COMMENT BY “THE TIMES”

Press, Volume LXXXIII, Issue 25085, 17 January 1947, Page 7

COMMENT BY “THE TIMES”

“The Times,” in a leading article, says: “The first aim of the projected British-French alliance is to contribute to Europe’s pacification. The present state of the world imposes upon French and British statesmanship the obligation to consider the relations between the two countries in their broader bearings.

“Neither ’'’rance nor Britain can shape its policy towards the Arab world in ‘Asia Minor and North Africa without reference to the other. The two colonial empires meet in West Africa. Divergencies of attitude towards Burma and Indo-China might well prove fatal. “The conversations are now about to enter the practical stage, and the two metropolitan countries cannot restrict them to their European interests. The objective of the economic entente will be to marry the Monnet and Morrison plans. The Governments are instructing the British and French Economic Committee to press on with the prevention of conflicts of nolicy about economic reconstruction, but the deciding factor in the proposed co-opera-tion will be the development of complementary features of the French and British economies. An economic entente can give body and power to a military alliance by concerted constructive work to increase output and expand trade.” The Paris correspondent of “The Times,” says the news that conversations are to begin in the near future for the conclusion of a British-French alliance will rejoice the hearts of those who have long felt that the FrenchRussian pact and the British-Russian pact required to be balanced by a pact with Britain if the French policy of acting as a bridge between east and west in Europe is to become a formal reality and if the triangle of European

security against Germany is to be continuously fenced all round. THb acceptance of the British coal policy in the Ruhr, which is implicit in the agreement will be hard for some to swallow, especially after the arguments that have been so consistently put forward against it by previous governments and by the newspapers of the two principal parties. The impetuous will see in it an unrepaid concession to Britain and will suspect that Mr Blum has been prepared to make a virtue .out of necessity for the sake of a last testimonial to the Socialist Party’s brief tenure of office. The negotiators who are also politicians would be more than human if they did not allow such considerations to weigh in their minds but there may well be more to this change of attitude than this superficial analysis suggests. Just before leaving for London, Mr Blum invited Mr Bogomolov, the Russian Ambassador, to dine. Mr Bogomolov was himself about to leave Pap is for Moscow. Mr Blum must certainly have explained the aims of his London visit with sufficient care and detail to dispel from the Russian Ambassador’s mind the idea that the wide scope of the London talks implied a new attempt to create a western bloc or even a purely western entente, but it is likely that the conversation had its constructive side. France needs Russian acceptance of her claims to the Saar far too much to incur the risk of alienating the Kremlin, already none too forthcoming with its support. Reuter’s correspondent in Paris says a report from London quotes Mr Bevin as saying: “I believe the agreement to start negotiations for a BritishFrench alliance is a very good thing. If we now get to work on it in a good spirit we can develop it without hurting anybody else.”