Poverty Bay Herald. PUBLISHED EVERY EVENING TUESDAY, AUGUST 13, 1929. INTERNATIONAL DEBTS

Poverty Bay Herald, Volume LV, Issue 17028, 13 August 1929, Page 6

Poverty Bay Herald. PUBLISHED EVERY EVENING TUESDAY, AUGUST 13, 1929. INTERNATIONAL DEBTS

Britain's categorical refusal to ratify the Young report in its present form must have come like the explosion of a bombshell into the calm atmosphere of complacent American neutrality. For (hiring the whole of ihe negotiations America has blandly taken it for granted that her problems, so far as Britain was concerned, were settled and dune with. The major portion of her attention has been directed during the recent months to France in the first order of importance and to Germany in the second. Almost at the same time as the cabled news was received of Mr. Philip Snowden 's uncompromising utterance at The Hague, in which he made it clear that'his refusal to ratify the Young proposals had the full support of his Government and of the people of Britain as a whole, the mails brought to hand some American comments upon the probable trend of events at the Conference. These comments are educative in the highest degree, as showing the characteristics of American neutrality on the whole subject and as leading back to the curious conclusion that the country from which the Young plan emanated may in the last resort be responsible for its wrecking. Even the moderate American press admits that on the broad question of international indebtedness there may be room for more than one opinion, but all are agreed on the eminent desirability of French ratification of debts to the United States, and the prophecy was made that the whole question would be settled by August 1. In this regard, the idea in the American mind is perfectly simple. If arrangements can be made whereby Germany will fulfil her obligation's to Franco, the latter country will find it easier to pay the United" States. But in no case can France be freed of her ultimate obligation to pay America whether Germany toes the line or not. This is regarded as "a simple, logical proposition about the validity of which there should not be the smallest excitement in either country." It is clearly stated that Mr. Owen D. Young and his colleagues worked upon this assumption in Paris. They safeguarded American interests in providing that Germany should give the wherewithal to France to reimburse the United States. It looks very like "heads 1 win and tails you lose," insofar as it is true that come what may. America stands to collect her debts while other countries .scramble among themselves to find the means to satisfy her. ft remained, however, during the actual negotiations, for the British Chancellor to shift the accent somewhat and point out in definite terms to America and to all concerned that although the assumption was that the Young report was indivisible; although, indeed, it was stated that the report must be received in toto or not at all. Britain was not prepared to accept that dictum. Willi entire justification he pointed out that Britain's war debt, which is now, at present values, £7,. r >00,000,000, amounts to more than double that of any other country, and that if his country could not emerge from the present negotiations with some degree of satisfaction, she had every right to find exception to the existing debt-funding arrangements. Again, with valid justification, ho asked why the Conference needed to meet at all if the report were indivisible, and why the various committees were set up if not to make the various adjustments necessary in each particular case. Mr. Snowden took a firm stand and brought Britain's point of view strongly to the front, when he pointed out that no sacrifices tlie nations were called upon to make were comparable to Britain's. Ho reminded the Conference that it was because of no merely material interests, but in defence of treaty rights that Britain had entered the war; and he gave chapter and verse for the generous sacrifices that have already been made by Britain. Thus. the Allies on the conclusion of hostilities owed Britain £2,000,000,000, and only a moeity of that sum had been agreed upon as full settlement. France's debt amounted to £OOO,000,000, and an agreement had been reached for £227,000,000. Britain had likewise settled with Italy a debt of £5(50,000,000 for the present value of £78,000,000. On the other hand—and the contrast is so evident that i: stares one in. the face —Britain owed the United States approximately £1,000,000,000 and by the settlement had to pav over a period of sixty years an aggregate of £2,200,000,000, a sum which is more than double the amount of that which was borrowed. Surely this is sufficient justification for the Chancellor's insistence upon British rights, and it ought to be patent to the whole world that America, and America in chief if not alone, stands to gain at the expense of the loss of other nations. In regard to Italy, Mr. Snowden showed that under the Young plan Britain, which had already sacrificed to an en )rmous extent, would be mulcted of a further £30,000,000, so that the receipts for a loan funded at £500,000,000 would amount only to £48,000,000. The case he put up is in controvertible and irrefragible, and it was put forward as a timely reminder that what is said regarding British sacrifices is based upon the sclid foundation of facta that cannot

be denied. America presumes to be tli? nation which is endeavoring to to\ch idealism and the general ideas of peace to the world, but on the basis of "take all and give nothing" in the material sense, it is difficult to see how any high structure of idealism can be built up. Specially difficult from the British poiut of view is it to understand the right of any nation to expect that on the advice to give all and take nothing, that hotter understanding for which America so constantly and ardently hopes and prays can be brought about amongst the nations of the world. A little more practical idealism would go a long way towards the creation of a better international atmosphere.