The Daily News SATURDAY, JULY 16, 1932. NEW INTERNATIONALISM.

Taranaki Daily News, 16 July 1932, Page 6

The Daily News SATURDAY, JULY 16, 1932. NEW INTERNATIONALISM.

The invitation issued by Great Britain and France to European nations to carry the Lausanne spirit into all theii* relations is, presumably, the outcome o£ one of the mysterious pacts whiph have been causing Mr. Lloyd George and Mr. Winston Churchill so much perturbation, and it turns out that tuere is nothing at all alarming in it. Simultaneously in the House of Commons and the Chamber of Deputies Sir John Simon and M. Herriot have launched the proposal in the frankest possible terms, and it is disclosed that the two nations have combined forces with the object of implementing a declaration described by the British Foreign Minister as “part of the final act at the Lausanne Conference.” In that declaration the signatory Powers, “express the hope that the task here accomplished will be followed by fresh achievement.” They affirm that “further success will be more readily won if the nations will rally to a new effort in the cause of peace, which can be complete only if it is applied in both the economic and the political sphere.” There is no mystery in this, nor is there a hint of danger in the AngloFrench announcement. It is simply the first step towards the European co-operation which the Lausanne Powers now believe to be desirable. M. Herriot, it is true, has eulogised the pact as a resurrection of the Entente Cordiale—a welcome change from the rather stand-off attitude that has characterised Franco-British relations in recent years—but it is obviously an entente envisaging far greater possibilities than the old one did. If it connoted the linking together of Britain and France in mutual enterprises to the detriment of, or at least without regard for, the interests of their neighbours it would conflict with the spirit of the Lausanne declaration. What it means is that Britain and France realise that they are the natural leaders of Europe, and it is their duty to take the first step towards the fullest and widest international co-operation. No other idea could be countenanced by the British Ministers who represented their country at Lausanne. Their foreign policy definitely aims at the broadening and strengthening of international relations, and it is safe to assume that they expect their latest action to exercise great influence beyond the borders of Europe; that is to say, they will not be satisfied until the United States and other nations also are ; working hand in hand with Europe to make the world safer and happier. No lesser ideal than this could appeal to Mr. Ramsay MacDonald, to whose far-sightedness and steadfastness the successful issue of the reparations conference is universally attributed. Mr. MacDonald’s’ record in foreign politics is indeed a remarkably brilliant one; as brilliant as his record in domestic paLiiks.

threatened not long ago to be disappointing. His first period of office as Prime Minister at the head of a Labour* Government, short though it was, served to indicate the inability of Labour to grapple with domestic problems, though in respect of international questions far greater success was achieved. Mr. MacDonald again led his party to the Treasury benches three , years ago, and within two years his domestic policy had brought the nation to the verge of disaster, though foreign affairs had been handled with exceptional skill. Mr. MacDonald and the Labour* Party were powerless to cope with the economic crisis to which their unwise policy had contributed so largely, and the country had to call the stalwarts of the other parties to its aid—Mr. Baldwin, Mr. Neville Chamberlain, Sir John Simon and the rest, They have proved equal to the task of saving Britain from the fate to which Labour had condemned her, and their success has made it possible for the Prime Minister to take the lead in international affair?. Unquestionably Mr. MacDonald has a natural capacity for foreign politics and is blessed with exceptional qualities as a mediator, but it is fair to recognise also that the Labour Party, at any rate until its eclipse through its own folly, took a broad and enlightened view of international questions. That, of course, was the reason why. men possessing ability and education were attracted to the party instead of throwing in their lot with those parties to. which tradition would have attached them. And the newer clement in the Labour Party realised more clearly than any other the real significance of the changes in the conduct of foreign affairs brought about by post-war developments. Previously foreign politics had been a mysterious business carried on in secret by men presumed to be experts in diplomacy. 1 Tlie times have demanded new methods, and Mr, MacDonald and many of his Labour friends were among the first to grasp the needs of an altered ’ situation. The Prime Minister’s achievements as a negotiator in the international field have depended to an extent on his personal qualities, but also upon the readiness of the Labour movement to extend its international outlook. It is the more curious that Labour has failed so signally, not only in Britain but elsewhere, to meet the changing economic conditions, though the reason is not really obscure. It is simply that in its understanding of domestic and economic affairs Labour has made no progress. It has clung to an economic policy based on no better foundation than that afforded by obsolete catchwords, and it has been handicapped by “class consciousness.” Its foreign policy; however, has been framed by men like Mr. MacDonald, no longer obsessed with the idea of class struggle and in their new freedom of thought able to do the world better service than they could do their own country. 'RATIONAL PRODUCTION. The appeal made 'by the GovernorGeneral at Auckland this week for “rational” production in both primary and, secondary industries was well timed. Lord Bledisloe, who speaks wiUli tho authority of the trained but impartial observer, emphasised the fact that for many years to come New Zealand must depend upon the export of primary produce for her existence; It is a conclusion which no one can challenge, hut its acceptance, as His Excellency pointed out, does not imply that there is no room for the growth of industrial and commercial enterprise as ■well. Lord Bledisloe urged that, the test of all contemplated enterprise should be whether the production proposed would (benefit New Zealand in the first place and whether it would assist ia the development of the Empire as a whole. The Governor-General pleaded for a wider outlook, but he was careful to add that this did not mean attempts to establish in the Dominion industries which could only exist under exotic conditions. On the contrary, his reminder that enterprises which throw 1 a burden upon the rest of the community cannot in the long run 'benefit the country or those engaged in them is explicit. Development of primary industries by every possible mean's, bringing with it an increase in rural population and thereby an increased market for local manufactures, is the first line of development Lord Bledisloe commends. Next to that he places manufactures ancillary to primary production, and then industrial development reorganised upon an Empire basis. Such a policy, controlled and developed by private enterprise and with no loaning upon Government aid, envisages a future for the Dominion that is full of hope. It is no paradise of dream's, but a practical programme, in which all who share in the Dominion’s trade and industry may take their part and may do so without delay. HIGHWAYS FUNDS. The reply of the Main Highways Board to the allegation that funds derived from the petrol tax and other special charges upon motor traffic have ’been unfairly allocated- was comprehensive and entirely satisfactory. The principal “grievance” came from the South Island, where motorists’ organisations have been wont to complain that their members were being taxed for the benefit of districts in the North Island, in which the local authorities concerned had neglected road establishment or upkeep. The board’s reply shows how unjustified the South Island compaints were. It shows that since the inception of the Main Highways scheme and the special taxation far iis

the percentage of revenue collected in the North Island has been 65.1 and in the South Island 34.9. Expenditure tais ■been in the ratio of 65.5 in the North Island to 34.5 in the (South Island. The board shows further that the allocations ■have 'been strictly in accordance with' petrol consumption, it being recognised' that the petrol tax is the principal source of its revenue. Of the total consumption of petrol 68.62 per cent, was used in the North Island and 31.38 in the South Island. The plain statement of the Main Highways Board should, once and for all, dispose of the allegations of unfair treatment between North and South. As a matter of fact a very good case could have been made for preferential treatment in the North Island. It is generally admitted that roading problems are more difficult there than in the South Island, that the trend of population is towards the North, and that as expenditure upon roading must have an intimate relationship to the increased production it is likely to bring about there are greater opportunities in the North Island. However, the board has preferred a strictly impartial policy between the two islands, and now it has made known the details pf the expenditure there should 'be an end of any provincial ■jealousies. There may not be unanimity of opinion in regard to the works undertaken by the board and tho expenditure upon them. It has at least been shown that the board has endeavoured to avoid anything like favouritism as between district and district.