FREETRADE

Otago Daily Times, Issue 18759, 12 January 1923, Page 8

FREETRADE

A VIENNA DISCUSSION. NO SUPPORTERS OF SYSTEM. INTERPARLIAMENTARY UNION. One of the largest and most successful gatherings over held—such is the general opinion expressed by delegates to the twentieth conference of the Inter-parliamentary Union, held recently in Vienna. There were present between 300 and 400 delegates, representing 24 nations, reports the Christian Science Monitor. The meetings were held in the House of Deputies, in the Parliament building on the Ringstrasse. Throe countries wore not represented : Czecho-Slovakia, Jugo-Slavia, and Rumania, Their absence was said to be duo to a disinclination to consider one of the most important resolutions of the conference—that, concerning the rights of racial minorities. Their absence was much regretted, as each of the three countries includeus such minorities in its new territories.

The United States sent 10 delegates equally divided as to politics; live senators and five members of the House of Representatives.

Canada was represented by Sir George Foster. Great Britain had 12 delegates, headed by Sir James Agg Gardiner. The strongest delegation came from Italy, and numbered between 70 and 80.

Dr Treub, former Finance Minister of Holland, introduced tho first important resolution, which dealt with economic and financial questions. Tho gist of tho resolution was in favour of abolishing the present vexatious and irrational restrictions on international trade, so largely responsible for tho distressed conditions of Central European countries. But tho resolution went still further, declaring that the Customs duties should bo of a non-prohibitivo or non-protectionist character, and that numerous articles should be admitted free of all import duties. VIGOROUS PROTESTS. Tliis attack on Protection drew forth some vigorous protests. Sir George Foster ! pointed out that Canada had had a protective system since 1878, and needed it. What the resolution proposed was an ineffective remedy, he said. Sir George added that if tho resolution was adopted, ho would feel obliged to withdraw from the conference. Mr Burton, of Ohio, also spoke against tho resolution, although he said that his group would not withdraw if it were carried. although its acceptance wouid be most unpleasant to them. Protectionist policy had existed in the United States for many years, and could not bo permitted to be made a subject, of reproach, he declared, America treated all nations alike. One of tho existing political parties had even proposed a favoured nation treaty with Germany. The present state of Europe was a consequence of tho war and of the breaking down of tho former economic relations and the erection of barriers between individual States. “Restore the old lines of commerce which are now broken, and tear clown again tho barriers,” ho advised. “We will gladly report to America that harmony prevails in Europe, and that hatred is buried. But leave us our financial policy, which must continue in force ns the foundation Stone of our national existence.” Ove Rode, of Denmark, also opposed tho resolution, saying that unconditional Free Trade was for the moment an impossibility. Other speakers also protested against tho removal of duties from all foodstuffs.

In the end, the resolution was referred to a drafting committee to be reintroduced in a more generally acceptable form., Tho committee, however, reported that it had been unable to agree upon a new formula, so the whole question was then allowed to drop. Baron Adolswaerd, of Sweden, introduced a highly important resolution on the rights of racial minorities, which proposed the appoinnient of a permanent commission to draft international regulations tending to safeguard the rights of racial and religious majorities in every country. ABSENTEES LESSEN INTEREST.

The debate lost much of its interest in tho absence of delegations from Czechoslovakia, Jugo-Slavin, and Rumania—tho throe countries from which the most complaints of oppression of minorities are earning at the present time. Their non-attendance was sharply criticised, Lord Newton, of tho English group, said that the Little Entente always runs away when this subject is mentioned. Ho thought they might at least have come to listen and to reply, if they thought fit, to any charges. In this case, tho proverb that the absent arc always wrong might very well be applied, ho declared. Mr Burton reported on the work of tho Washington Conference, and the continuation of that work with a view to the economic reconstruction of tho world. Ho said that in the United States Budget for 1920, out of the total estimated expenditure, only 400 000,000 dollars was for civil purposes, all the rest was for military objects and war expenses. The surest way to economic reconstruction and to restoring political and social progress lay through restricting military expenditure, and bringing about juster and more reasonable relations between various countries, ho said. Reduction of armaments and military conscription were dealt with in one debate. The general opinion of the Conference seemed distinctly in favour of tho former, but there wore some differences of opinion regarding conscription. Dr Imaizumi, of Japan, thought, military conscription was a matter which should be left to the decision of individual countries. Dr Gothoim, of Germany, said: “We desire to do everything possible to avert the horrors of a future war, but this can be done, only through an international agreement as to disarmament.’! , < Tho discussions lasted so long that it was impossible to got through tho whole agenda *of the meeting, and resolutions on the parliamentary control of foreign, policy, colonial mandates, and the League of Nations had to be left over to the next Conference. . . , The Danish group invited tho Conference to meet next at Copenhagen in 1923 or 1924.