EMPIRE TRADING

Hokitika Guardian, 2 August 1932, Page 5

EMPIRE TRADING

BKITAIN’S CASE i OPPOSITION BY SOUTH AFRICA. United Press Association—By Electric r , Telegraph—Copyright,;

- OTTAWA, July 31. • The South African delegate, ±ion. Mi Havenga, has issued a 'statement, commenting on the ; British delegation s recent ' pronouncement, iie says :—- i'• “The history of trade relations -between Britain and South Africa makes to stress the already clear fact, that the idea of striking a , teilance sheet of advantages and concessions is quite foreign to the minds cof the South African delegation. {Nevertheless. . J fee! constrained to offer comments on some of Mr Baldwin’s observations and deductions, cioing so, not m a capping ungenerous spirit, but in a frank effort to see the trade relations between the countries, in the proper ( perspective. ■' South Africa ha* never objected to Britain’s treatment ot her commodit.es, nor complained of the spirit Britain manifested in trade matters, She. has not beefi querulous of the fact that preferential treatment was not always reciprocated, South Africa always has had .a clear perspective of the different circumstances of the two countries and of the categorically imperative duties each owes to its domestic industries, “South Africa .admits that Britain's emergency tariff at the end of 1931, and, her Import Duties Act of 1932, greatly widened the range of imports that are subject to the British tariff, • which extension was of some value to (South Africa. It must be mentioned, however, that the Dominions were not consulted regarding the selection of the commodities subject to this tariff, nor was there co-relation between these preferences and each industry’s requirements. Greater elacticity in these pre. ferences would be of greater utility to. South Africa. South Africa would have preferred -to see 1 a slightly larger margin of preference in fayour of certain commodities affected, . whereas regarding others, the extension was not so material. ; _ . . 4 South Africa submits, that a state- | ment such as Air Baldwin’s does not best serve the objective of-the, confernamely the examining of ways .arid, means of Empire, co-operation. to extend existing markets. .Mr .Baldwin’s statement aggregates the Dominion! trade with Britain, and consequently deflects a favourable balance for the' Dominions. South Africa’s position is peculiar. She has encouraged British imports without insisting bn.■ any quantitative recipx'ocity and if the figures are efitoiiiied in their true prospective, would Show tile balance of _ in British' fffvottr. w •; Mr Baldwin’s figures, Mr ifaVSnga Said, shbwed .Sottish Africa’s total imports for the yens 1990 from full source's 09 £63,357,000, including £29,736,000 from Britain, and £6,947,000 from other British countries; and £26,675,000 from foreign countries. “Mr 'Havenga stated these figures did not truly reflect South Africa’s absorption of British goods, nor f the increasing market that Union offered to those goods, "outh Africa, within one year, rose from eighth place, compared with other customers of Britain, to fourth place, which she- now occupied.

“Mr Baldwin had stressed that a large proportion of Dominion products •was still enjoying free entry to Britain. Mr Havenga submitted that accentuation on this point was disproportionate to the consequential advantage to. the Dominions. Britain takes from the Dominions mostly foodstuffs mater;;jai which by its own fiscal policy, have 'been given free entry. Britain’s exports are manufactured articles. South Africa would se 6 nothing unnatural nor unreasonable in her produce being subjected to duties in British markets for protection of Britain’s domestic produce. .’.' “South Africa’s delegation would not suggest that .Britain 'should grant concessions militating against British domestic industries but South Africa would welcome preference for .the Dominion products over foreign products. South Africa considered that the table •showing .South Africa in its trade with Britain as having a considerable favourable trade balance is misleading, be-, cause it. includes gold among cOJisumptible merchandise, .also transhipments and subsequent exports. South -Africa uses more than twice as much British merchandise as Britain -uses South African merchandise. It i« as much .as South -Africa' has insufficient commercial bit’s in Britain to pay for what she buys there, 'she i*s compelled to pay for a- portion in cash. South- Africa . is looking ’ for. outlets for her ordinary ' commodities, not for gold, ■ and does not find it necessary to offer a large share of her competitive trade to secure an outlet': for her gold. South Africa v-—ht from Britain in 1930 more than ;, £?9.000.00(Xtof commodities, which enter competitive’: trade while Britain bought, from South Africa £12,000,000 of -such (roods. This favourable British position i. n South Africa’s competitive trade, is the normeil question. Mi Havenaa suggests an early discussion on the lines on which Britain and South Africa can give mutual assistance.