Anglo-French Differences Growing

Chronicle (Levin), 3 November 1949, Page 5

Anglo-French Differences Growing

Received Wednesday, 8.50 p.m. LONDON, Nov. 2. Differences of opinion between the British and French Governments have "been growing recently and a lack of harmony between the two countries has become apparent. •Discussing these differences the Daily Telegraph's Paris eorrespondent says the French were aggrieved that the dollar crisis, which they claim interested Europe just as much as Britain, was discussed at Washington between the TJnited States, Britain and Canada alone. The fact that undertakings were given by the United States in the wav of simplifying Customs procedures, the freer use of Marshall Aid dollars and increased overseas investments were extended equally to other Marshall Aid countries did not mollify the French. They are also aggrieved that thev were not informed of British devaluation, which went much further than they expected, before the formal announeement to the Intemational iTonetary ' Fund one day before it happened. Unfortunately, the eorrespondent eon-^ tinnes, the whole affairs of "the Wasnington talks and devalnation nas strengt'hened Freneh snsoieions that Britain is mainly interested in a spe'*ially exclusive assoeiation with the TJnited States and the Brit.ish Commonwealth and that her professions of eagerness for closer unity" with Europe are not quite sincere. With regard to Germany, France still fears that Britain and the United" States are advocating policies which wonld build up the western zones into an industrial Colossus, and would remove political restraint on Germany prematurely. The orgy of nationalistic exuberance during the German election campaign naturally increased these Frencli. fears. i The mogt longstanding cause of fric-'

tion is the Middle East. This is a highly topical 'issue by reason of the attempts to reaeh an agreement at Un- ' ited Nations on the disposal of the former • Italian colonies. i The French fear that the British proposals for the independence of Libya would lead to the spread of the irredentist movement in Tunisia and Morocco. The difference is a fundamentai one between the British colonial method. which educates colonial peoples to independence and voluntarv assoeiation/ and the French method which aims at centi-alised control by offering the full rigbts and benefits of French citiz enship — as in th$ Departmgnt of Al : geria. France, adds the eorrespondent, i's; nnsympathetic to the Arab League as# an organisation for the spread of Arab nationalism. Britain on the other hand points to the economic and strategie advantages of an Arab union in the Near East, and argues that this is the best defence against the spread of , Soviet influence.