APPOINTMENT OF RUSK

Press, Volume XCIX, Issue 29389, 16 December 1960, Page 8

APPOINTMENT OF RUSK

Favourable U.K. Press Comment

(N.Z. Press Association—Copyright) LONDON, December 14.

The initial reactions of the British newspapers to the appointment by the President-elect Mr Kennedy, of Mr Dean Rusk as Secretary of. State, Mr Adlal Stevenson as Ambassador to the United Nations, and Mr Chester Bowles as Under-Secretary of State suggest these moves have been well received.

The main point which is emphasised is that by appointing Mr Rusk, Mr Kennedy intends to be the dominant figure when it comes to handling foreign affairs.

The “Guardian" says that the new team at the State Department promises to be formidable. Among experts, the reputation of Mr Rusk stands high, and the fact that Messrs Bowles and Stevenson, both of whom might have expected to head a department, but have accepted subordinate posts, is in itself a recommendation for their new chief. “The Democrats have a majority in both Houses of Congress, which will be only too glad to respond to strong leadership from the executive. “In these circumstances, the most important qualification for Secretary of State is that he should have and should be known to have the confidence of the President—and that he should be willing to let the President lead,” the newspaper adds. “As Joseph Alsop has recently reminded us, it is a weak President who needs a major figure as his Secretary of State, If one can generalise safely from Mr Rusk’s article in the April edition of 'Foreign Affairs,’ he should make a fine Secretary of State for a strong President. "The theme of his article was the role of the Presidency in foreign policy, and his main conclusion was that under the American constitution Presidential leadership is indispensable. "Mr Rusk’s second conclusion was perhaps more doubtful. His article was written just before the unhappy summit meeting in Paris, and he was concerned to dissipate credulous assumptions about the usefulness of summit diplomacy. "Many of his criticisms were valid and the outcome of the summit conference certainly appears to have reinforced them, but it would be foolish to argue from the dangers inherent in summit diplomacy a sweeping condemnation of it. The argument is for perseverance, not passivity.”