TRADE RELATIONS

Otago Daily Times, Issue 26026, 14 December 1945, Page 5

TRADE RELATIONS

COMPLICATED TERMS NO EQUALITY OF SACRIFICE (Rec 7 p.m.) LONDON, Dec. 12. “I think we have had to accept a very hard bargain,” said Sir John Anderson (Con.). “There is no support here for the theory that when the British and Americans get together bn a deal the Americans are always outsmarted.” He indulged in the hope that means would have been found of adjusting payment in conformity with the principles of equal sacrifice, clean slate principles for which, until recently, there was powerful backing on both sides of the Atlantic. He took the view that the scheme did not mean a return to the gold standard, and declared that unless the Americans kept dollars flowing freely through the international trade arteries there was no hope whatever for the arrangements. He said that Britain, almost alone, was stripped of her gold dollars. The countries occupied by the enemy suffered terrible privations, but their reserves were put in cold storage. They and the dominions were in a good position to carry on trade with the United States. The Opposition would not oppose the motion if put to a division, but. on the other hand, it would not vote for it. Full of Qualifications Sir John Anderson confessed that he found the document on the declaration of commercial policy most complicated, most obscure, and full of qualifications, reservations and interlocking provisions. “I always considered Britain was bound by the provisions of article 7 of the Mutual Trade Agreement, but consider that while thereby we were prepared to discuss the whole field, we were no more under an obligation to scrap Imperial preference than the Americans were to scrap their protective tariffs.” He thought the plan could be worked, but its success lay in the hands of the Government. The President of the Board of Trade, Sir Stafford Cripps, introducing the commercial side of the agreements, stressed the fact that the future peace of the world did not depend so much on purely political considerations or co-operation as upon eliminating financial, commercial, and industrial practices and measures which, in the past, proved themselves a fertile seed-bed for war. “We must either arrive at the best international understanding we can and persuade others to accept it, or else abandon all ideas of international agreement upon economic and commercial matters; and so revert to the dangerous anarchy from which we have suffered so acutely.” International agreements, he said, must be based on concessions from all nations if the rule of law was to be substituted for anarchy. The proposals for the international trade agreement did not constitute an agreemc

but the Government was in full agreement on all the important points and accepted them as a basis for international discussions between Britain and America. It would urge their adoption, but their implementation must finally depend on their adoption by other countries. , Sir Stafford Cripps, replying to a question whether the Gpvernment could say “ No ” to the proposals without prejudicing the loan, said it could not withdraw from the agreement and leave the other two parts standing. They were all essential parts of the scheme. Liberals’ Attitude Mr E. L. Granville (Lib.) said the Liberal. Party supported the proposals because it believed they were a step towards the Liberal policy of freer trade and economic co-operation. There must be world government or another war. This was the first move towards European and world reconstruction. The Conservative, Squadron Leader C. Hollis, said he yielded to no one in a desire for close Anglo-American co-operation, but he recalled that many peoole before > the war made speeches about collective security and passed resolutions to resist aggression, “but when all the battalions of hell came against us, four nations alone geographically and furthest from the scene of battle, came to our aid- They were the four great dominions.’— (Cheers.) Squadron Leader Hoiiis expressed the opinion that the agreement would be a dangerous enemy to Anglo-American friendship. Mr Oliver Lyttelton (Con.) said no one had yet answered Mr Dalton’s question: “ What is the alternative? ” “ I cannot answer it myself,” said Mi Lyttelton- "Therefore I should not be able conscientiously to vote against the Government motion. The loan is absolutely essential; the terms are onerous—so onerous as nearly to defeat the objects of the transaction, I welcome and accept the other provisions of the proposals.”