Little U.S. Concern At Failure Of Arms Talks

Press, Volume XCIII, Issue 27962, 8 May 1956, Page 15

Little U.S. Concern At Failure Of Arms Talks

[.Specially written for the N.Z.P.A. by FRANK OLIVER]

WASHINGTON, May 5. The American newspapers are busy assessing the effects of the failure of the disarmament conference in London and the failure of the Khrush-chev-Bulganin mission to the same city. There is general gratification that the travelling salesmen achieved the opposite of their primary mission, in that they failed to shake British adherence to the Atlantic Alliance and strengthened Atlantic unity by their crude rebuff of the British Socialists. The general summing up is that the Soviet pair set the clock back to before the summit meeting. None seems upset by the disarmament failure, first because few expected anything else, and second because the failure of the conference does not threaten an;/ new arms race. What gives rise to this belief is the report that there seemed to be a general genuine desire not to increase armaments. In fact, reports from London indicate the belief that though an official failure the conference may even result in some reduction of arms all round. However, there are still plenty of people who consider this rather wishful thinking and there is plenty of argument that the United States cannot do better than continue to build up its defences and advance the mutual weapons programme designed to strengthen the armies of America’s allies morally and materially and so help neutralise the radiation of Soviet power. America, the argument continues, must keep its alliance intact and maintain its edge in military power, both to combat the Soviet policies and to enable the neutral countries to stay neutral. Soviet Air Strength This week Congress has been hearing much about Russia’s lead in longrange bombers, and reports that the?' are ahead also in the inter-continental missile field persist, in’snite of official assurances that all is well in that area. But whether Congress will do anything about it at this stage is not clear. The Defence Department agrees that Russia is building long-range bombers faster than the United States, but has no pjans to increase its goal, which remains at 137 wings by the middle of 1957. What is involved, of course, is where the future emphasis should be whether on jet bombers with human

crews or “wings” of long-range guided missiles. In other words, how near is the world to the possibility of the socalled push-button warfare. The general assumption based on the statements of experts is that America could, with what it has now, fight a full war successfully, but new fleets of long-range bombers could possibly be made obsolete by developments in the long-range guided missile.

As this is written. Americans have their eye on the NATO conference in Paris and there is a genera! belief that the organisation is in need of some revitalisation and wider vision. Whether NATO should be an economic as well as military organisation is being widely debated and there is nothing like unanimity visible yet. Foreign Aid

Lately there has been visible a wider agreement with the Administration of the importance of foreign aid in combating Soviet policies aiming at world dominance. Big business has come out for such aid. but Congress as a whole remains resistant. Within that body there is expressed the belief that the whole subject of foreign aid should come under the most searching study. With this Administration officials are in official agreement, apparently being convinced that such a study can only show the need and the importance of the suggested Administration policies.

But those advocating the study suggest that their “long look” at foreign aid should take at least a year; in other words, it would take it away beyond the November elections. They wish to study such questions as whether aid should be a reward for good political behaviour; whether it is merely to compete with Soviet activities in the same field; does the United States feel an obligation to help underdeveloped areas regardless of Russian activities; should America seek to head off Soviet projects by counter offers, or do the best possible job of assistance indepenof the Russian programmes: and whether the present bilateral system of foreign aid agreements should be shelved for a multilateral approach through NATO or the United Nations These are certainly good questions necessary to be asked and answered, especially if the programme is to be put on a long-term basis. Eut the Administration’s problem still is tn get an appropriation for current use while Congre c s waits for the election and debates the issues.