BRITAIN’S PLACE DISCUSSED

Press, Volume LXXXII, Issue 24763, 2 January 1946, Page 5

BRITAIN’S PLACE DISCUSSED

LACK OF WEIGHT AT CONFERENCE

“ RUSSIAN-AMERICAN

COMPROMISE ” (Special Correspondent NJZ.PA.)

(Rec. 10 p.m.) LONDON, December 31 Second thoughts on the Moscow conference indicate that cautious reserve is maintained, if it has not hardened./ In some quarters the conference is seen as . ? Russian-American compromise in which Russia got the better of the bargain and from which Britain has been so me tendency to think that America has safeguarded herself in the Far East while to a certain extent abandoning her interests in Europe to Russia’s benefit. It is observed' that in none of the specifically Russian-British disputes has Britain got anything in return lor the surrender of the British-American attitude on Eastern Europe. While America has a settlement in Eastern Asia, the Russians have not agreed to a consolidation of Western Europe to match their now achieved eastern consolidation. Russia is also agitating for a share in the control of the Ruhr and has stepped up her political offensive against Persia and Turkey. “Student of Europe,” in the “Observer,” comments: “It is perhaps not unduly pessimistic to see in the Moscow conference the first open sign of a further narrowing down of the circle of real Great Powers from three to two. Britain is still, to judge from the results of this important meeting, just strong enough to hang on permanently, unlike France, to the exclusive inner circle of the biggest Powers. She no longer seems to carry sufficient weight inside that circle to get her way or even to make others meet her half-way on any fundamental question of international controversy. “Neither the reason nor the remedy of this state of affairs is far to seek. Britain is a medium-sized nation State compared with the American and Russian continents, and the additional strength which she derives from her association with the Commonwealth is amply offset by the United States’ association with Latin America and Russia’s with Eastern Europe. In the accepted game of hard power bargaining such as is being played among the Big Three she is a predestined loser.

“Fundamental Mistake” “Her fundamental mistake, made by Mr Churchill and Mr Eden in 1942 and 1943, - was to accept that game and her place in it without first fortifying herself by close and intimate association with her Western European neighbours, especially France. France and Britain, acting as one, could still pull their full weight as one of the real modern big Powers and restore to their councils that equilibrium which is indispensable in the interests of peace and thus ultimately in the interests of the other Powers themselves. A France and. Britain divided and quarrelling will inevitably go on to share diplomatic defeats, rebuffs, and humiliations.

“First priority in British foreign policy should therefore, contrary to the commonplace, be not her relations with America and Russia but her relations with France—and the consolidation of Western Europe which would result from real and permanent Franco-Bri-tish unity. Once this is achieved the Big Three meetings, in which Western Europe would for the first time be a really equal partner, would of themselves yield more satisfactory results. But diplomacy alone will not achieve it, unless public opinion both here and in France wakes up to the dangers of the present anomalous position and to the responsibilities which France and Britain still carry for the future of Europe and for the peace of the world.” French Dissatisfaction

From Paris it is reported that the latent conflict between General de Gaulle and the Foreign Minister (M. Bidault) has come to the surface over the French attitude to. the Moscow conference. While M. Bidault has urged acceptance of the position of France “such as it is.” he has also supported acceptance of those propositions of the three-Power communique which exclude France as a signatory to the peace treaties with Germany’s former Eastern European with whom France has never been at war. M. Bidault’s thesis was sh?rply repudiated by General de Gaulle, who is quoted as saying: “We live in ignorance as to the role allotted to France in the general settlement of Europe. We cannot agree that a political reconstruction of the Continent can be made without France’s active collaboration. We do not expressly demand to put our signature under the Balkan peace treaties, but we should still at least participate in their preparation. Nothing must be done in Europe without France.” The Russians are reported to be growing more enthusiastic about the conference. The warmest comment comes from “’ Moscow News.” which calls the conference “a landmark in international collaboration for peace.” It says: “Without collaboration by the three Powers, it is impossible to build a stable and lasting peace. Our enemies’ hopes to split the camp of the great freedom-loving Powers are dashed to the ground.”