PRESIDENT’S ENVOY

Evening Star, Issue 23498, 12 February 1940, Page 7

PRESIDENT’S ENVOY

MR WELLES'S MISSION TO EUROPE HOT ACTING AS MEDIATOR ALL NEUTRALS EXCEPT ITALY WELCOME MOVE LONDON, February 10. Although President Roosevelt’s decision to send Mr Welles to Europe is described in some quarters as opening a new peace offensive, the latest information suggests that it is more concerned with neutrals than with belligerents. It is stated semi-officially in Paris that the mission is highly welcome, but that there is no question of Mr Welles acting as a mediator. The neutral Press generally welcomes the mission and commends its purpose. The exception is Italy, where it is considered that Mr Roosevelt is too prejudiced in favour of the Allies. That a cordial welcome is awaiting Mr Sumner Welles when he visits Great Britain and France as the special envoy of the President of the United States is emphasised in the newspapers of both countries. “ The effects of five months of war on the determination of the British and French people must be well known to Mr Roosevelt,” the ‘ Daily Telegraph ’ says. “He is not less able to judge what change of heart has occurred in Hitler since August, when the President’s appeal to him to keep the peace had not the slightest effect, and since .November, when Queen Wilhelmina asked Hitler to takethe first step toward peace and he would not move one inch from the plunder ho had seized. “Air Roosevelt will also be well informed of the feeling aroused in the neutral States of Europe by the brutality of German warfare, and will have perceived their movement toward consolidation in defence. The President must bo well aware that we shall not abate one letter of ouf terms for peace.” “ LONG-RANGE THINKING " NEW YORK PRESS COMMENT NEW YORK, February 10. The ‘ New York Times ’ in an editorial approves of Mr Welles’s trip to Europe. It adds: “The fact that Mr Roosevelt undoubtedly knows the slightness of the prospect of immediate peace does not prevent him from thinking about the world that must emerge from the present tragedy. . . We have no right to tell those bearing the strain and grief of the struggle what they must do to end it, but we know there cannot be a durable peace unless there is an eventual reduction of armaments and trade barriers If neutrals can face their common troubles with a common outlook, the next peace may be more than an armed truce. The talks with neutrals are proof of longrange thinking of the right sort.” AFTER THE WAR FORECAST OF TRADE POSITION LONDON, February 10, Official circles are inclined to resent inquiries about preparations for the immediate post-war period, but the ‘ Economist ’ says it is by no means futile to look ahead, and asks, How is Britain’s trade likely to fare? “ It is probable,” the ‘ Economist ’ says, “ that primary products will continue to fall in price in terms of manufactures, but the extent of the relative fall is likely to be smaller than in the past 20 years. There is unlikely to be a return to the comparative free trade obtaining before 1914. The Italian and German policies of extreme national self-sufficiency, however, are likely to be modified. The growth of manufacturing industries in the primary-pro-ducing countries will continue after the war, but as it raises the standard of living such growth is likely to lead to expansion, rather than contraction, of their foreign trade.” PLAN TO CREATE SOLIDARITY SEEKING EQUITABLE ECONOMIC BASIS FOR PEACE NEW YORK, February 11. (Received February 12, at 8 a.m.) The Washington correspondent of the ‘ New York Times ’ says the further statement by Mr Cordell Hull is regarded as clarifying the Roosevelt peace efforts. Mr Hull emphasised that they were not directed at securing the immediate cessation of hostilities. The conversations with neutrals were for the purpose of determining au equitable economic basis for peace after the war ended. He added that the United States was seeking commitments from neutrals on the principles of a programme of sound international relations, the United States believing that such relations and the progressive curtailment of armaments were the only means of avoiding world autarchy and economic totalitarianism The conversations were limited to achieving agreement on these issues so as to create solidarity when the peace conference comes. ALLIED BROADCASTS DRAW GERMAN FIRE LONDON, February 11. Received February 12, at 11 a.m.) The German radio said : “ Our machine-gun (ire silenced Allied loud speakers on the Western Front, because of their primitive insulting nature. The French answered the fire, resulting in a lively exchange but the loud speakers remained silent.” i