U.S, Relief At Accord Between Britain And West Germany

Press, Volume XCVIII, Issue 29060, 24 November 1959, Page 15

U.S, Relief At Accord Between Britain And West Germany

[Specially written jot the N.Z.P.A. by FRANK OLIVERi (Rec. 8 p.m.) WASHINGTON, Nov. 22. There is considerable relief here that the Adenauer visit to London turned out as well as it did and that the front of the Western allies is growing stronger and straighter before it faces Mr Khrushchev. There is also the- hope that these misunderstandings that fray the alliance will not appear again before the delayed summit meeting next spring. The “Washington Post” says that if Dr. Adenauer is now convinced that the British are not appeasers and the British have learned that Dr. Adenauer does not wear horns, then the Chancellor’s visit to London has been well worth while. It considers that Britain’s putting aside of disengagement in central Europe and Dr. Adenauer’s consent to the discussion of Berlin at the summit meeting are both concessions to the obvious Washington considered both concessions were inevitable, but seems glad and relieved that they have been made. Some sections of the press express the view the most important thing of all in the Mac-millan-Adenauer meeting is the symbolism of friendlier relations between the two countries that

were enemies and now are allies. It is acknowledged that Dr. Adenauer can be a very irritating man, but he is considered here to be a great European of broad vision and considerable courage. And G'ermany and free Europe are being reminded that they owe a great deal to the resiliency and tenacity of Britain. The improved understanding between London and Bonn is indispensable to Western uhity. There also is satisfaction here that Mr Macmillan and Dr. Adenauer found themselves in agreement that some kind of bridge is needed between the Free Trade Association now in being and the European Common Market. As one writer says, the United States, which has supported the political and social objectives of the Common Market, has an interest in seeing that neither of the two groups becomes a huge cartel against the other or against the rest of the world.

The fear has been expressed that the rivalry between the two groups might have grown into a trade war. No-one seems to doubt that the Free Trade Association is intended to exercise some leverage on the Common Market but if the bridge envisioned by Mr Macmillan and Dr. Adenauer between the two groups is built, the hope is expressed that the economic growth from free trade will mount

The “New York Times” expresses its pleasure that first Britain and France and now

Britain and Germany are putting the common ties that bind them above the differences that divide them. And it hopes that better relations and increased trade and prosperity will lead America’s allies shortly to relieve the United States of some of its burdens in foreign aid that have already cost America 68.000 million dollars. Loyalty Oaths Again Nearer home, a considerable amount of perturbation is being caused by the Government insistence on loyalty oaths from college students seeking aid to complete their education. Harvard and Yale have joined Princeton and several of the country’s leading smaller colleges in refusing to accept Government educational aid on these conditions, which they consider insulting to American youths. The bone of contention Is the National Defence Education Act of 1958, under which every student receiving a Federal loan for his education must not only swear allegiance to the Government, but also sign a disclaimer that he believes in or supports any organisation advocating the illegal overthrow of the Government

To some this does not seem unreasonable, but to many seats of highpr learning and to many others it seems that oaths of this type imposed on members of the academic fraternity suggest what the “New York Times’’ calls a wider infringement on the freedom of thought

They object to it also because it suggests that citizens in other spheres of activity are made of better material or that students are more suspect than, say, farmers, who get vaster sums in the form of subsidies without being required to swear oaths or sign such disclaimers.

These oaths are, of course, a holdover Congress insisted on keeping from the witch-hunting days of McCarthy. The matter has been argued back and forth ever since. It is said that the practice is useless because it insults the loyal and causes no perturbations in the conscience of any Communist who would swear anything to accomplish his mission, if any. In Congress this summer,- Senator John Kennedy and others fought hard to remove this oath from the legislation, but failed by a narrow majority. The “New York Times,” which says it admires the action of Harvard, Yale, Princeton and other universities for withdrawing from the Federal student loan programme because of the loyalty oath provision, adds that under the programme some 1200 thousand students had been expected to participate in the programme this year. ‘‘But. its value greatly suffers from anything so unAmerican and so fatuous as this relic of McCarthyism.” The hope is being expressed that the stand taken by Harvard, Yale and Princeton will encourage the renewal of efforts such as Senator Kennedy’s to remove the oath provision as soon as Congress meets next year.