America and Europe

Sun (Auckland), Volume II, Issue 509, 12 November 1928, Page 9

America and Europe

Misunderstanding Lamented

“No Profit Made From War”

COOLIDGE LAMENTS DISCORD

(United P.A.—Dti Telegraph — Copyright) < Australian and N.Z. Press Association)

Received 2_p.m. WASHINGTON, Sunday. THE President, Mr. Calvin Coolidge, in Ms Armistice Day address at Washington, made an important statement on foreign policy. He said the United States was the only country after the conflict which had much reserve power left. Her resources had delivered Europe from starvation and ruin.

He denied that the United States had made a profit out of the war. Her expenditure on It probably totalled £20,000,000,000, or half the entire wealth of the country, when she entered the war. , America’s benefits from the conflict were not material, but spiritual. The people had now awakened to the drumbeats of their new destiny. Every dictate of humanity constantly cried aloud that they' did not want any more war. The eternal questions before the nations were how to prevent war, and how to defend themselves if it came. Continuing, Mr. Coolidge said he did not know of any nation which had ever been able to provide arms enough to always he at peace. It was their duty to themselves, to the cause of civilisation, to the preservation of domestic tranquillity, and to their orderly and lawful relations with foreign people to maintain an adequate army and navy. NEED OF SEA FORCE America did not need a large land force, but the situation was different when they turned to the sea. The President referred to the long coastline and to America’s foreign commerce, which he said was unsurpassed in importance; also to her foreign investments, and to the number of her people and the value of her treasure, which had to be protected. America also was bound by international treaty to defend the Panama Canal. Because she had few fuel stations, she required ships of large tonnage. As she had scarcely any merchant vessels capable of having five or six-inch guns mounted.on them, it was obvious that, based on her needs, she was entitled to a larger number of warships than a nation which had these advantages. America had called the Washington Conference for the purpose of reaching a naval agreement. No doubt it had some significance that foreign Governments had made agreements to limit the class of fighting vessels in which America was superior, but had refused to limit the class in which they were superior. America had made altogether the heaviest sacrifice in scrapping work which was already in existence. That should for ever remain not only a satisfaction to themselves, but a demonstration to others of America’s good faith in advocating the principle of limitations. FUTILE PROPOSALS Referring to the conference between Britain, Japan, and the United States, the President said that at that conference America had proposed a limitation „ of cruiser tonnage of 250,000 to 300,000 tons. As nearly as they could figure out Britain’s proposal, she asked for from 425,000 to 600,000 tons. No agreement was made, because it appeared to America that to agree to so large a tonnage would constitute, not limitation, but an extension of the war fleets. Speaking of the rejection of the Anglo-French naval agreement, Mr. Coolidge said that if America had not rejected it the French Army and the British Navy would have been so nearly unlimited that the principle of limitation would virtually have been abandoned. KELLOGG PACT PRAISED The President praised the Kellogg Treaty for the outlawry of war. He said it recognised to the fullest extent the duty of self-defence, and did not undertake to be —as no human ingenuity could undertake —an absolute guarantee against war. Still, it was the most complete, and would be the most effective instrument for peace ever devised. They could only say that it was the best that mortal man could do. It was beside the mark to argue that they should put no faith in the treaty. As regards reparation and war debts Mr. Coolidge said they uad heard an impressive amount of discussion about America’s duty to Europe. They had such duties, but they were mutual. American loans to Germany had enabled the Germans to pay reparation. but there was little reason for sending capital abroad while the rates for money in London and Paris were 4 and 5 per cent., whereas American rates were much higher. Britain was

placing very considerable loans abroad. France had large credits abroad, some of which had been called home. Both countries were making very large outlays for military purposes. EUROPE’S STABILITY On the whole, Europe had arrived at a state of financial stability and prosperity where it could not be said that' America was called upon to help or to act much beyond a strict business basis, yond a strict business basis. The needs of her own people required that any further advances by America should have most careful consideration. It would not only be a selfish, but an entirely unenlightened view for the United States not to wish Europe

to prosper. She wanted an investment of life and of the money she had made there to be to their benefit. She would like to have her Government debts all settled, though it was probable that she could better afford to lose them than her debtors could afford not to pay them. . It had always been plain, said Mr. Coolidge, that Europe and the United States were lacking in mutual understanding. “We are prone to think they can do as we do,” he added. “We are not interested in their age-old animosities. We have not suffered from centuries of violent hostilities. We do not see how difficult it is for them to displace distrust in each other with faith in each other. “On the other hand, they in Europe appear to think that we are going to do exactly what they would do if they had our chance.” AGAINST IMPERIALISM America was against Imperialism. Her outlying possessions, with the exception of the Panama Canal, were a hindrance, not an advantage. If the United States could secure more complete reciprocity in goodwill, in the final liquidation of the balance of her foreign debts and In such further limitation of armaments as would be commensurate with the treaty renouncing war; her confidence in the effectiveness of any additional efforts on her part to assist in the future progress of Europe would be greatly increased. OUTSIDE THE LEAGUE UNITED STATES POLICY SIR A. CHAMBERLAIN’S VIEWS (Australian and N.Z. Press Association) (United Service) OTTAWA, Saturday. The Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, Sir Austen Chamberlain, in the course of an Interview to-day, said he thought it improbable that the United States would enter the League of Nations in his lifetime. He did not consider the fact of particular concern, "for the co-operation and friendliness of the United States toward all the activities of the League is very marked and thoroughly appreciated.” Sir Austen’s private car was derailed by a broken rail while he was on his way from Toronto on Saturday. It remained upright, and > no one was injured.