Nelson Evening Mail SATURDAY, JUNE 10, 1939 AUTARKY IN EUROPE

Nelson Evening Mail, Volume LXXIII, 10 June 1939, Page 8

Nelson Evening Mail SATURDAY, JUNE 10, 1939 AUTARKY IN EUROPE

PROFESSOR GEORG BERN- j i HARD, who is an authority on I.) economics, and especially upon i the economic structure of Europe, ' has explained with considerable ! lucidity the consequences of the { introduction of autarky, which is I the system whereby a nation | makes provision for its economic j self-sufficiency. Professor Bern- j hard does not appear to favour p the Nazi regime in Germany, I where he was professor of the Berlin School of Economics, for he to Paris, where he founded a newspaper for people like himself who had been forced to leave Germany for political considerations. It has been said by many writers and thinkers, and i recently by the King of the Bel- j gians, that if Europe wants to enjoy a lengthy period of peace she must establish and strengthen intimate trade-relations between her various nations, and demonstrate clearly their interdependence commercially. This is the opinion commonly expressed by leading statesmen of Europe, including National Socialist leaders in Germany, and it should be a powerful factor in preserving peace in the troubled Continent, since there are no two opinions as to the need for restoring Europe’s normal system of international ; trade. The only difference of : opinion seems to be in regard to j the method which should be j adopted for the purpose of; achieving the desired end. But the fact is that in certain European countries the people are not permitted to trade unrestrictedly with foreign countries, their Dictators having adopted the theory \ that their respective countries should be self-supporting, and to that end “regulate exports and subject imports to the quota system," with the result that international commerce is discouraged, and the relationships between nations are restrained.

This principle of autarky or i self-sufficiency in matters of trade affects not only those countries 1 which are dominated by Dictators, but even by small States, which, we read, "could never 1 have dreamed of making themselves even approximately independent of the products of their greater neighbours," but during recent years have strained their political economy in order that they may "produce the greatest possible quantity of industrial articles on their territory." This had led in many countries to Government assistance and finally to Government control, and so there has arisen a tendency for State to trade against State, where political rivalry has led to economic rivalry. In States thus affected, exportation is not a primary factor, as it had been in preceding decades. In Totalitarian j States exportation has become a means, not of improving or enriching the manner of living, but a means of obtaining indispensable importations which are necessary for supplying the people with the bare necessaries, or providing industry with raw materials. In most of the States where industrial products are controlled, the object is not so much the production of goods for the masses, as the manufacture of war materials, and therefore does not take cognisance of economics, the laws of which are broken, to the great disadvantage of the nations concerned, and to the limitation of international trade. The system of trade enforced in Totalitarian States does not tend to enlarge, their capacity of consumption. Many classes of imports are prohibited because they are considered to be luxuries. Thus no provision is made for supplying from highly civilised countries those goods which they produce specially for people of refined and educated tastes. “Industrial production is adjusted not to the manufacture of consumption j poods for the masses, but to production of war material," and it naturally follows that the channels of normal trade are not used to their full capacity, and the nations’ economic standards are lowered. The policy of the T otalitarian States is to restrict national consumption, and of course luxuries are the first Hass of imports to be restricted. The system which is in operation makes it almost impossible to introduce supplementary imports, which may be classed •*s luxuries, into those States. Their policy is "to confine export possibilities to raw materials, but to render more difficult the export of manufactured and transformed substances." This is the very negation of international trade, and if adopted generally in Europe would reduce the Contin--1 ent to conditions which existed | there in the Middle Ages. Notwithstanding the extraordinary . conditions prevailing in Europe it . is possible to initiate a system of international trade which shall be effective. Indeed, (here are indications that the Reich desires to promote far-reaching commercial relations with European countries, but hy methods which practically amount to economic Von quest. The policy is for the i Germans to purchase unlimited j quantities of goods abroad, to use I what they need, and to flood the

world market with the surplus. In I part the German policy is to monopolise the purchases of cerj tain articles from foreign countries, and to become the sole seller of such goods, fixing the | prices at levels which are highly j 1 profitable. This policy of controlling international trade with a view to establishing monopolies is;

pernicious, and is destructive in j principle, the object being to ! place control of Europe's international trade in the hands of the Totalitarian States, and reduce the other States to a condition of economic servitude. But the question will be asked, “What remedy have the Democratic States?" They must realise betimes that the political frontiers | between themselves and the j Totalitarian Powers must be de- ! fined clear and distinct economic | demarcations. This will almost I inevitably result in the Democratic I States forming themselves into a customs confederation, for the purpose of protecting their economic and commercial interests, and resisting the. menace which threatens from Central and Eastern Europe.