Divided Opinions On Summit Meeting

Press, Volume C, Issue 29516, 18 May 1961, Page 6

Divided Opinions On Summit Meeting

ISpecwUy ivnuen for tM N.ZP.A by FRANK OU VSR) WASHINGTON, May 16. As President Kennedy begins his visit to Ottawa the city discusses and argues about his approach to a possible summit meeting with Mr Khrushchev.

Congressional opinion in particular is sharply divided. Some legislators warmly support the idea, others give a tight lipped “no comment” and then privately criticise the idea rather sharply. Press comment is not easy to find, but the “Washington Post" thinks that- such a meeting could have value particularly in the matter of the nuclear testing ban. It also warns that it is important to avoid ..arousing false hopes about what such a meeting can accomplish. Senator Fulbright, chairman of the powerful Foreign Relations Committee, strikes the same note—that it is perfectly legitimate for Mr Kennedy and Jsr Khrushchev to get together, but the meeting should ijftt be built up as a promisinfe solution to the world’s After Paris Visit It is now widely taken for granted that such a meeting will come after the President’s visit to Paris, though much remains to be ironed out before the meeting can take place. Officially the purposes of this meeting are not known, but Mr James Reston in the “New York Times” says that Mr Kennedy has several reasons for wanting a meeting. Firstly, he wants to let Mr Khrushchev know the consequences of current Soviet policies on future American atomic and armaments programmes; and secondly he wants to make clear to Mr Khrushchev the dangers of misjudging United States’ actions in Cuba and Laos.

Criticism of the proposed meeting stems from the belief of many in Washington that the recent American setback in Cuba and what is starting to look like a defeat in Laos, is making the Presidents negotiating position weak. Others believe that the President is anxious for a meeting for exactly those reasons—to discourage Russian adventures round the world because of these setbacks. Even those in opposition to a meeting seem happy that the approach to it is so casual, compared with the big preliminary build-up, which in the past, has resulted m public expectations being raised to a scarcely-attain-able level.

The New York "Herald Tribune,” which is very lukewarm towards a possible

meeting, says that it could be useful if the casual tone now apparent is maintained throughout "Restraint On Hopes" The “Washington Post" feels there are certain points which could well be discussed at this stage by Russian and American leaders, but warns that a restraint on hopes is very much in order among this country’s friends as well as among Americans. The concensus of opinion seems to be that a casual meeting and an earnest talk may do some good, and can do the Western world no harm, provided public hopes are not permitted to rise to unrealistic levels. At present the press seems to be more interested in the President's Canadian visit than in the proposed meeting. The Post” dis* cussing the ambivalence of Canadians who want American investment but object to American control of industries says that American companies, if wise, will pay more attention to Canadian sensibilities, It concludes that the visit will serve an important purpose if it enables the President momentarily to view the United States as Canadians see it. It is recognised that one short visit can not settle all issues. The widely-held hope in Washington is that the differences will be illuminated and seen without exaggerations so that settlement in the near future will be easier.