THURSDAY, JUNE 1, 1944. Organisation For Security

Press, Volume LXXX, Issue 24272, 1 June 1944, Page 4

THURSDAY, JUNE 1, 1944. Organisation For Security

Mr Cordell Hull’s announcement that the United States is “ready to “ begin talks with Britain, Russia, “ and China on the establishment of “ an international security organisa- “ tion ” is solidly encouraging, less because it discloses anything new in the policy of the Administration, than because it is backed by the success of a new procedure in the making and forwarding of foreign policy. Mr Cordell Hull has previously put in the plainest words the Administration's desire to carry the United States into an international security organisation, guaranteed by the armed force of its members in proportion to their resources. This statement has been corroborated at other times and in other ways. The resolution of both Houses of Congress, favouring postwar international collaboration, was in harmony with it. At Moscow, Cairo, and Teheran something like the practical application of the doctrine of world responsibility, shared by the four Powers, began to appear. But behind all superficially encouraging evidence of the Administration’s intention and of political support for it lay the hard fact that the Administration could achieve nothing without the approval of Congress, which would have to be given, not merely in the form of a two-thirds Senate majority for treaty obligations, but In granting finance, endorsing appointments, and so forth. It is a fact hard enough to be obstructive when the policy-makers of the State Department are out of touch with Congress and when Congress is traditionally inclined to assert its rights against Presidential power; a fact dangerously likely to become obstructive, when the issue is one of foreign commitments fraught with the risks of war, when it is presented by a third-term President probably about to bid for a fourth term, and when that fourth term may bring him face to face with Republican majorities. The precedent of Wilson’s total failure to win endorsement of his world peace policy throws its long shadow over the Capitol. But, indirectly acknowledging that that precedent is a significant one, changes have recently been made in the conduct of United States foreign policy. The State Department has been reorganised, in part on the executive and planning side, in part to attempt “ a new approach to the “ problem of relations with the “ American people,” as an observer has said. Mr. Cordell Hull broke with old tradition and probably founded a new and constructive one when he appeared before • Congress to report on the Moscow Conference. The .possibility has been widely discussed in Washington that the Secretary of State (and other members of the Executive) should from time to time meet Con--gress, not merely to make a statement, as Mr Hull did, but to initiate debate and answer questions; and that—as could be decided by resolution—simple majorities of bot£ Houses instead of a two-thirds Senate majority should be sufficient to ratify foreign engagements. These advances in the democratic control of foreign policy may come. If they do, they will be helpful. Meanwhile, towards the end of April, Mr Hull made the notable advance of constituting a Congressional committee of eight—four Democrats, three Republicans, one Progressive—to assist in the conduct of foreign affairs by conferring with the’Secretary of State. This committee, a working link between administration and legislation, has 1 clearly served Mr Hull well, as much in encouraging him to hold “ the door of non-partisanship wide “ open at the 'State Department ” as in assuring him that he can enter preliminary discussions with Britain, Russia, and China on firm political ground. What this means, it may be assumed, is that the committee has reached unanimity on the broad basis of United States security proposals, which, it has been predicted in Washington, guarantees solid Senate support. Obviously, the security problem is not solved. Even if Mr Hull’s proposals were known and were incontestably sound, it would not be. The talks Mr Hull wishes to enter are “informal.” In other words, whatever their result, it will bind nobody. They can at best prepare everybody to work with one mind for a clear and lasting agreement. But the way of the United States to its place of responsibility in the world, which runs through Washington, looks clearer.