Greymouth Evening Star. THURSDAY, MARCH 23, 1944. MR. HULL’S CHARTER.

Greymouth Evening Star, 23 March 1944, Page 4

Greymouth Evening Star. THURSDAY, MARCH 23, 1944. MR. HULL’S CHARTER.

'J’HE summary of United States foreign policy issued by Mr. Cordell Hull covers little new ground, and is on lines that will be welcomed by the British nations, who realise that U.S.A, co-operation in post-war international problems is essential if any real new order is to be established. Gratification should be tempered by the reflection that the American elections are to bo held, this year, and it is by no means certain that the present Administration will retain office. The Republicans are believed to be less enthusiastic than the Democrats concerning participation in world affairs, although “isolationism” is now accepted as a mistake. Until the respective Party nominations for the Presidency are made, there will be scope for doubts about U.S.A, post-war policy. The popular tips for these nominations are Mr. Roosevelt for the Democrats, and either Mr. AVillkie or Mr. Dewey for the Republicans. Both Mr. Roosevelt and Mr. Willkie are keen on American participation in world-affairs, but Mr. Dewey has been reticent on this topic.

Mr. Hull explained that his latest review was issued “to satisfy public curiosity and to answer critics.” In the U.S.A, as in Britain and elsewhere, there is considerable disappointment with the progress of the war. and Press and platform contributions are voicing criticism. Only a few of the allegations are cabled to New Zealand. Some of the censures on the Administration are probably inspired by the election campaign tactics, the postwar policy providing easy material. Many in the U.S.A, would prefer to keep out of international affairs, but this aloofness is recognised to be dangerous to American security and interests. Mr. Hull’s newest summary may not allay the public doubts on this issue, but it presents a programme of generalities that will, appeal to national ideals and susceptibilities. There is nothing in Mr. Hull’s words to which to object. It will be in the working out of practical details that future controversy may develop.

This U.S.A, charter is not a matter for Americans, alone. Unless the other United Nations accept it, and co-operate to make it a success, the whole scheme will be frustrated. Much will depend on the interpretation of some of the wording of the clauses, few of which cannot bear more than one meaning. The control of the international agency to maintain peace may lead to dissension, and what one country regards as “excessive trade barriers” may be estimated by another as legitimate protection. It is not necessary to comment on each clause at- this juncture, but it is desirable that all the Allied peoples should study these post-war charters, so easily issued but so difficult to practise. As the end of the war approaches, the problems involved in the working out of charter ideals must be courageously faced. It may not be possible to attain the highest international ideals outlined, but effort must be made to extract some benefit from lhe suggestions. This will not

be possible without sacrifice, and, so far, the suggestion of giving rather than taking, has not aroused anything approaching enthusiasm in any country,“New Zealand included.