U.S. FOREIGN POLICY

Press, Volume XCV, Issue 28260, 24 April 1957, Page 13

U.S. FOREIGN POLICY

Dulles’s Speech

Criticised

NEW YORK, April 23. (Rec. 1J p.m.) Sections of the United States press today described yesterday’s foreign policy speech by the Secretary of State (Mr Dulles) as '“uninspiring” and called for a firmer course of action.

The Washington “Post” said: “Mr Dulles’s new statement of foreign policy objectives was uninspiring because the points were SO familiar. “In what has become almost a ritual, the .Secretary of State reiterated his opposition to the designs of international communism and stressed collective security, foreign military and economic aid, and support of the United Nations as tools for bringing about the kind of world this country would like to see.

"All this needs to be said, but it is scarcely novel. “More in need of emphasis is the fundamental theme of accommodation to peaceful change which, as Mr Dulles says, is the law of international life.”

“Leaning” on U.N. Of Mr Dulles’s reiteration of American dedication to the United Nations, the “Post” said: “We wonder whether it is a help to peace to create the impression that the United States leans more heavily on the United Nations than it actually does in the pursuit of its goal of international justice.

“For the United Nations is a service organisation, not an independent originator of policy. Its actions represent nothing more than the collective will of member nations.

“The principles of the United Nations will be better respected if there is recognition of the United Nations’ limitations. Reliance on United Nations procedures, in other words, is not a substitute for energetic leadership.” The New York “Herald-Tri-bune” said there was a fear that fc a long-range course of action directed toward clearly-defined objectives does not exist.” It added: "Such a course must be flexibly adapted to the possibility of sudden change in the many tense areas of the world. There is worry lest the means adopted to meet day-to-day situations rest too much upon the statement of high principles, which are regarded as irrelevant by nations stirred •to wrath or fear.’’

The “New York Times” noted that Mr Dulles made no mention in his speech of the “vacillating American policy on the Suez Canal issue” before the intervention of Britain, France and Israel last October, or of the “one-sided American approach” to the intervention in favour of President Nasser.

“This certainly helped to determine the equally one-sided United Nations approach.” the “New York Times” added