Rouble Rousing

Among the rimes of war, trading with the enemy is one of the most venal and despicable. And although the present cold war situation has changed this view considerably, a feeling that there is something immoral about trading through the Iron Curtain persists. For this reason, Washington observers last week met with indignation the news that British businessmen were favorably considering negotiations for a billion dollars in Soviet trade.

Board of Trade officials explained that only non-strategic materials would go to the Russians. Items like fishing trawlers, and industrial and railroad equipment were listed to show that the exchange would not help the Soviet war effort. But importance of these goods for war production seems beyond dispute. And in a larger sense, the "non-strategic trade" idea itself is just a convenient fiction. Every fishing trawler Britons make for Russia releases Communist manpower for other, deadlier tasks. And on the other side of the coin, every product the West denies Russia means an added strain on the Soviet economy. The past year has shown that internal economic crises may result in a softening in Soviet foreign policies. By bolstering the Soviet economy, the West creates its own problems at the conference tables.

But it is not enough to say that Britain ought not trade with Russia. The English, and all our other allies, have to trade to live. Faced with a huge dollar deficit, they must find a way to pay for the goods that America sends them. They would sell to Russia, not because they want to, but because they want to, but because the can sell to no-one else.

The fault is plainly our own. We have driven our allies to Russian markets by closing our own with absurd restrictions. Foreign goods that Americans need and want are barred by prohibitive tariffs. Antiquated "Buy American" laws make government expensive and penalize more efficient foreign producers. Paradoxically, Americans have shown themselves more willing to give dollars away than to use them for buying useful foreign goods.

Unfortunately the question of protection is not quite so simple as most free traders like to believe. Tariffs are more than businessmen's doles; the frequently nurture growing industries and foster enterprises whose importance to the nation's safety makes up for a lack of efficiency. Complicating the problem is the haziness of the line that separates permissible protection of this kind from other, less ethical varieties.

But even if there is some doubt as to the specific forms a limited protection should take, the general advantages of free trade within the Western bloc are clear. The United States has grown strong and prosperous as the largest free-trading area in the world. By extending the limits of this area as far as the Iron Curtain will permit, the free West can make itself a broad self-sustaining economic unit.

The President has made it clear to American businessmen that only trade, not aid, can solve Europe's dollar problems. Operating along these lines, the Randall Commission has proposed a less restrictive trade policy for America. Free trade in the West would mean higher levels of welfare and security, but just as important, it would mean a lessened dependence on Soviet markets. As long as American industries demand coddling by tariffs and economic favoritism, European trade with Russia will be inevitable.