The New Zealand Herald AUCKLAND, WEDNESDAY, DECEMBER 8, 1943 AND NOW TURKEY

New Zealand Herald, Volume 80, Issue 24761, 8 December 1943, Page 2

The New Zealand Herald AUCKLAND, WEDNESDAY, DECEMBER 8, 1943 AND NOW TURKEY

First China, then Soviet Russia — that is the order in which partners in the common struggle against the Axis Powers went into conference with Mr. Churchill and President Roosevelt. And now Turkey has been called—perhaps summoned—into consultation. Turkey is treatybound to Britain, and benefits by lend-lease aid from the United States; but Turkey is also party to a treaty of friendship and nonaggression with Germany, as well as to a commercial agreement under which goods have moved in considerable quantity from both sides. This looks extremely like having a foot in each camp, and that in fact has been Turkey's position since the war began. It is becoming more and more questionable whether that anomalous situation can continue much longer, in the light of the present war outlook and the developments that are to be expected. Notice was given to the world from Teheran that Germany's Fortress Europe was to be attacked from the east, the west and the south. Turkey lies on the flank of any assault from the south. To have a sanctuary, such as Turkey undoubtedly is, for Axis diplomats, agents and propagandists thus disposed close to an operations area is a condition that no military command or director of strategy would tolerate if it could be avoided. In these circumstances alone there is plenty of cause for seeking a conference with the heads of the Turkish Government in the probable attempt to have their attitude precisely defined. The mere fact that Turkey is at the council table with the two leaders of the English-speaking world has been enough to set comment and speculation going in many quarters. The place and circumstances of the meeting themselves are enough to deserve direct consideration. In 1941, before the German invasion of Greece and Yugoslavia, Mr. Anthony Eden and Sir John Dill went to Ankara. In February of this year Mr. Churchill met President Inonu on Turkish soil. In June the President received Sir John Cunningham, the naval Commander-in-Chief in the Levant. On all these occasions the British representatives, even to the Prime Minister, went seeking the interviews. Now President Inonu has gone to North Africa to meet the Allied leaders. It is a change of atmosphere which cannot be without significance. Up to the present Turkey has deserved well of the United Nations through a purely passive role. She remained neutral when neutrality was invaluable. She gave no special favours to Germany at a time when Germany loomed over the world as a party to be propitiated. Turkey, on the other hand, has had munitions from Britain at a time when they could not easily be spared, as well as lend-lease aid from the United States. The obligation is not all on one side. If, therefore, as is likely, definite proposals are being made at the conference, the British and American leaders have the right to ask for things, as well as the power to make promises for the future.

There are many requirements that might be put before the Turkish President. If direct participation in the war were among them, it would be a call on him to renounce that policy of keeping out of the struggle which he has followed so consistently, and that policy which, on all available evidence, is approved by the overwhelming majority of his people. Mr. Churchill and President Roosevelt may not go so far nor propound so bluntly ; but they could put it to Turkey that avenues of Axis intrigue and espionage should be stopped, that Portugal's example in making bases and airfields available should be followed, even that the Dardanelles and the Bosporus should be opened to ships of the United Nations. Germany would naturally class these as hostile acts. In return the United Nations could promise continuation during the war of that aid already extended, territorial integrity after the war, and support for Turkey in the economic and financial difficulties now being experienced, and likely to persist in future. From Teheran they may well have brought assurances sufficient to meet Turkey's suspicions of Soviet policy. No formal statement has said that these points have formed the agenda of the- conference President Inonu is attending, but they could not be kept out of the discussions at such a meeting. The plain fact is that the war, especially in the Mediterranean, has reached such a point that Turkey's position and attitude must be more clearly defined than in the past. Hence the conference now sitting, of which one of the outstanding features is that the Turkish President went to it, instead of it going to him. LEND-LEASE DISPARITY Mr. Nash should take back with him to Washington the sense of growing uneasiness in New Zealand at the unequal terms on which lendlease and reverse lend-lease are operating. The United States transfers to us goods and commodities at fully inflated war prices, while we supply the American forces at little better than pre-war * prices. In a report published this morning, Mr. J. T. Martin points out that New Zealand prices under lend-lease for wool, lamb, pork, butter and cheese are half and less than half those charged by the United States. At the present time, the balance under lend-lease is tipped heavily against New Zealand, but it would be levelled up, or even swing in her favour, if American prices were charged for Dominion supplies. As supplies and services are being assessed, they should be accounted for on the same basis. This is important in the present to prove that New Zealand is pulling her weight and in the future should the United States require settlement, whether in goodß or money, of outstanding balances. Mr. Nash deprecates such comparisons as being foreign to the

conception of lend-lease. The difficulty is that the conception remains ill-defined. In fact, two different conceptions are held in the United States. Many Americans advocate an accounting and a final settlement. They are influential in Congress, and recently caused the President to delete from his report on lend-lease the sentence: "Victory and a secure peace are the only coin in which we can be repaid." The airy assertion that "there is no dollar sign over lend-lease" should not be accepted until it is formally ratified. Until the business is placed on a firmer footing, New Zealand should be careful to preserve her standing by putting the exchange on a more equitable price basis.

FARMING OUR MAINSTAY

A Government with a true sense of responsibility would long ago have been moved to action by the steady decline in the primary industry, on which New Zealand's economy was founded and still largely depends. The present Government gives no sign of moving to check the decline in farm output, probably because it does not realise all that is at stake. Even if it has no love for the farmers, it should try to understand how others it does favour will be affected. A fall in primary production reduces road and rail transport, cuts down staffs in dairy factories, freezing works, wool stores, and on the wharves, and—even more important—diminishes the overseas funds available for imports. These imports are essential to the maintenance and expansion of most of the secondary industries. Consider how local industries would be affected if a severe curtailment became necessary of such imports as iron and steel, farm implements, electrical machinery and apparatus, industrial machinery, motor vehicles, petrol and tyres, metals and their manufactures, cotton and other piece-goods, threads, sugar, chemicals, drugs and dyes, china and earthenware, and raw rubber. These commodities can only be purchased with the balance from exports after other overseas obligations are met. The reduction of farming means, therefore, the constriction of secondary industries and national economic deterioration. Apart from industrial necessities, farm exports also pay for many satisfactions New Zealanders would be loth to forgo, such as tea, tobacco, the means for pleasure motoring, tropical and dried fruits, chocolate, wines, spirits, and so on. If the Government is indifferent to the plight of the farmers and to the British appeal for large supplies of meat and dairy produce, at least it should have a care for all those others whose livelihood depends on a flourishing primary industry.