid the foundation of the present scheme, there is no such choice now.

“Not only would rejection endanger Anglo-American co-operation in the political field but we are no longer in the position, if we. ever were, to consolidate the sterling area and Western Europe into a strong economic association.

“All plans and preparations for postwar expansion of British trade have been made for several years past on the assumption of an Anglo-American settlement. There is no road back.” ONE OF SERIES The "Daily Herald” says: “Lord Keynes placed the loan in its proper perspective as one necessary part of a series of agreements which together constitute ‘a great step forward to-

wai'ds the goal of international economic order.’

“Until that goal has been reached peace itself will not be secui’e. “Lord Beaverbrook strenuously proclaimed the 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 a world economic partnership.”

The “Daily Mail” comments: “Loi’d Keynes finds the American proposals, taken as a whole, of ‘unprecedented liberality.’ What counti'y, he asks, ever treated another country like this for the purpose of rebuilding that other counti’y’s competitive position? SEEN IN NEW LIGHT

“When the 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 that Amexdca is entitled to no viewpoint at all. Comment has been bitter and reckless.

“America has been held up 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. “This is a strange doctrine —that when you ask a man to lend you money you first insult him. “The ‘Daily Mail’ never has hesitated to criticise American actions which conflicted with British interests but we confess on this issue we have been startled at the acrimony of the charges levelled at the United States. MUST EXPECT ATTACKS “The result has been inevitable. Angry anti-British comments have been made and we must expect venomous attacks on this country in Congress. It is only to be hoped that the strength given to American opposition by our own irreconcilables will not cause rejection of the loan. “We know very well that America does not hold all the cards. We agree that better terms might have been made.

“But the hard fact is: Britain needs the money and America does not." The “Daily Express” says the House of Lords debate was a clash on fundamental politics. “Beyond the immediate issue of the loan and a return to the new expurgated version of bad, old gold standard, there lurks a vastly wider question: On what basis shall the commerce of the world in general and the BritisK Empire in particular, be organised? KEYNES, BEAVERBROOK WAYS

J “The loan has now been settled so | far as Britain is concerned. The na- : tun lias undertaken, with almost uni-vecs-fi misgivings and the flouting of every bitter lesson of the past, commitment to gold. But tj'C- underlying quest’or of commerced p.r.icy, the-, syst vn 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 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, most uncompromising among many advocates, declares for tariffs, since tariffs are an indispensable instrument of imperial preference. And imperial prefei’ence is a sound, simple, sure, safeguard of the prosperity and development of the British Empire “This is the choice which the British peoples must make in heart and mind between now and the assembly of the world trade conference.”