Bit

World trade means jobs

‘one will deny that the

present condition of inter-
national trade is far. from
normal. This state of affairs
may be illustrated by the
American ban recently imposed
on the importation of dressed
and undressed furs like ermine,
fox, Siberian mink, marten,
muskrat and other pelts, either
from the Soviet Union or
Poland. The reason usually
given by governments for their
discriminatory foreign trade
policies is considerations of na-
tional defense.

It is difficult to see, however,
what bearing the prohibition of
fur imports from the Soviet
Union and Poland might have
on United States security. A
stuffed ermine or mink would
hardly do for a Trojan horse
concealing an “army of inva-
sion.” ;

Furthermore, it would be
naive to assume that’ the
American ban on fur imports
could cause any appreciable loss
to a leading industrial power
like the Soviet Union which, has
economic ties with all parts of
the world. If anything, the
measure might cause difficul-
ties for the fur industry in the
U.S. and increase the number
of unemployment among the
American fur workers, the ma-
jority of whom have been em-
ployed as it,is for only seven,
eight or nine months in the
course of the past year. oN

The embargo on Soviet and
Polish furs is indicative of the
foreign trade methods employed
by the United States at the
present time. Old and established
commercial relations are being
discarded and supplanted by new
ones which, as a rule, are arti-
ficial and unilateral.

Soviet people deplore the talk
about “economic warfare” which
seems ‘to be one of the favorite
topics of overseas’ government
leaders and also the press. The
New York Times, for instance
in its July 22, 1951, issue inad-
vertently commented that“...
the United States is coming
close to regarding East-West

trade as an element in economic ~

warfare.” ‘

Indeed, the New York Times

has aptly described the present '

foreign trade policy of ' the
United States. Its. development
may be traced through a num-
ber of landmarks: annullment
of the trade agreement between
the U.S. and the Soviet Union,
effective since 1937; the Battle
Bill, forbidding financial or
economic aid to countries ex-
porting certain goods to the
Soviet Union and to countries
friendly to it; the new rulings
regarding trade with Czechoslo-
vakia, which, according to the
Associated Press, would prac-
tically suspend trade between
both countries; abrogation of
the 1930 trade’ agreement with
Rumania, -etc. Evidently, - the
object is to break off all East-
West economic ties.

In other words, the’ United
States is clamping down more
heavily on trade today than
was the case during the most
crucial period of the late world
war. Is|there any need for this?

The economic war waged by
the United States is an entirely
one-sided affair. The Soviet
Union and the countries
friendly to it are as willing as
ever to promote commerce with
all countries wishing to trade
with them on a footing of
equality and mutual benefit.

This willingness was reaf-
‘firmed once more by Lavrenty
Beria, one of the leaders of the
Soviet state, in his speech on
November 6 last on, the occasion
of the thirty-fourth anniversary
of the Great October Socialist
Revolution “We have no ob-
jection to considerably extend-
ing business co-operation on the
basis of mutual advantage with
the US., Britain, France and
other bourgeois countries both
in the West and the East,” he
said. “It is not the fault of the
Soviet Union that the rulers of
these states have, to the detri-
ment of their own countries,
taken the course of undermin-
ing and disrupting economic re-

—e

By M. SEROV

lations with the USSR.’

Even the enemies of the
Soviet Union hhave to admit that
it has always been ready to
strengthen economic relations
with all countries without ex-
ception. No one,-could cite a
single measure the Soviet gov-
ernment has taken to restrict or
prohibit trade with other coun-
tries: This unquestionably
speaks of the Soviet Union’s
consistent foreign policy, de-
signed tosstrengthen peace and
promote international co-opera-
tion.

The most incongruous aspect

‘of the unilateral economic war

today being waged with such
zeal by the United States is that
it is causing much more harm
to the West than to the East.
The Soviet Union, the Chinese

People’s Republic and the’

Peoples Democracies of
Eastern Europe together pos-
sess inexhaustible raw material
resources, a highly - developed
industry and big markets. Co-
operation with the West, there-
fore. is not as essential to this
group of countries as it is to
the West.

