TWO VOICES

Evening Star, Issue 25941, 5 November 1946, Page 7

TWO VOICES

Soviet's Foreign Policy

Possibility of Radical Changes

(From E. C. Webber, N.Z.P.A. Spl. Cor.)

[(Rec. 10.30 a.m.) LONDON, November 4. The contrast between the tone and content of recent statements made by Generalissimo Stalin in Moscow and M. Molotov in the U.N.O. Assembly has . prompted suggestions in Britain that Stalin, who does not do unexpected things without a purpose, may lie preparing the ground for important changes in Soviet foreign policy. It is not believed that so well-drilled a Foreign Secretary as Molotov would be likely to depart even by a shade'from the letter of his brief, but it is suggested that Stalin is preparing the Russian people gradually for some important changes, while Molotov fights a rearguard action at Flushing Meadow.

Points on which Stalin and Molotov have differed in their public pronouncements are interesting. Molotov emphasised the rift between East and West; Stalin denied that there was any increase in tension. Molotov attacked the American plan of atomic control and hinted that the use of atomic bombs-on one' side would be met by atomic! bombs “ and something more ” on the other; Stalin approved of the international control of atomio weapons and announced that Russia . had,. no atomic bombs “ or any similar weapons.” Molotov attacked the apvpearance of warships and aircraft “ in places where the success of, diplomatic negotiations- was required ”; ■. Stalin said he was indifferent to the appearance of American warships in the Mediterranean. : Molotov bitterly denounced “ dollar diplomacy ” ; Stalin said (Russia would be “ interested ” in an American loan. Molotov attacked

the Western Powers for their “ reactionary ” policies in various parte of the world; Stalin was polite, even if not approving; about the American policy in Japan and the British policy m Greece. The two voices of the Kremlin were in accord about two things only—both denounced Mr Churchill as a “ warmonger,” and both protested the peaceful nature of the Russian policy. It is pointed out that in any other country such obvious discrepancies between a Premier and a Foreign Secretary (which is roughly the relationship of Stalin and Molotov) would be inconceivable. It is, however, also regarded 'as inconceivable that either Stalin or Molotov would address the world without their words bein*g carefully weighed by the Politbureau, the effective governing body of Soviet Russia.

Two Alternative Policies

The ‘ Economist ’ suggests that there are two alternative Russian foreign 'policies. . The one for which Molotov is the spokesman represents'a continua- - tion of:-Russian war-time diplomacy, bent upon winning the peace by ideological warfare. The other, which Stalin is trying out upon a world audience before submitting it to th_e > Russian people, stands-, for conciliation with the West, the abandonment of ideological warfare (at least in its radical propagandist form) arid for the enlistment of American, economic did for Russian reconstruction. This last development-, Jt is suggested,- -may, be prompted by a realisation that Russia must obtain outside aid iff Stalin is to carry out his plans. -V,. It is npt suggested that Stalin favours one . policy while Molotov supports another, but that the Kremlin is preparing a fresh line of approach if , the’ one currently used by Molotov yields no better results than at present “The new conciliatory policy could not easily b’e pushed down the throats of the Russian public without some preparation,”, says the . ‘ Economist.’ “ Stalin is obviously anxious to prepare to switch over to the other line of. diplomacy, which has not . yet been tested in earnest. In particular he .is anxious to dissociate himself—discreetly, yet visibly—from the policy which may have to be abandoned. In bis latest interviews he has taken up a position from which he may, if rieed be, more easily direct the switch over.” The • Observer,’ which expresses the same opinion, says: “ Stalin knows well enough that his lieutenant has been fighting a losing battle. He wants to get rid of that, unhappy campaign and produce an alternative policy if.and when Molotov’s tactics result in complete failure.” The ‘ Spectator,’ on the contrary, suggests' that the reasons for, the divided voice' of the Kremlin must be

sought in the changes which are at present taking place in the Politbureau It claims that there are signs that Stalin’s persona! control is loosening, and says .that if the Russian leader has the absolute influence the world attributes to him it would by now have made itself felt upon the foreign policy as expressed by Molotov. ‘ The Timea ’ (Moscow correspondent, on the other hand, claims that these signs are already appearing. He points out that the week-end Moscow foreign affairs commentary avoided controversial issues and was altogether milder in tone than hitherto. One commentator developed Stalin’s assertion that Rasso-American tension was not increasing, arid claimed that nowhere in the world did the Soviet Union encroach upon , the lawful /Interests ! ofthe. United States. He also claimed that ..no. obstacles .exist, on the Soviet side, to the resumption of fulL cultural, scientific, commercial, and financial relations between the two countries. Another commentary said much the same thing about the Anglo-Rus-siari relations, and added that the present disagreements were not incompatible with co-operation between Britain and Russia. Those who complained of Soviet criticism <jf British ■policy, said this commentary, overlooked the fact that the "Soviet people held the English nation in the highest regard, but found it difficult to say a good word for the patronage of neoFascisrii in Italy, reaction in Greece, and of Franco in Spain. It is so long since such friendly and conciliatory sentiments have been heard from Moscow that the connection between them and , Stalin’s two recent interviews cannot bo overlooked.