The Press SATURDAY, MARCH 19, 1938. America and the Crisis

Press, Volume LXXIV, Issue 22355, 19 March 1938, Page 16

The Press SATURDAY, MARCH 19, 1938. America and the Crisis

Mr Cordell Hull’s speech on American foreign policy is at first reading a disappointment. It abounds in vague figures of speech, it avoids all direct reference to the present situation in Europe, and il underlines heavily America’s unwillingness to enter into undertakings which fetter her freedom of action in international affairs. By comparison with Mr Chicago speech, in which dictators and their policies were roundly denounced, or with Mr Hull’s own previous pronouncements on American policy in the Far East, it seems tame and cautious. Such' comparisons are, however, misleading. Mr Roosevelt’s Chicago speech was not a considered statement of American foreign policy; it was an attempt by Mr Roosevelt to awaken the American people to the difficulties and dangers of the traditional American policy of isolation, to the folly of supposing that so great a nation can insulate itself from the political and economic troubles of the rest of the world. As such, it was not free from exaggeration and bombast, and at certain points it was out of touch with political realities. Mr Hull, obviously, is speaking under a heavy sense of responsibility; his tone is deliberately calm and his words are carefully chosen; it is possible to feel that every one of his words has been weighed and that the policy he enunciates is one which has the support of the great majority of the American people. In the present crisis, caution such as this is to be desired above everything. It is much better to know exactly where America stands than to have superficially encouraging statements which in reality represent the views pnly of a section of the Administration. Mr Hull’s formula for American co-operation with other States in dealing with the problems created by the growth of international lawlessness is “ parallel action,” a formula which, he explains, covers American policy in the Far East since the outbreak of the war in China. .It means that the Administration will, without in any way binding itself and without going as far as joint action, conform its policy to that of other governments with similar interests and objectives. The method is not new; but it is to be applied over a much wider field than formerly. “ The interest and concern of the “ United States,” says Mr Hull, “is not “measured alone by the number of American “ citizens residing in any country or the volume “of investment or trade. There is a much “ broader and more fundamental interest, “ namely, the orderly process of international “ relationships.** This is an indication that America will co-operate with like-minded States in problems which arise in any part of the world, whether or not her material interests are involved, whereas hitherto she has regarded Europe as outside her sphere of action. It is a recognition that the policy now being pursued by Germany, Italy, and Japan threatens nothing less than the extinction of democracy and political freedom throughout the world. If Mr Hull does not go as far as many Englishmen had hoped, it can be said in his defence that British policy has in recent months given little encouragement to Americans who believe that the world’s only hope of escaping a relapse into barbarism lies in Anglo-American co-operation. The British Government’s recognition of the conquest of Abyssinia, its willingness to condone aggression for the sake of an agreement with Germany and Italy, and its pathetic indecision in the present crisis have had a most unfortunate effect on American public opinion; and American public opinion sets the limits on the Administration’s freedom to co-operate in the solution of international problems. Henceforth the guiding principle of British foreign policy must be that American goodwill, even if it is not accompanied by any form of alliance or official understanding, is worth infinitely more than treaties with States which have Haunted their disregard for law and morality.