Bipartisanship Again In U.S. Policies

Press, Volume XCVI, Issue 28440, 21 November 1957, Page 15

Bipartisanship Again In U.S. Policies

(Specially written for the N.Z.P.A. by FRANK OLIVER) (Rec. 9 p.m.) WASHINGTON, Nov. 19. To Washington today, Mr Adlai Stevenson and what he represents is more interesting than missiles and sputniks. The political facts and possibilities are now more interesting and more immediately vital than what has been called “military hardware.” In spite of all the confusion of speech in the capital, it is felt that the missiles programmes are now proceeding at good speed by the awakened services and the Administration. As a writer in the “New York Times’’ says, the missile problem is better than it was a day before the first Soviet satellite went up. “because the Pentagon was asleep then, and now it is awake. It is moving, searching and exchanging ideas.*’ In other words, the means of redressing the balance of military power are under way, but the political balance of power is what bothers the White House and the State Department, and the calling on Mr Stevenson for help, while widely hailed, is also widely regarded as evidence of the low estate to which the partisan foreign policy has brought the country. Sputniks are sputniks, and intercontinental missiles are terrible things, but they concern the future. Syria. Tunisia and other areas are immediate political problems about which something has to be done. Soviet diplomacy is making as rapid strides as Soviet science, and this is more than disturbing. Soviet mastery of Syria tends to gain, not diminish, and Tunisia, for many thinking Americans, demonstrated the weakness of N.A.T.O. and the strength of Soviet diplomacy.

As has been said here, Moscow, by threatening to send arms to Tunisia, forced America and Britain to send some at the risk of losing the friendship and help of a valued N.A.T.O. ally, France. Washington seems to think, as does London, that French tempers

will cool before the N.A.T.O. summit meeting, but it is clear that, thanks to the Tunisian affair, the repair and bolstering - of N.A.T.O. is a bigger job now than it looked even to Mr Eisenhower and Mr Macmillan in October. It was clear to the Administration leaders before Mr Macmillan left these shores that the bipartisan foreign policy they so carefully eschewed for five years was now a necessity, hence the invitation to Mr Stevenson. Chances of a real bipartisan foreign policy at this writing appear to be good, even excellent, and Washington fully expects that if a policy is fashioned so that Mr Stevenson can give his unqualified support, he will be in Paris as third member of the American delegation. One Voice By an odd turn of fate, a man twice defeated by Mr Eisenhower and one who appeared to have no future at all in his party, now stands head and shoulders above any Democrat in elective office today. His presence in Washington does not diminish the international political problems but, thanks to his presence, there is hope that the world’s biggest nation can be brought to speak with one voice as it has not since the war.

There is a large measure of agreement in the announced views of both parties. The Democratic demand, through its advisory council, on which Mr Stevenson’s voice is powerful, that America’s N.A.T.O. allies be assured of nuclear weapons for their defence, is in tune with the Eisen-hower-Macmillan agreement. And the Democrats want the closest kind of alliance with the N.A.T.O. countries. The Administration has shown itself to be in tune with this by the suggestion that an arrangement be sought in Paris for the establishment of Ameri-

can medium-range missiles in N.A.T.O. bases. f The big question now is how far it is possible to go in recementing the N.A.T.O. alliance with the approval of both parties ifcn the United States. An arrangement which did not get Demo-

cratic support would have little chance of approval in the Senate. If Mr Dulles and Mr Stevenson can hammer out a policy completely acceptable to both parties, then, Washington thinks, the prospects for a Paris meeting are bright The urgency for bipartisan policies are underlined for both parties by events in Syria. When Moscow completes strengthening the foundations of the Communist regime there, Washington realises it will be perfectly possible for Moscow and Syria to negotiate a treaty whereby Communist air and naval bases can be established at the eastern end of the Mediterranean. The political and military implications of this are alarming. These possibilities doubtless had something to do with American action in sending arms to Tunisia, for the thought of the possibility of the Syrian story being repeated there was almost too appalling to contemplate. Tricky Problem The size of the problem, as seen from here, is that the Soviets are in the Middle East up to their neck, and look as if they either will have to be brought into a general settlement or forced out. But the question is: who’s going to do the forcing by war or risk of war in the Middle East? No-one can suggest bipartisan policy can frame the completed answer to that problem, but at least there is a good prospect that America will go to Paris with a united voice, and will therefore be stronger than it has been for some time. It is the hope of many here that just as the mobilisation of brainpower is getting the real missile programme under way, so the mobilisation of the political brains of N.A.T.O. can evolve something more effective than has been thought of to date for dealing with the results of Soviet diplomacy in the Middle East. J DISTRESS SIGNALS I When a tickling throat or eud- . !den sneeze, signals a coming cold .'take Baxters Lung Preserver. . i "Baxters’ cuts a cold at the root. 5 clears the phlegm and clears the . | air passages. At all chemists and .stores Baxters Ltd.. Chch. —Advt.