The Dominion FRIDAY, OCTOBER 15, 1943. POST-WAR TRADE QUESTIONS

Dominion, Volume 37, Issue 17, 15 October 1943, Page 4

The Dominion FRIDAY, OCTOBER 15, 1943. POST-WAR TRADE QUESTIONS

The Government may not be in a position to give definite answers to the four very important questions relating to post-war trade which the New Zealand Manufacturers’ Federation has decided to put to them. To a certain, indeed to a large, extent the policy of the Dominion will be influenced by the agreements reached by the chief signatories of the lend-lease agreement, and it is admitted by them that the details of policy have yet to be worked out. The ultimate problems to be faced here probably will be those of adjustment m order to conform to an international policy regarding which the London commenting on the lend-lease agreement, said : ‘ T he common economic policy to which the two Governments aie thus committed opens up the prospect of a world in which the two gieatest industrial and commercial nations will work together to promote the prosperity of all, instead of competing for selfish advantages. The Manufacturers’ Association is to ask the Government what agreements, if any, has New Zealand entered into under lend-lease which would or might affect New Zealand manufacturers, adversely or beneficially, after the war ?” T hat naturally leads to the questions of what obligations this country has accepted under the mutual aid agreement of the United Nations, to what effect any negotiations with other countries may affect our obligations under the Ottawa Agreement, and what stage has been reached in discussions with the British Government. An exchange of letters between Mr. Nash and Mr. Cordell Hull made the Dominion a party to the lend-lease agreement, which seems destined to be a governing factor in post-war trade, and naturally manufacturers, and other sections of the community, desire to know not only the stage reached in any discussions but also the view held by the Government of the day regai ding, the outlook. .When he inaugurated the Foreign Trade Week in the United States last year Mr. Cordell Hull said that the basic agreement that with Great Britain —was the only formula for an enduring peace and he added that its aim (fair trade) involved “the rehabilitation on a sound basis of trade, monetary, financial and all other international economic relationships.” The basic agreement provided that “at an early convenient date conversations shall be begun” regarding both individual and mutually agreed action by the signatory Governments, and it would be interesting and helpful to know what progress has since been made along those lines. Shortly after he returned from Washington Mr. Nash did make reference to the probable effects of the basic agreement, but in very general terms, and the manufacturers’ request is for something in the nature of a progress report on the one hand and the views of the Government as to the prospects and possibilities on the other. And there must be ample scope for a considered statement. It seems to have been the intention that discussions, regarding the most practical and mutually beneficial way to implement the agreement,, were to proceed so that some definite plan might be formulated prior to the close of hostilities, and the first desideratum here is for a review of the position as it exists today, with whatever particulars may be made available relating to the scope of our commitments, if any, and the views of those politically responsible as to what is entailed. Questions very much along the same lines have been asked in these columns from time to time, and a statement by the Minister of Finance, with his knowledge of the views entertained in official, ciicles in Washington, would serve a useful purpose. The questions to be submitted by the Manufacturers’ Association afford the opportunity and it is to .be hoped that it will be taken.