AMERICA AND EUROPE

Wanganui Chronicle, Volume 74, Issue 141, 17 June 1931, Page 6

AMERICA AND EUROPE

"J7UIIUPE already resents, as strongly as possible, what it calls our ‘holier-than-thou’ attitude; our tendency to offer sanctimonious advice based on a failure to recognise the real and desperate problems with which she is still confronted,” said the New York New Republic in commenting on the suggestion that if war debts were cancelled Europe would simply spend more on armaments. “An effort on our part to bribe her into being good—-which is how the Europeans would describe it—would incite her people to a rage against us which would make our present degree of unpopularity seem like positive affection. Europe would have an answer ready for us and it would be a good one; if we are so keen about limitation of armament, are we really prepared to share in the whole necessary process? Until we are ready to act vigorously and drastically for peace, it will avail us nothing to call upon Europe to be righteous, even though we throw in the offer to cancel a. few billion dollars’ worth of debts.” The New fork Republic might, however, have gone further and enquired how it comes about that the United States still harps upon European armaments while continuing to sustain a “prestige” navy. The inconsistency is too apparent to be sincere. The real reason for such advocacy is that there is a large body of the United States public which does not desire to see any cancellation of the European indebtedness. This section cannot see the advantage which would be gained by the United States itself. The objection to European armaments is not the real reason for the non-cancellation, but it will do for an excuse. Reasons are one thing, but excuses are of quite a different quality, and their adoption depend upon their complexion. The Americans who cannot, or will not, see that war debt cancellation is desirable for humanity, find in the excuse that debt cancellation would facilitate armaments, some semblance of the righteousness to themselves. The New York Republic is right, however, in reminding its readers that to the rest of the world such an attitude bears no colour of righteousness, but of unetiinoniousness.