Wairarapa Times-Age WEDNESDAY, OCTOBER 16, 1940. LEADERSHIP IN AMERICA.

Wairarapa Times-Age, 16 October 1940, Page 4

Wairarapa Times-Age WEDNESDAY, OCTOBER 16, 1940. LEADERSHIP IN AMERICA.

2\ T EXT month, the people of the United States are to elect a President—that is to say, they are to determine by their votes whether President Roosevelt is to remain at the M hite House '‘for a third term—a thing no other President of the United States has yet done —or is to be replaced by his Republican opponent, Mr Wendell Wiillkie. The selection 01. course is the private and particular business of the American people, but this does not rob it of its great and compelling interest for the people of our own. nation and others, bi’om an objective standpoint the outcome of the Presidential election will be awaited with a measure of anxiety by people in many parts of the British Empire, and not least in this country and other Pacific Dominions. Without venturing to intrude into the third term controversy or other domestic issues raised in this momentous contest—maintaining, indeed, the measure of aloofness that good manners and common sense alike demand —many British people no doubt are of opinion that prospects of continued and effective co-operation between the British Empire and the United States will be much brighter if President Roosevelt is returned for a third term thaiuif he is not. That this belief rests on substantial grounds has been indicated in various ways. For example, an American of standing now visiting this country, Judge Jesse Olney, formerly presiding judge of the California Courts, is reported to have expressed the opinion that a vast change in the attitude of the United States towards Great Britain and the war would be the outcome if Mr Willkie were to defeat President Roosevelt. The interests represented by Mr Willkie, Judge Olney told an interviewer in Wellington, would, he believed, seek a quick peace and a rapprochement with Germany. Observing that he thought, however, that Mr Willkie would be defeated as badly as Mr Landon was four years ago, Judge Olney added that the feeling in the States is, or was when he left three weeks ago, that Mr Willkie’s representations in regard to being “pro-Britain” and against Germany and the Axis are bluff, adopted because some 95 to 98 per cent of the people of the United States want Britain to win, and that this outward attitude is taken by Mi - Willkie as a catch to obtain the votes of the electorate. My own view is that if Mr Willkie were elected he would do everything to obtain a quick peace if possible. The Roosevelt Administration has been the first time in the history of the country, politically, that the large financial interests of Wall Street have not dominated the Government. Mr Willkie has declared himself strongly in favour of giving Britain aid short of war, but the attitude of some of his supporters shows at least a leaning towards isolationist policy. Indeed, his running mate, Senator C. L. McNary, the Republican candidate for the Vice-Presidency, took occasion, in the speech in which he accepted nomination, to declare that:— In common with what I believe to be the overwhelming majority of my countrymen, I oppose involvement in foreign military adventures. . . In the concluding passage of the same address, Senator McNary said:— In the present world situation, we still have a choice. We shall be strong, in which case we shall deter our enemies at home and abroad; or we may remain weak and thus invite their aggression. For my part, I prefer the part of strength. That has been the American choice. It was in very much such terms as these that the isolationists who dominated the Republican Party until very shortly before Mr Willkie was nominated were wont to express themselves. In Senator McNary’s observations there is at least a suggestion that he could without difficulty adjust himself to the policy of isolation if it were revived. While Mr Willkie has the backing of Wall Street interests and of large industrial interests in the United States, he is supported also by more radical groups intent on doing everything that is possible to keep America out of the war. Chicago, for instance, has become of late a battleground in which the ■ Committee to Defend America by Aiding the Allies is opposed by the America First Committee, which has been described as the anti-Communist branch of the isolationist movement. The America First Committee pleads for adequate preparedness, but insists that “aid short of war weakens national defence at home and threatens to involve America in war abroad.” This contention is at variance with Mr Willkie’s declared policy, but, according to a staff correspondent of the “Christian Science Monitor,” it is known that a number of listed members of the America First Committee are supporters of Mi’ Willkie. Apart from any question of the forces behind Mr Willkie, it is clear to an external and dispassionate onlooker, and no doubt is as clear to many of his own countrymen, that the Republican candidate’s own utterances carry no guarantee of a continuation of the foreign policy which has taken shape and is developing under President Roosevelt’s leadership—leadership based upon a perception of the fact that not only the fate of British democracy, but-the fate of all democracy is at stake -in the present conflict. The possibility, at least, of importantvariations in American foreign policy obviously is at stake in the Presidential election and for that reason the outcome will be awaited with both interest and anxiety by Briti.-.h people and by the people of invaded and dispossessed nations now fighting to re-establish their liberties.

THE MEETING AT DELHI.

yyAH developments in the Near and Middle East obviously are tending to impart increased importance to the conference which is to open at New Delhi on October 25. The Viceroy of India, Lord Linlithgow, will preside and delegations will be present from Australia, New Zealand, South Africa, India, Burma, Ceylon, Rhodesia, the East African colonies, Malaya and Hong Kong. In addition, a mission representing the British Ministry of Supply and the War Office and headed by Sir Alexander Roger, an expert on munitions, has been in India for some time past. It has been said that the conference will probably prove to be the nearest approach to an Imperial War Committee that can meantime be achieved. It will concern itself with the fuller mobilisation of the Empire’s industrial and economic resources. The leading idea is that the supplying and provisioning of the armies in the Middle East can and should be made the task of the territories east of Suez, thus enabling the armies operating anywhere ill the East to be virtually independent of supplies through the Mediterranean. If successfully developed, such a scheme would make the task of the Royal Navy much lighter, giving it a greater chance to concentrate on fighting the enemy, since it would be relieved of a considerable proportion of its convoy work.

It is said to be believed in London that the conference will aim particularly at a big expansion of India’s production of munitions and stores. British plans are being developed, amongst other things, for the manufacture of aircraft in India. Australia, New Zealand and the other Empire countries concerned should all be able to make their contribution to the total enterprise. Each of them is in a position to furnish important? supplies of one kind and another. Australia’s part in the production of armaments and war materials may be very important indeed and it will be disappointing if the conference does not point the way to useful if less ambitious developments of war industry in New Zealand. To what extent demands arising from a rapid expansion of warfare in the Middle East can be met speedily by the countries east of .Suez remains to be seen, but a united effort to pool all available resources to the greatest possible advantage no doubt is to be taken for granted.