-Trade with the East could
greatly stimulate the economies
of the West, which is experi-
encing a shortage of raw ma-
terials and is producing, in the
main, manufactured goods, ma-
chinery and industrial equip-
ment. As regards the Soviet
Union, it is now in a far better
position to expand its trade
with  the/ Western ‘countries
than before the last war.

By artificially limiting the
orbit of its trade relations the
Western world is sowing the
seed of discord and contradic-
tions in its own midst. The last
few months have witnessed the
struggle for raw materials in
short supply—tin, manganese,
rubber and sulphur — grow
more acute among the Western
countries. At the same time
there has been sharp competi-
tion for markets among their
industrial firms which
threatens to assume even

sharper forms in the: near fu-
ture.

If West-German industry’ con-
tinues to be cut off from its old
markets in the East, it will have
to show increasing activity on
the Western markets. The same
applies to Japanese industry,
unless it can resume its tradi-
tional trade with China. Intensi
fied competition will inevitably
mean the closing down of a
number of West-European in-
dustries and. the ominous pros-
pect of increased unemploy-
ment. :

Such are some of the con-
sequences of the policy of arti-
ficially restricting international
trade today by the Western
countries, the United. States
primarily. Is it not prejudice
that is blinding the ruling
circles of these countries to
some of the most elementary
rules of business?

Picture to yourself a small-
town grocer who decidéd to do
business only with customers
whose ‘home life is to his taste.
He would surely be out of bus-
iness ‘before long. Yet is thise
not precisely what the United
States government js doing?
The scale of its bus‘ness may be
bigger, .but this hardly alters
the substance of the matter.

Voices of common sense both
in the United States and in
Britain can be heard saying that
the present trade practices are
nothing but detrimental to
these countries. The enormous
imnortance of foreign trade in
Britain’s economic set-up is ob-

. jous.

As. a matter of fact, the
former. chancellor of ‘the - ex-
chequer, Hugh Gaitskell, de-
clared in a radio broadcast in-
terview. given on his last trip
to the U.S., that “to the United
States the break-off in trade
with Russia would mean cut-
ting off furs and caviar. To us
it would mean the loss of tim-
ber and grain. We believe this
trade helps us more than it
helps the Russians.”

No less definite on the matter
of keeping up trade with the
East was Anthony Eden, the

present British foreign se
tary, who expressed a similat
view when he said during a,
recent visit to America: “. «*
is not a wise principle to “
off trade between East 3”
West.” ;

And yet the British govel?
ment, however. reluctantly. *
curtailing trade with the Eas
Last fall it prohibited the &
port of 250 different item>—

c
_most of them of non-strateé!

value — to the Soviet Unio?
China and Eastern Europe. ee
is what is called cutting i,
your nbse to spite your face. “de
wonder Britain's foreign ® a
balance showed such a large **
ficit last year.

¢ the

A striking example oO °
a fi yisin’

economic incongruities
from such a practice is affor¢ ‘
by the present-day forele™
trade of Japan, which too a
now ‘been listed among © i
Western - countries. Inconcel™’
able as it might seem that uy
dustrial Japan should not
trading with her neigh?
China, which possesses V@,
economic resources and de
bilities, Japanese foreign t#
is now being artificially
geared to America. Bs

Japan has to import coal 2”
ore from. the United stale
Owing to the high cost pa
transportation across the y
cific, Japanese firms now ee
three times as much for a
coal.and iron ore as they woe
had they done their buying ee
China. This explains the i
nese industrialists’ demand ©
government subsidies to ©°*
the tremendous difference
e

Another aspect _of
tional economic relations att
should be dwelt upon is the P"
they’ play in promoting pe
and cooperation among nat 4

People of the most vale
political views agree that ae e
omic cooperation among ms
different countries and byaae i
can contribute to the strené ic
ening of peace, while econ?’ te
discord can only ager in.
world tension. This is an 2%?

Continued on next pag®

ots

x4
PACIFIC TRIBUNE — JANUARY 11, 1952 — PAGE”.

intern

j