The Evening Post. WELLINGTON, FRIDAY, JULY 28, 1944.

Evening Post, Volume CXXXVIII, Issue 24, 28 July 1944, Page 4

The Evening Post. WELLINGTON, FRIDAY, JULY 28, 1944.

WASHINGTON'S PLAIN WORDS

Unreserved criticism of the alleged pro-Axis conduct of Argentina by the U.S. State Department, combined with an implied threat of "severe economic sanctions" against Argentina, forms the subject-matter of Washington and New York advices, which include a reply by the Argentine Foreign Minister, who says that Argentina will continue her present course of conduct. The charge against Argentina to a certain extent resembles the charge made against Spain—economic action that assists the United Nations' enemies. In the case of Spain the principal cause of complaint is direct supply of war materials to Germany; Argentina is charged with indirect practices, such as giving Argentine Government contracts to firms which are of enemy origin or which co-operate with the enemy, and which use materials imported into Argentina from the United Nations. While the Spanish Government proclaims its sympathy with NaziFascism, and has exported war materials to Germany more or less openly—reducing them only under United Nations' pressure—the Argentine Government has made a proAllied gesture by breaking off diplomatic relations with Germany, but the U.S. State Department says that the Argentine Government's anti-Fascism exists.in token only, and is shadow without substance. In substance the Argentine Government has "given constant aid and comfort to the enemies of the American republics," and has "persisted in this open and notorious course of action" for 2£ years. Approximately, the Argentine and the Spanish Governments have both been charged with helping the enemy, with superadded hypocrisy in the case of the former. It will be remembered that on May 24 the British Prime Minister delivered in the "House of Commons one of his most significant speeches, in which he dealt in detail with the complex riddle' of neutrals, of allies or halfallies like Turkey and Portugal, and 'of the position of Kings (like that of Greece and Yugoslavia) whose rights (unlike those of other United Nations' Sovereigns) are-" repudiated by some of their subjects. On the following day (May 25) a correspondent of the "New York _ Times" cabled from London: "Anti-Fascist and left-wing opinion recoiled in alarm today from the 'kindly words about Spain' spoken in the House of Commons yesterday by Prime Minister Churchill, who declared that the war lias become less ideological in character.' Editorial opinion in today's morning newspapers was divided along the customary lines, but even two of Mr. Churchill's regular supporters were taken aback by his defence of Generalissimo Francisco Franco. The 'Morning Telegraph' said that his revelations on Spain were 'startling.' The 'Daily Mail' called the speech a 'brilliant survey,' but noted that the terms employed towards Spanish Fascism were 'unexpectedly warm.'" Contrasting with the unexpected warmth of Mr. Churchill's references to Spain—who still sends a little wolfram to Germany—the U.S. State Department's references to Argentina are a little more than cold. When Churchill on May 24 announced his intention to speak "kindly words," he implied that the Spanish status quo, if not satisfactory, was at least preferable to "what might have been" in the Iberian corner of Europe. On the other hand, the U.S. State Department, if these American messages are correct, has exhausted its vocabulary of "kindly words" so far as the Argentine Government is concerned. In Latin Europe Churchill prefers the devil he knows; in Latin America, the State Department seems to have concluded that the devil it does not know is preferable to the devil behind the Argentine Government. These anti-Fascist critics who have accused Churchill of devil-worship in Spain have also accused the United States State Department of devilworship in France. Devil-worship is partly a matter of expediency—diplomatic or military—and partly a matter of point of view; and as principle and expediency tend to become confused, it will be especially interesting to see how Press and public opinion in America take sides over this firm departure of the State Department, which appears to be taking a stronger stand today in the case of Argentina than at any previous moment in the long history of vacillation of neutrals, of halfneutrals, and of half-allies. One thing is very.plain: the Latin element cannot be ignored in the post-war world. Neither Latin-Europe nor LaUnAmerica can be overlooked, each Having vast capacities not only for mischief but for construction. Their failure to produce a great leader in this war may not continue; that failure may be part of their lack of a close co-ordination, which lack, in turn, may not continue. It still remains to be proved whether Fascism or Nazism or a blend of the two is merely a selfish feature of the persons forming the ex-Government of Italy, the present Government of Spain, the collapsing Government of France (Vichy), the self-appointed Governments of Argentina and Bolivia, or whether this NaziFascism has its roots deep in all or some of those European and American peoples which are of Latin or Roman origin in'whole or in part. Short-range policy may be dictated by short-range events, but statesmanship will have to take a long view of the meaning of Italian, Vichy-French, Spanish, and Argentine events in the world's history. In South America that problem has been simmering for some time. The United States State Department's hard words may bring it to the boil.