Wairarapa Times-Age SATURDAY, JUNE 29, 1940. AN INTERESTING SELECTION.

Wairarapa Times-Age, 29 June 1940, Page 4

Wairarapa Times-Age SATURDAY, JUNE 29, 1940. AN INTERESTING SELECTION.

AN announcement that the United States Republican Party has selected Mr Wendell L. Willkie as its nominee in the Presidential election to take place in November next is on some grounds rather surprising. Mr Willkie has figured hitherto only as one of the dark horses on the Republican Party list and his selection may be taken by some people to mean that the principal Republican aspirants for Presidential honours have decided that they must resign themselves to the likelihood of President Roosevelt being nominated and elected for a third term. All that can be said definitely at the moment, however, is that leading Republican politicians like Senators Vandenberg and Taft, the last the son of a former President, and elaborately boomed Presidential possibilities, of whom Mr Thomas E. Dewey, District Attorney of New York is the most conspicuous, have been passed over in a way that implies-the introduction'of disturbing factors into the party calculations.

It may go far to account for Mr Willkie’s selection that he has taken a less extreme standpoint than some of his fellow candidates in his Opposition to the New Deal and to otheraspects of President Roosevelt’s policy. Of the leading candidates, Mr Dewey has gone easily farthest in sweeping condemnation of the President’s handling of foreign affairs and for some time past has been asserting that Mr Roosevelt will have America in the war if the people don’t look out. Senators Vandenberg and Taft have both of them consistently opposed New Deal liberalism, but have taken a much less extreme stand in foreign affairs than Mr Dewey. Mr Frank E. Gannett, another candidate put forward for consideration, is a newspaperpublisher controlling a chain of eighteen journals. His programme is one of uncompromising opposition to the New Deal, together with a slogan: “Keep out of War.”

Mr Willkie, upon whom the Republican Party has staked its hopes, is president of the Commonwealth and Southern Corporation, a 1,000 million dollar power concern which has been the object of much of Mr Roosevelt’s fight against the public utilities. The New York correspondent of the “Sydney Morning Herald” wrote recently:—

A six-year contest with the New Deal over the Tennessee Valley authority, the great governmental hydro-electrical project of the South, has made Willkie a national figure. He is distinguished by the width and diversity of his intellectual interests, his consummate political sense, and his “reasonableness. He has been dubbed “New Deal Enemy No. 1,” but his public pronouncements are careful evaluations of that economic and social programme and frequent commendations of its achievements. He has insisted that he opposes the dictatorial concentration of control in Government. His most revealing pronouncements on foreign policy have been praise of Roosevelt’s expressions of sympathy for the Allies. He will appeal strongly to the great business interests of the country, which are the directive force in the Republican Party still, and would, by reason of his personal qualities, prove a very attractive candidate.

Mr Willkie is now reported to have stated publicly his approval of President Roosevelt’s policy of aid to the Allies and it is added that the Republican candidate’s only criticism of this policy is likely to be that it does not go far enough. Had it been likely that the Presidential election would be fought on issues of domestic policy, Mr Willkie might have been a more formidable opponent for the Democratic nominee than the more advertised rivals who have been set aside in his favour. There does not seem to be any doubt, however, that the question of American policy in relation to the war will overshadow all others. To that it has to be added that the Republican Party is not raising any definite opposition or offering a clear alternative to President Roosevelt’s policy. Apart from its rather unconvincing attempt to fasten responsibility on the New Deal “for our unpreparedness and for the consequences of involvement in war,” the Republican foreign policy plank, with its emphasis on “realistic building of the national defence” and pledge of aid to the democracies reads very much like an endorsement of the current foreign policy of the United States. It seems rather likely that the alternatives presented to the people of the United States may be to return President Roosevelt for another term, or to set him aside in favour of an untried leader committed to much the same policy where national defence and foreign affairs are concerned. THE SOVIET AND RUMANIA. yyiIATEVER may be thought of the merits of the position and of the ultimate issues raised, Rumania at an immediate view evidently has adopted a sensible course in submitting to the Soviet demands for the cession of Bessarabia and Northern Bukovina. As the Rumanian Legation in London has pointed out, it was virtually impossible to resist these demands and it is only natural that France’s surrender, Britain’s inability to assist and Turkey’s present position should have had a decisive influence on Rumania’s attitude. It certainly may be agreed that armed resistance, while it would have led to heavy loss of life, would have delayed only slightly the inevitable result., A great deal, of course, depends on how far Russia proposes to go in aggression. She is able to point to the fact that Bessarabia was Russian territory until it changed hands in the Great War settlement, but reports as yet incompletely detailed suggest that the Soviet proposes to go well beyond recovering what was then lost, in seizing or establishing control over Danubian and Black Sea ports. It is a question whether the present action of the Soviet is not to be regarded as a step towards the satisfaction of the long-cherished Russian aspiration to control over the Bosphorus and Dardanelles. The prospect actually'opened no doubt will be defined in the very near future.

Only a few days ago it was reported that Turkey had decided to remain non-belligerent and had invoked the protocols of the Anglo-Turkish and Franco-Turkish treaties which absolve her from taking any action that might lead to conflict with Russia. Turkey’s action presumably is based upon a belief, or a hope, that she herself will be immune from attack by the Soviet, and will be left in control of the Straits. Should this anticipation prove to be well-founded, the developments now taking shape in Rumania, 1 hough they have their regrettable aspect, may give Britain little new cause for concern. It is taking a good deal for granted, however, to assume that peace will settle upon the Balkans following upon a defined transfer of territory from Rumania to Russia. Hungary and Bulgaria also have claims against Rumania and there are various other possible causes of contention and strife in the troubled Peninsula. There is some reason to fear that the Soviet action is only a beginning, from which serious and far-reaching consequences will flow.