The Waikato Times With which is Incorporated The Waikato Argus. THURSDAY, AUGUST 23, 1923. ANGLO-SAXON UNITY.

Waikato Times, Volume 98, Issue 15321, 23 August 1923, Page 4

The Waikato Times With which is Incorporated The Waikato Argus. THURSDAY, AUGUST 23, 1923. ANGLO-SAXON UNITY.

Mr Stanley Baldwin has been giving an address to the Rhodes Scholarship Trust on the occasion of their annual dinner. His speech is one which will give ynalloyed pleasure in Britain and in America, though it is not certain that it will be equally well received in foreign countries, for the porlion of the speech which breaches us is one long laudation of the British Empire and the United States. We aro ready to admit that we agree entirely with what Mr Baldwin has said, but we are not sure that it was wise to say it. He points out what has become painfully apparent to us in the last few years, that it is much easier to destroy than to construct, and that in the par-lous'-condition in which the world finds itself to-day, it is turning instinctively to the British Empire and the United States for aid and rescue. The finest part of Mr Baldwin's speech is his' explanation why other nations turn lo these two countries. He is a business man, and it might have been thought that he would point out that no other country had surplus capital for investment. He does not even mention this, but confines himself to the national characteristics of the Englishmen as they appear to him. The innate love of justice, the democratic instinct to value a man for what ho is, the love of political liberty, and the love of spiritual liberty. Mr Baldwin is cautious enough lo admit that we often fall short of attaining those ideals, but he claims that we never lose sight of the aim, and that in consequence we inspire confidence among other people, and are, therefore, able lo assist. If it were possible to find an impartial judge on such a question, we believe that Mr Baldwin would be upheld on a review of the history of the past hundred years, but there probably would be considerable exceptions made, for Britain cannot claim to have been consistently high-minded in international dealings any more than other countries. The whole question of the morality to be observed in dealJug with foreign, -countries is compli-

oaled and uncertain. Tho man in tho ] street would say that there should ho tho same standard observed as when dealing with your neighbour, to which ono can only reply that such a rule never has been observed, and that it is not quite clear that it should be. Between citizens of tho same State there is much in common; tho same ideas of what is fair and reasonable; tho one code of law, and a system of justice and police to enforco it. 'None of these conditions' obtain in the Intercourse between different States. It Is in tho hopo of creating these conditions that the League of Nations has been founded. Those nations, however, which are .the chief powers' In the League havo not made much use of it for Hie settlement of international questions, but have relied on the old plan of claiming a great deal and obtaining as much as possible of their claim. No nation makes a good figure when -the question is' one of settlement | after a war, and we should not overlook the fact that France conceives she has a grievance against Britain as having obtained the lion's share of the booty when disposing of German and Turkish territory. So far such acquisitions have been a serious burden rattier than an asset, and France has had the ' s'ame experience with her smaller gains. In view, however, of Egypt, Palestine, and Mesopotamia, it is possible to understand the French feeling, and it is questionable whether we should not be stronger to-day if we bad not retained possession of these countries. We have undoubtedly done very much for Egypt, but we have no real claim to the country while the inhabitants demand independence. India is in a different position, for it is a continent with a conglomeration of races', and British rule is the only method of maintaining peace. It is, however, a bold action on Mr Stanley Baldwin's part to have ' made the claims ho did at this particular time, and in the ultra nationalistic frame of mind in which most countries are it may possibly provoke comment. When Mr Baldwin couples the United States' with the British Empire as the two nations that can do most for the world, It is difficult to resist the feeling that he is giving expression to a pious aspiration rather than stating an accomplished fact. There can be no question of America's ability to help, for her power to do so is much greater to-day than is that of the British Empire. Except, however, in the way of philanthropy, she has done nothing. Ail honour should be paid to her achievements in philanthropy, which have been on a colossal scale, and have been organised and managed with great ability. Philanthropy, however, even upon this scale, cannot take the place of political action, and in ttiis the United States have been wanting. It is not only that they have refused to take any part in the League of Nations, where their presence and weight would have been of the utmost value. They have in addition put increased difficulties in the way of trading with Europe, which would have been glad to take their wheat, their meat, their cotton, and many other articles, if the States would have taken any other goods in exchange. America, however, which held most of the world's gold, demanded gold in payment for what she had to sell, and as this was not available, the trade has been small. The American farmer has lacked a market; the European citizen has gone short of food. In the general breakdown of economic arrangements, large numbers of people would have loft England for America, but the latter country, in spite of large stretches of partially settled country, feels unable to take them; yet the population of the United States is 35 to the square mile, and that of England and Wales is 649. There can be no question that the United States might do great things for the world, but there is no indication of any immediate intention to do so. We are inclined to think that such invitations as Mr Stanley Baldwin's speech constitute rather delay the commencement of international action by the Stales'. We believe that the desired result is more likely to be obtained if Europe shows herself capable of carrying out reconstruction without assistance.