"COLONISATION WITHOUT COLONIES"
LETTERS TO THE 'EDITOR
[Correspondents are requested to keep their letters as brief as is reasonably possible. The most suitable length is that of one of our News of the Week" paragraphs. Signed letters are given a preference over those bearing a pseudonym.—Ed. THE SPECTATOR.] [To the Editor of TILE SPECTATOR.] • SIR,—In your recent leading articles, " Clouds Over Europe "
and " The League and the Causes of War," you have once again drawn attention to the realities of the steadily deteriorating international situation. The storm may not yet be impending, but the slow relentlessness with which it is gathering gives every observer an appalling sense of helplessness and futility.
Why is it gathering 7 In these articles you give the answer. Because events look like proving the sceptics right. Belief in the League's ability to restrain aggression is gradually being undermined, and, above all, the brave talk about peaceful change and removing the causes of war—remains talk. The remarkable echo throughout the world produced by Sir Samuel Hoare's September speech at Geneva was not merely due to its vigorous support of collective security. The feature which aroused by far the most attention was the reference to the problem of colonial raw materials. Although everybody knew that this problem was only a small part of the general political and economic muddle, it was a really startling new fact that a great nation, one of the " Haves " of the world, should be prepared to discuss making peaceful changes not at the expense of the weak but at her own expense, in a matter traditionally bound up with everything that is most sensitive in national sovereignty and prestige.
Here lies the vital importance of the " colonial problem." To, tackle it is the only way we can show that we do not regard the League as a sanctimonious alliance of the relatively satiated. . The difficulties in the way of cessions of territory are obviously great. Quite apart from any outcry against giving . away the Empire " the argument that native inhabitants cannot be handed over like cattle is obviously valid. On the other hand, to imagine that Germany, for example, would regard the re-establishment of the " open door " in the Crown colonies as an adequate repudiation of the " colonial guilt lie " and sufficient satisfaction for her very real raw material needs is merely puerile.
That is why the suggestions made by Dr. Stern-Rubarth in your issue of February 14th seem to me by far the most interesting which have yet been put forward. His proposal for 'Chattered companies to be operated in undeveloped areas by' eations Preferring justifiable colonial claims raises two main questions.
FirstlY, would the system really. ensure access " to needed' raw materials ? Take • the typical 'ease 'of GermanY. Her problem is how to obtain raw materials with her own currency. She would be helped to the extent that the chartered companies made it possible for raw materials to be Obtained with Gerthan labour (fed with Gennan food); to be' financed with German capital, to be transported in German ships .fuelled with German coal, and so on. This would involve giving the chartered company a virtual monopoly of trade within its own area. Any existing property or trading rights would probably have to be eliminated against compensation or otherwise. Within that area, at any rate,' the princiPle of the " open door " could not be apPlicable. " It is difficult to see how in these 'circumstances it would be poisible to work companies in which several nations had shares: On the other hand, the system would obviously be comparatively elastic, and. as long as " unde- veloped areas " were available any munber of companies could be formed.
This brings me to the second question. What areas really are undeveloped ? There can be very few parts of the world where vested interests have not yet been established. Even with full compensation they are likely to be reluctant to abandon the field. How are they to be persuaded, and how is the compensation to be provided ? By definition, the " Have-not " country forming the chartered company cannot provide it, at any rate in foreign currency. Con- ceivably loans might be floated on the security of the company and liquidated out of the raw materials produced, but that would diminish pro tanto the advantage. gained. Innumerable other questions suggest themsehres. Dr. Stern- Rubarth's proposal is not a solution withOut tears: Nor is it in any sense exhaustive. But it is none the less worth serious consideration. For the vital thing is that we should shoW our selves ready to discuss grievances honestly and without reser‘•es —to couple a policy of generosity with our Policy of strength.
Previous page
