The Daily News. WEDNESDAY, FEBRUARY 16, 1921. RETALIATION.

Taranaki Daily News, 16 February 1921, Page 4

The Daily News. WEDNESDAY, FEBRUARY 16, 1921. RETALIATION.

The recommendation made by the United States’ Naval Secretary (Mr. Josephus Daniels) to the Senate Naval Committee, that the President should be given farreaching powers to lay an embargo on ail oil exports, whenever it is believed that conditions warrant such action, can be construed in two ways. It may be a precautionary measure, in view of all the American oil being required for local use, or it may be of’ a retaliatory character consequent on the policy of isolation of the United States in connection with the work of the League of Nations. In the former ease the American Government would be completely justified in safeguarding the oil supplies needed for the country’s use, particularly in view of the statement made by Mr. Daniels that “although the United States produces fifty per cent, of the world’s oil supply, yet they must import to meet home consumption.” Mr, Daniels has identified himself with a programme of uaval expansion designed to provide America with sea power equal, if not superior, to that of any other country, and as it may fairly be assumed that most, if not all, of the new warships will use oil for steam generating purposes,,his recommendation has at least a logical backing sufficient to nullify adverse criticism. On the other hand, the New York Times’ Washington correspondent views the matter from an entirely different aspect, as he attributes the recommendation to a desire for retaliation on the Allies for giving Britain a mandate over Mesopotamia, restricting the exploitation of oil and other resources to nations whose Governments are members of the League of Nations. It should be noted that the correspondent bases his construction of the recommendation, not on mere speculation, but on the contents of Mr. Daniels’ letter to the Senate Committee, which letter indicates by inference (as is commonly the case with diplomatically worded communications) that the American Administration favors retaliation against the Allies, “who apparently refuse to permit the United States to share in the. commercial developments of former enemy territory now held under mandates.” This attitude so exactly fits in with the existing policy cf the United States Qevera-

ment that the inference drawn may be accepted as fair and reasonable. The nature of the decision of the Senate Naval Committee on this recommendation need not be considered, but the incident is one that exhibits the existence of a deplorable smallness of mind in a Minister of a great nation. The, United States Senate had the power to nullify the President’s wellmeant efforts towards securing the peace of the world through the agency of the League of Nations. It exercised that power and deliberately held aloof from the League and the consequent framing of the mandates, so that it is on the Senate, and. not on the Allies, that blame (if any) for the result of the repudiation of President Wilson’s action in relation to the League must rest. The United States already possesses one-half of the world’s oil supplies, and appears’ to be yearning to have a voice in the control of the other half. At least such is the inference drawn from the proposal of Mr. Daniels, who is also obsessed by the desire to have a navy more powerful than that of any other country—a navy befitting “the greatest country on earth. ’ ’ If America is so foolish as to squander thousands of millions of dollars in this way it is her affair. When, however, the element of retaliation is introduced, it is quite a different matter, as she may find to her cost if such a suicidal policy is even attempted to be put in action, which is most unlikely. Already America is fuming over her isolation, but if that isolation is made complete by world-wide action (possibly Germany excepted) as the result of retaliation she would be in a sorry plight. Mr. Daniels’ proposal is unworthy of serious consideration America has all to gain by fair dealing and amity. So long as she refrains. from membership of the League she cannot have a voice in its decisions, nor can she justly dispute the terms of mandates issued by that body. If, hoWever she initiates a- policy of retaliation it would certainly recoil on her own head. The adoption of the role of a spoiled child is not consonant with the status of the United States, nor likely to add to the prestige of that great country whose watchword is “freedom.”