The Press TUESDAY, JANUARY 24, 1956. Foreign Policy In U.S. Election

Press, Volume XCIII, Issue 27874, 24 January 1956, Page 12

The Press TUESDAY, JANUARY 24, 1956. Foreign Policy In U.S. Election

The controversy in the United States, which now seems to be dying down, about the claim of the Secretary of State, Mr Dulles, that three times since President Eisenhower took office the world had come to the “ brink of war ” and yet kept the peace, is the first of what will probably be a long series of disputes in the 1956 Presidential election campaign. By now most of the free world outside the United States hss come to recognise the symptoms of election year fever, and to appreciate that statements on foreign policy designed to influence the electors in perhaps lowa or Wisconsin are not to be taken at their face value by‘the Foreign Ministries of friendly allies of the Americans, or even by the general public' in other English-speaking countries. The truth is that the speed and resources of modem news communication have outgrown the realisation of their potency. Although they should know that United States foreign policy is world news, most American politicians tend to forget that they have a world audience rather than a purely American one when they generalise on foreign policy and accuse their opponents of all sorts of skullduggery. For instance, in the 1952 Presidential campaign, most thinking Republicans scarcely wished the world to believe that former President Truman was “soft” on communism, and had through that very softness allowed his administration to become honeycombed with fellow-travellers anxious to promote the Communist conspiracy in the United States. They probably did not believe it themselves. Yet the damage that such reckless charges must have made among America’s allies can scarcely be calculated. Fortunately the present controversy—dealing with Mr Dulles’s interview with a mass circulation magazine—while bitter enough, is a long way clear of the mud-slinging of previous administrations. The magazine itself has partly absolved Mr Dulles of responsibility. The Foreign Secretary, at worst, is accused of reckless statements and reckless foreign policy, on the very good ground that with the world so precariously, poised now between a cold war and a hot one it can be regarded as dangerous policy to let events get to the stage which can accurately be described as the “ brink of war ”.

For, although it is true that the peace has been kept since the inconclusive armistice which ended the fighting in Korea, it would be hard for even the most optimistic supporter of the Republicans to claim that the last three years have seen the free world a triumphant winner in a diplomatic battle with the Communists. The best that the West can possibly claim is that it has held its own, and some chapters in the story of international diplomacy, including Indo-China, could scarcely support even that claim.

From now until next November, when the electors decide, the free world will have to accustom itself, however, to such recurring foreign policy disputes, and it is to be hoped that instead of causing controversies which echo round the world they will be kept in their proper perspective, as regrettable but unavoidable adjuncts of bitter domestic politics in a country renowned for the violence of its electioneering. The initial attack on Mr Dulles is probably a tacit admission by the Democrats that since it is bad politics to attack President Eisenhower himself, the strategy should be to hit hard at those of his Cabinet who are regarded as good targets. And noone can deny that Mr Dulles has sometimes left himself wide open for criticism.