THE New Zealand Herald AND DAILY SOUTHERN CROSS. TUESDAY, DECEMBER 13, 1921. AMERICAN FOREIGN POLICY.

New Zealand Herald, Volume LVIII, Issue 17963, 13 December 1921, Page 6

THE New Zealand Herald AND DAILY SOUTHERN CROSS. TUESDAY, DECEMBER 13, 1921. AMERICAN FOREIGN POLICY.

The first effect of the four Powers' pact has beefi to focus public opinion upon American foreign policy. In the United States discussion of this question is following the customary lines. There are those who still believe it possible to maintain the traditional American policy of isolation. Regardless of the fact that the United States have carried their flag far into the Pacific, that they have contributed in a military sense to the European settlement, and that the points of contact between Old and New Worlds are constantly increasing, these Little Americans denounce every foreign treaty as an entangling alliance. Other Americans, and they probably represent a majority of the nation, realise that they cannot fulfil their destiny without incurring some measure of responsibility for the world's peace, but they desire that their liability shall be not vague and general, but specific and limited, and that, in particular, the right of the American people to decide through the Senate upon every issue of pea.ee and war shall be fully preserved. It was: this majority of the American people which was stampeded into the belief that the League of Nations was a military combination and that the Covenant imposed upon Americans the duty of fighting in alien quarrels and for dubious frontiers. There is some evidence that an attempt will be made to work upon the same suspicions to defeat the new Pacific agreement, but it is not likely to succeed. Mr. Wilson handled the public opinion of his country very badly. He did not consult his opponents and he steadily refused to concede anything to the criticism which was threatening his Administration and his policies. All that has happened in America sipce confirms the opinion that a more tactful President would have won the country for the League of Nations. Mr. Harding is hot only more tactful but he has to a very large extent succeeded in identifying American prestige with the success of the Washington Conference, and that is a subtle and powerful psychological influence. The second article of the proposed Pacific Treaty is being compared by some American critics with article 10 of the League of Nations Covenant. It is interesting to compare them side by side. ' The famous article 10 reads :—

The members of tJie League undertake to respect and preserve as against external aggression the territorial integrity and existing political independence of all members of the League. In case of any such aggression or in case of any threat or danger of such aggression the Council shall advise upon the means by which this obligation shall be fulfilled. American criticism of this article implied that the words " respect, and preserve" involved an active'as well as a 1 passive responsibility, that America was bound not only to refrain from challenging the status quo, but to prevent others doing so. There are no equivalent terms in the Pacific pact/ and therefore this criticism does not apply. The text of the second clause of the Pacific agreement is as follows :—

If the said rights (in the Pacific) are threatened by aggressive action on the part of any other Power the High Contracting Parties shall communicate with one another fully and frankly in order, to arrive at an understanding as to the most efficient means to he taken jointly or separately to meet the exigencies 61 the particular situation. The real point of resemblance between the two clauses is that the parties to both agreements undertake to consult each other when threatened, individually ,or collectively, by aggressive action. The Pacific pact is the less definite of the two as it provides for nothing more than consultation, whereas under the League of Nations Covenant the Council, representing the great Powers, has the right to tender advjee, which may or may not be accepted by the individual Powers. It is difficult to perceive how the clause of the Pacific agreement can alarm American public opinion. The League of Nations Covenant may be a little ambiguous, though jurists have declared that it docs not impose on members any obligation to furnish armed forces to guarantee the territorial integrity of any member if menaced, and this is now the international interpretation of the clause. The Pacific pact is so clear that there is scarce excuse for misunderstanding it.

The suspicion with which a great many Americans still regard foreign treaties appears the more absurd in view of the extreme anxiety of the American Government to safeguard Lite commercial interests wherever [they .are touched by treaty arrange-

ments. The latest instance;of this is the reservation regarding, ; the mandated islands in the 1 South Pacific. The United States have already been, involved in several controversies over the mandates. There was, to begin with, the claim to be consulted •in the allocation of the mandates, though at the time America was taking no part in any of the other duties falling to the Allies; there was the direct negotiation with Japan concerning the status of Yap; there was the rather humorous protest against the exclusion of America from equal trade opportunities under the B mandates, an exclusion due ( entirely to the fact that America had failed to become a member of the League of Nations; now there are reservations regarding the C mandates, under which Samoa and New Guinea are administered. The precise nature of the American reservations has not been disclosed, but if it is for equality of trade opportunity it may involve Samoa. The Customs Amendment Bill extends British preference to Samoan goods exported to Ne,w Zealand, and under a customs order dated April 20, 1920, Samoa levies an export duty on copra and cocoa, and discriminates against foreign imports to the extent of 22$ per cent. ad valorem, against 15 per cent, on goods from the British Empire If America's claim is for the entry of her goods to Samoa at the same rate as British it can scarcely be entertained. Apart from the circumstance that the United States have not accepted the responsibilities of a mandatory, Samoa and the other Southern Pacific Islands' are recognised in the Peace Treaty as suitable for administration as integral portions of the territories of the mandatory Powers. Their association with the administrative Powers is the closest permitted under "the system of mandates, and there is Neither in law nor equity ground for any claim that foreign nations shouldte given more favourable treatment than they have received. New Zealand has sought no exclusive position for herself. She has given Samoan goods preference ,and sends her goods to Samoa on the same footing as goods from other portions of the Empire. If the claim is made that American goods should enjoy the right of entry at the same rate the answer must be that the Treaty of Versailles supports no such claim, and no other basis has been put forward for it.