Wairarapa Times-Age SATURDAY, OCTOBER 2, 1943. AMERICA AND POST-WAR POLICY

Wairarapa Times-Age, 2 October 1943, Page 2

Wairarapa Times-Age SATURDAY, OCTOBER 2, 1943. AMERICA AND POST-WAR POLICY

a direct view it is not a little disappointing’ that a subcommittee of the United States Senate has decided to pigeonhole the Fulbright resolution, in which the House of Representatives, by an overwhelming majority, expressed itself as favouring the creation of appropriate international machinery with power adequate to establish and to maintain a just' and lasting peace among the nations of the world, and as favouring participation by the United States in it through its constitutional processes. This might well have been regarded as a declaration at once sufficiently definite and sufficiently safeguarded to deserve the support of all parties and sections in the United States, save those who adhere to the thoroughly discredited doctrine of isolationism. The message reporting the decision of the Senate subcommittee stated also that a Senate committee will draft its own resolution on post-war foreign policy, but it added that, with the backing of the chairman, Senator Tom Connally, a Democrat, a strong move had developed within the Senate Foreign Relations Committee to delay action on declarations of post-war foreign policy till the views of America’s chief Allies had been sounded. This attitude embodies an apparent element of weakness. The root question to be determined is whether there is to be international co-operation in policing the world against aggression after the war, with whatever abrogation or modification of national sovereignty that co-operation may entail. On that central and commanding issue, a bold lead, rather than a mere readiness to discuss and negotiate, might be expected from the great American democracy. By giving that lead the United States might hope to avert, or more easily to overcome, difficulties that otherwise might stand in the way of agreement with its chief Allies on essential aspects of post-war international co-operation. Account has to be taken, however, of the complexity of American constitutional processes and political divisions and of the extent to which these impede the development of a clearcut international policy. Both the Democratic and Republican parties are split, but the Democrats are said to be split only or mainly on domestic issues, while the Republicans are split on international policy. Attempts by the Republicans to rid themselves of isolationism are regarded as having been incompletely successful. It is still uncertain ivhether President Roosevelt will seek re-election next year for a fourth term and also ■whether the Republicans will nominate as their Presidential candidate Mr "Wendell Willkie, who champions international co-operation as ardently and as unreservedly as Mr Roosevelt himself. It has been stated, however, by the experienced Washington correspondent of the “Christian Science Monitor,” Mr Roscoe Drummond, that: — It now seems clear that there will either be a decisive rejection of isolationism by the Republicans or Mr Roosevelt, will unquestionably go to the country for a fourth time to obtain an unequivocal mandate to put America behind the common maintenance of the common peace. In fact Mr Roosevelt will probably run whatever the G.O.P. (the Republican Party) does. There does not seem to be any doubt that there exists in the United States a widespread and genuine desire to establish safeguards of future peace, but admittedly there is some haziness as to how that end is to be achieved. As in other countries, a great deal is bound to depend on the nature of the lead given to the people.