The Timaru Herald SATURDAY, JANUARY 2, 1943. FUTURE OF EUROPE

Timaru Herald, Volume CLIII, Issue 22469, 2 January 1943, Page 4

The Timaru Herald SATURDAY, JANUARY 2, 1943. FUTURE OF EUROPE

pl ERE was published recently in London a book entitled Rebuilding Europe which consisted of a series of interviews given by various Allied statesmen living in London to a correspondent of the Sunday Tinies. In it were sketched in broad outline the views of spokesmen for the free Governments of Poland, Belgium, Greece, Yugoslavia, Czechoslovakia, Luxemburg, Norway and Holland on political, military and economic matters. In the main, it is their belief that the political foundations of the New Europe must be laid first. Thus, Poland’s Foreign Minister, Count Raczynski, is concerned primarily with political resettlement. Dr Gerbrandy, the Dutch Prime Minister, says: “We need statesmen more than economists.” M. Pierlot, Prime Minister of Belg ium, calls for “First and most of all security.” M. Tsuderos, Prime Minister of Greece, speaks of “Justifiable national claims.” And President Benes, of Czechoslovakia, stresses the paramount importance of a “peace of punishment.” M. Herve Alphand, in an interview not included in the series, has expressed the Same view for Fighting France: only 30 per cent of the post-war resettlement, he holds, can be solved by economic means; the remaining 70 per cent is political. Only M. Bech, Luxemburg Foreign Minister, dissents; he maintains that “the future of Europe is likely to be determined more by economic than by political considerations.” Federation Problem

The core of most of these statements, states the Economist, is the problem of inter-state federation. Dr Benes and Count Kaczynski point to the scheme for a Polish-Czech Confederation; M. Tsuderos and the Yugoslav Foreign Minister, M. Nintschich, to the agreement for a Balkan Union. Count Raczynski speaks also of new federal structures such as Northern and Southern Slav Federations in Central and Eastern Europe; M. Tsuderos of an Eastern Mediterranean Union; Dr Benes of a German Confederation; M. Nintschich of a revived and strengthened League of Nations; M. Alphand of a Western European Union based on France and including Italy and the industrial districts of Western Germany; and M. Bech of a United States of Europe. But a note of reserve on these questions is sounded by the spokesmen of Norway, Belgium and Holland. Prime Minister Nygaardsvold of Norway stresses the need for homogeneity, for a common democratic spirit and common economic interests as the necessary conditions for closer collaboration among different nations. M. Pierlot enters the warning that “by extending the area indefinitely the strength and cohesion of the system may be diminished.” For Holland, Dr Gerbrandy says: “We have no use for an unreal conception such as a purely European grouping of nations, a United States of Europe.” Holland’s vast overseas interests and Norway’s position as a great seafaring nation are given as explanations of why these countries lean toward an “Atlantic” rather than a “Continental” system. The. vital importance of Britain not holding aloof from the European system is stressed no less strongly by those who take the “Continental” view. Count Raczynski calls for British-Polish economic rapprochement. M. Tsuderos points out how Germany has usurped Britain’s place in Balkan trade. M. Nintschich states emphatically that “Britain is in Europe and of Europe, and must play her part if peace and prosperity are to be achieved in Europe.” The need for Russia’s collaboration in post-war Europe is also generally agreed. Dr Benes declares that “I have always fought against the idea that Britain and Russia do not belong to Europe.” M. Nintschich believes that only a European organisation including Britain can give hope for the disappearance of the mutual suspicion which might result because of the differences in internal regime between the Soviet Union and the other states of Europe. Economic Considerations

Economic questions are not ignored in these statements; and on the choice between Free Trade and Planned Economy these Allied spokesmen are somewhat divided. Count Rzcynski deplores the “uncontrolled play of so-called natural forces.” Dr Gerbrandy, more rightly perhaps than he realises, regards economic planning as the modern expression of the medieval theory of the “just price.” Both M. Tsuderos and M. Nygaardsvold believe in planned economy. But Dr Benes only accepts these views with considerable reservations; and both M. Pierlot and M. Alphand largely disagree. M. Pierlot has no confidence in a purely planned economy with at its head one or several men in sole charge of thinking and planning.” M. Alphand believes in a happy medium between the liberal form of economy and planning. Great stress is laid by most of the speakers on the economy of largescale territorial units and on the necessarily international character of post-war economics. All insist upon the necessity of establishing a sufficiently high standard of living and developing adequate buying power in every country. M. Pierlot shows how Belgium must export or starve. M. Nygaardsvold emphasises the fact of Norway’s shipping services as its only means of payment for imported raw materials. M. Tsuderos stresses the need for lat'gelecale British purchases of raw ‘materials in the Balkans. M. Alphand points to the all-important part which the creditor nations, mainly the United States, will have to play in determining the character of international trade after the war. Dr Benes and Count Raczynski are most concerned with the peculiar economic difficulties of Central and Eastern Europe.