British Views On Bulganin’s Letter

Press, Volume XCV, Issue 28262, 27 April 1957, Page 11

British Views On Bulganin’s Letter

(Special Correspondent N.Z.P.A.) (Rec. 10 p.m.) LONDON, April 25.

There has been no official comment on Marshal Bulganin’s 8000-word “peace” letter to the Prime Minister (Mr Macmillan), but it has been given a mixed reception in the British press, with the tone of the comments ranging from cautious to cynical.

The “Daily Herald” and the “Daily Mirror” say that Mr Macmillan should seize the chance for a personal talk with Marshal Bulganin. The “Daily Herald” envisages full-scale talks between Rusia and the West, while the “7 aily Mirror” says bluntly that Mr Macmillan must not miss this chance to talk with the Russians, whether or not President Eisenhower agrees to take part. There is a wide measure of agreement in the British comment that Marshal Bulganin’s letter is friendly in tone, implying that the Russians would like to revive the spirit of the time before Suez and Budapest. There is also much speculation about the purpose of the “recent flow of honeyed words from Russia.”

The “Daily Telegraph” is particularly blunt in its assessment of the letter, which it describes as a “guided missile, a weapon of mass persuasion aimed at Downing Street but designed to affect millions everywhere.” The letter’s theme, it says, is to let the Russians and British get together to stop bomb tests, start serious disarmament, dissolve the two armed camps in Europe, and keep their# hands off the Middle East. Then everything will be all right “There will have to be a realistic and convincing reply,” the Telegraph” continues. “Mr Macmillan might do worse than seize this opportunity to remind the Soviet leaders and the listening world of many things that need to be said. The theme of his reply might be the great possibilities of friendship between Britain and the Soviet if only actions rather than words were offered from Moscow. “It might ask Marshal Bulganin how he can demand a renunciation of force in the Middle East with Syria equipped to receive Soviet volunteers and Egypt being rearmed against Israel. A

comparison between these facta and the British withdrawals from Jordan, Iraq, and Libya might be drawn. It might be asked that if there is to be no Western interference in the affairs of the Arab countries, why should there be Eastern interference in Europe's Slav countries.

“The great question, the "Daily Telegraph” says, is what are the Soviet leaders afraid of? What has to be realised in Moscow, and will doubless be explained in any reply sent to Marshal Bulganin, is that the Soviet handling of the Suez question has shown a basic hostility to British economic interests in the Middle East, which had been so frankly and carefully explained to him in London.

‘Tf he now offers to guarantee those interests, what reason have we for trusting him?” the newspaper asks.