Wirarapa Times-Age SATURDAY, NOVEMBER 13, 1943. LEND-LEASE—NOW AND AFTER.

Wairarapa Times-Age, 13 November 1943, Page 2

Wirarapa Times-Age SATURDAY, NOVEMBER 13, 1943. LEND-LEASE—NOW AND AFTER.

T\ spite of nil that has been said, here and in other countries, on the subject of lend-lease—the pooling of resources and mutual aid by which the United) Nations are so magm'hcently helping one another to win the war against the common enemy —the average New Zealander probably is left in a state o considerable uncertainty aS to the final outcome and particularly as to whether! there is to be an ultimate balancing and settlement of accounts. Making a statement on Thursday in which he undertook to clear up “misconceived ideas with regard to lend-lease, the Deputy Prime Minister (Mr Nash) gave some impressive particulars of what Neuj, Zealand is doing in the way of reverse lend-lease and said, in part: This (Mutual Aid) agreement does not envisage any setting-off of contributions and the fact that the aid to one party of the agreement is greater than to the other is purely fortuitous. This is an all-in war and it is for each member of the United Nations to . utilise their manpower and »woman-power and material resouices to the maximum extent to which they are capable. . . This appears to imply that lend-lease is intended to be purely a co-operative pooling of resources against the common enemy and that no -question will arise, ±*Ql’ example, of New Zealand recognising as a debt and redeeming any balance of lend-lease aid she may have received from the United States ovei, and above what she has given in return. Much the same seems to be implied in President Roosevelt’s latest statement on lendlease, in the course of which he made a generous acknowledgement of the magnitude of contribution the British Commonwealth has made to the defence of the United States, emphasising, incidentally the inclusion in this contribution of foodstuffs and materials as well as warlike equipment. Of the contribution as a whole, Mr Roosevelt said: It is an indication of the extent to which the British have been able to pool their resources with ours so that a needed weapon may be in the hands of that soldier, whatever his nationality, who can, at the proper moment, use it most effectively to defeat the common enemy. If this were the last word on the subject, it might very well be accepted contentedly. There are more or less influential and authoritative political elements in the United States, however, which evidently do not share the President’s views on the subject of lend-lease. The latest indication of the fact is that the Appropriations Committee of the United States Senate has voted for “a complete overall investigation of lend-lease and other Governmental financial activities abroad.”

The promoters of this resolution presumably regard the question of some sort of ultimate financial balancing and settlement of lend-lease operations as at least open to consideration. There are politicians in the United States who hold that any balance of lend-lease against reverse lend-lease in favour of the United States when hostilities cease should be regarded as a debt recoverable from the Allied countries concerned. There are many other Americans who take the larger view that no question of debtor or creditor relations can arise where lendlease is concerned. The question lias not been brought to a definite settlement in the United States, however, as between those •who stand for a balancing and settlement at the end of the war and those who hold that such a termination of the policy of mutual aid would be unthinkable. Apart from the principles involved, it is clear that any attempt to bring lend-lease to an accounting settlement would be impeded by extraordinary complexities and difficulties. It is evidently desirable, however, that the question of whether there is or is not to be an ultimate accounting and settlement should if possible be determined •without delav.