REVERSAL OF POLICY

Ashburton Guardian, Volume 68, Issue 137, 22 March 1948, Page 3

REVERSAL OF POLICY

U.S. and Palestine

SURPRISE FOR UNITED NATIONS

(N.Z.P.A—Copyright),

NEW YORK, March 10.

The American reversal of its policy on Palestine, though foreshadowed for some time, came as a stunning blow to the United Nations. An observer at to-day’s Big Four meeting said Mr Gromyko (Russia) seemed completely taken aback by the American move.

“A number of well-informed United Nations delegates have expressed the opinion that the reason for the United States decision to abandon the Palestine partition plan was the growing tension between the United States and the Soviet Union,” says the “New York Times” correspondent at Lake Success.

“In spite of the legal arguments of Mr Warren Austin (American delegate on’the Security Council), most of the delegates remain convinced that the changed United States position resulted primarily from fears that Russia would gain a foothold in Palestine if an international military force were sent.

“In addition, the Joint Chiefs of Staff in Washington are known to believe that American participation in the carrying out of partition would alienate the Arab countries and jeopardise the supplies of oil now' received by Britain and the United States from Iraq and Saudi Arabia.” The correspondent of the “Herald Tribune” at Lake Success says: “It is authoritatively reported that the absence of majority support in the Security Council for any Palestine action, plus the lack of American troops for the enforcement of partition now, led the United States to call for a United Nations trusteeship over the Holy Land.” The correspondent points out that America is already heavily committed militarily in such places as Korea and Germany, and that the country’s armed strength is below par. Therefore, ,even if more forces were available, Palestine would not be the first place to send them. Referring to oil, the correspondent adds: “The American armed cervices are known to have been warned about this situation by leading oil companies, and the apparent retreat from partition is believed to have been inspired in part by military considerations along this line.”

“Most Serious Issues Raised”

“By abandoning the Palestine partition plan, the United States has ac cepted the hard logic of the facts,” ©ays “The Times” in aleading article. “Manifestly it is not possible to put the partition) scheme into operation peacefully, and the Americans propose instead a fresh start in solving the problem which now raises international issues of fa most serious kind. “Both the Security Council and the Assembly have been discussing this ■gmve matter with their heads in the clouds. The American proposal should bring both bodies clown to earth.” 1

Both the “New York Times” and the New York “Herald Tribune,” in leading articles, attack the reversal of United States policy on Palestine. The “New York Times” says: (1) That the change in American policy comes as the climax to a series of moves “which iias seldom been matched for ineptness in the handling of any international issues by an American Administration” ; (2) that it is “a plain and unmistakable surrender to lie threat of Arab force” ; (3) that the plan holds little promise of being able to avoid the very hazards which it is intended to circumvent.

On the third point, the “New York Times” declares that to maintain a ‘temporary trusteeship” ; over the whole of Palestine might well require an even larger armed international farce than wbuld be required for partition.

The “Herald-Tribune” says l : “The people of "the United States deserve an explanation: of the palpable blunders of American policy in respect, to Palestine. There have been many’ unofficial excuses references to a changed world picture, lo oil, to military weakness and the like; but no responsible official has openly discussed the practical aspects of the American course in the Middle East, or offered any reasons why that courfte need be altered so shortly after it was fixed.”