WORLD PROBLEMS

Otago Daily Times, Issue 23413, 31 January 1938, Page 9

WORLD PROBLEMS

M. VAN ZEELAND’S REPORT

RECEPTION IN GERMANY AND ITALY

NON-COMMITTAL ATTITUDE

(United Press Association) (By Electric Telegraph—Copyright)

LONDON, Jan. 29,

(Received Jan. 30, at 6.30 p.m.)

The Berlin correspondent of The Times says that the German Government reserves its comment on the report of M. vah Zeeland on international economic problems, pointing out that it is primarily a French and British document, in the drawing up of which Germany had not a part. Moderate quarters did not seem displeased with the report, but the newspapers are hardly optimistic that any good results will accrue The Rome correspondent of The Times states that the tendency in Fascist circles is to decry the report, as the author is a democrat sponsored by Democrat Powers. Nevertheless, commercial opinion is inclined to be sympathetic, as the report offers means of obtaining credits which are vitally necessary as the operations in Abyssinia and Spain are slowly sucking Italy’s capital dry. There is also a strong feeling that the pursuit of selfsufficiency has been pushed too far. driving up prices and causing widespread hardship. These considerations may lead Signor Mussolini to view M. van Zeeland’s report more attentively. ATTITUDE OF UNITED STATES THREE POINTS OF OPPOSITION NEW YORK, Jan. 30. (Received Jan. 30, at 7 p.m.) The Washington correspondent of the _ New York Times says that official reaction to M. Van Zeeland’s report shows that:— 1. It will oppose a world monetary conference at present. 2. It will oppose the creation of an international fund or authority for the management of foreign exchange. 3. It will oppose revision of the tripartite monetary agreement. PESSIMISM IN JAPAN FUNDAMENTAL CAUSE IGNORED THE “HAVES” AND “HAVE-NOTS” TOKIO, Jan. 29.' (Received Jan. 30, at 7.30 p.m.) Japanese industrial and financial circles maintain a pessimistic attitude to M. van Zeeland’s report. It is pointed out that the report does not touch the fundamental cause of international unrest —namely, unequal distribution of the world’s wealth and antagonism between the haves ” and the “ have-nots,” but dwells instead on a technical solution of questions of trade and currency. which are regarded in Japan as only side issues. Scepticism is general regarding the possibilities of a world conference. BRITAIN’S TARIFF SYSTEM CONTINUANCE INDICATED LONDON, Jan. 29. (Received Jan. 30, at 6.30 p.m.) The Chancellor of the Exchequer (Sir John Simon), speaking at Leeds, said that M. van Zeeland’s report would be studied by the British Government with the closest attention. Referring to the importance which M. van Zeeland attached to bilateral commercial agreements, Sir John said it was only since Britain had her own tariff system that such an agreement could be secured by her. This,, new policy made possible a whole series of tariff agreements with foreign countries, greatly to the advantage of various classes of British exporters. These certainly could not have been obtained without a fiscal instrument. The same policy would be continued. BRITISH PRESS COMMENT THE NEED OF CO-OPERATION (British Official Wireless) RUGBY, Jan. 28. Commenting editorially on M. van Zeeland’s report, the Daily Telegraph considers that “the political difficulties are epitomised in his suggestion that the first step is to ascertain if the Great Powers are prepared to attempt international economic co-operation.” There are fundamental difficulties, but the Daily Telegraph adds: “ The hour may not seem propitious but the very urgency of the case may tend to, overcome hesitation which would otherwise be insuperable. In exposing the dangers, M. van Zeeland may have evoked the will to avert them.”

The City editor of The Times says: “It may fairly be asked: When is economic disarmament ever to be tackled if it is to be done neither in years of depression nor in years of recovery?"

The Manchester Guardian states: “ What he proposes is really that Germany and Italy should be given an opportunity to bring their economic demands into the open,” and adds: “ If the report can be made an instrument for working a change of helrt in the States that have preferred war economy to peaceful cooperation, well and good; but without a change of heart it will be stillborn.”

The Daily Herald considers “ that it would be an extreme piece of humbug to exempt democratic Gov ernments from any responsibility either for the present evil state of things or for failure to put it right.” The Times commends M. van Zeeland for avoiding the tendency to preach a kind of economic crusade and divide the nations into sheep and goats. The Financial News takes a highly critical attitude.