ECONOMICS AND WAR

Wanganui Chronicle, Volume 79, Issue 110, 11 May 1936, Page 9

ECONOMICS AND WAR

THE COLONIAL QUESTION OPEN MARKETS NEEDED Mr. Ramsay Muir, speaking at a lunch-hour meeting of the NorthWestern Free Trade Union held at the Grosvenor Hotel, Manchester, declared that economic nationalism and exclusiveness were the main causes of the psychological conditions which might bring about another world war, and expressed the opinion that the world was yearning for the leadership of Great Britain towards a saner economic policy which would case the world political situation, says the “Manchester Guardian.” Mr. P. M. Oliver presided. There was one aspect of the world situation, said Mr. Ramsay Muir, which was a nightmare to him and, he was sure, a nightmare to all whom he was addressing. We were, to all external appearances, much more seriously threatened by a world war than we were in February, 1914, and he was going to ask them to consider how far the economic issue—the issue between Free Trade and Protection—was concerned with the development of this grim situation. DISSATISFIED NATIONS. ‘‘There are three countries in which the dominant Government is busily using all the resources of modern .psychological methods to force their people into the state of mind of rejoicing in and desiring war and believing in its nobility. Why is it that in these three nations this awful mentality has again risen into power? You may say it is because of the dictators. But the Mussolinis and the Hitlers would hardly have been able to establish their power and certainly not to wield it as they have done, unless they had had something to play upon in the minds of their own people. And what they have been able to play upon is the feeling of those peoples that they have no room for expansion, cannot feed themselves by their own resources, and that the whole world i. r engaged in locking them out of theii share of the world’s abundance. In such circumstances they say: ‘lf wc have to die we will die fighting rathe, than die of starvation.’ I do not thinl that is an exaggerated view of the situation. “How was it to be amended? The League of Nations might stop wai temporarily, but it would not stop the urge towards war unless the fundamental causes of the urge towards war were dealt with. Among the deeper causes of the urge towards war by far the most potent is the conviction in the minds of many peoples that they are being shut out from the abundance that the earth offers. These peoples are all claiming colonies in the false belief that if they had external territory they would be all right, they would have room for expansion, supplies of raw materials, and markets in which they could sell their goods. There is. however, no solution in the transfer of territory. Even if we could persuade the British people to divide up the British Empire—apart from the selfgoverning Dominions—that would be no solution, because there is no territory that we could give to any of these nations that would meet the needs which are driving them into a state of despair. Moreover, I think it would be a positively wicked thing to hand over the destinies of any of the simple peoples to the control of Nazis or Fascists, and so divert those interesting experiments in the development of the self-governing habit.” ACCESS TO RAW MATERIALS. The solution was along the lines oi access to raw materials. But these nations wanted markets for their goods, as well as access to raw materials, and the only solution was to be found in open markets. That used to be traditional British policy. Between 1860 and 1900 the whole of Africa was partitioned, and we got the lion’s share. How was it that the world allowed us to get it almost without any kind of struggle? It was because the world knew that if someone else got it the world would be excluded by tariffs but any territory acquired by Grea Britain would be open to the tradinf of other countries on equal terms with British traders. Great Britain had reversed tha 4 policy by the Ottawa Agreement, and that reversal seemed to him to be the worst feature of the Ottawa Agreement.