POTSDAM AND POLITICS

Greymouth Evening Star, 25 July 1945, Page 5

POTSDAM AND POLITICS

BRITAIN’S DIPLOMACY WEAK? -p LONDON PRESS VIEWS (N.Z.P.A. Special Correspondent) (Rec. 9.25 a.m.) ‘ LONDON, July 24. The return of Mr. Churchill, Mr. Attlee and Mr. Eden to London from Potsdam does not mean that the conference has completed its work, it is stated here. If Air. Churchill and the National „ Government continue in power, it is expected that the Prime Minister will return without much delay, but that if he is defeated or a stalemate results, then it is thought possible that the Potsdam meeting may be adjourned for the time. There are few people in Britain, to-day, risking prediction of the election results, but generally speaking it is felt, although there is likely to have been a pronounced swing to the Left throughout industrial England and Scotland, Mr. Churchill will go back with a narrow majority. Others think it will be 1929 over again, (when Labour won 288 seats, Conservatives 260. Liberals 59, and others eight). It is expected that the first election results will come through by 10 a.m. on July 26, and that by 9 p.m. the final decision will be known. The blackout on the news from Potsdam caused some irritation among the British public, not so much perhaps at the total censorship, although this is viewed in several quarters with suspicion, but because trivial items of news are released. These included the number of alarm clocks, sheets and lawnmowers sent to Potsdam, and the fact that Mickey Rooney has given a concert. Although there has been much speculation on the scope of the subjects discussed, and the extent of the agreement reached, there is so far absolutely no official confirmation. These speculations suggest the position of Germany ranked first, and “The Times’s” diplomatic correspondent expresses the opinion that the conference has “gone ahead,” means that a new agreement has been forged on most of the German problems, including the need for giving greater powers to the Central Allied Control Commission in Berlin, and equipping it to ensure uniform practice and supervision in all zones. Other questions of importance discussed are believed to have been, firstly, what shall Germany consist of and how shall Germany develop politically. It is also thought that FAR EASTERN ISSUES

were discussed, gathering impetus from the recent Russo-Chinese conversations, and the fact that many United States experts on the Far East have been rushed to the conference. The opinion is expressed that the position of Europe, as a whole, was on the agenda, with special problems of the Balkans, Poland, Czechoslovakia, Turkey and Spain. Russia, it is said, was especially keen to see the Fascist regime in Spain eliminated. The position of Austria also required clarification for neither Britain nor America recognised the “Renner” Government established in Vienna, with the tacit permission of the Soviet, without prior consultation with Washington and London. The British role at Potsdam has naturally been the subject of much interest. “The Economist,” discussing it, declares: At first sight it would seem that no Power was so well equipped as Britain to fulfil the role of intermediary between Russia and America, which stand for two basically opposed conceptions of society—the completely planned and the completely unplan? nec t, —a fundamental difference that will inevitably colour their policies for Europe and which, already in Western Europe, is producing a sort of political schizophrania. But, the article continues, it seems at present almost impossible to assign any longterm purpose to British diplomatic activities. It suggests that Britain is apprehensive of lhe reaction in Washington, while in America, Britain is increasingly being regarded as a tired old defensive Power, reactionary and intransigent, and frightened of Russia. Mr. Churchill’s Government clearly attempted to act as intermediary or go-between in Europe, but it has been content to modify American or Russian proposals without providing alternatives, and mediated itself out of the possibility of mediating. The article charges Mr. Churchill with being largely responsible for the policy of deference towards America, which has so greatly hindered any effort to evolve a separate approach. “The Economist” also declares that ■what is now necessary is ruthlessly honest assessment of Britain’s position—its strength, and weakness, — and on that basis, the development of a positive policy defining the spheres and methods of co-operation within the Commonwealth, with Western Europe, and with the other great Powcrs. It adds: Yet there is no sign that such a balance sheet has been struck or such fundamental thinking done, and declares it is in the next few years that Britain will either realise or lose the opportunity of filling the creative role of mediator in world affairs, and of closer partnership in Europe. On the next Government, will fall the inescapable choice for choosing an energetic policy of leadership and influence, or for appeasement confusion and steady decline.

RUSSIAN AND U.S.A. VIEWS . The “New Statesman and Nation” says: The test of Potsdam will be its ability to settle the question that cannot be shelved—the economic and political future of Europe, dependent on the immediate determinations affecting Germany. American policy is to favour restoration of a sort of Weimar Germany, with the political influence of the Catholic centre coagulating a revived capitalist economy. Stalin’s prime essential is to secure a maximum of reparations in kind. There are also clear signs that the Russians know that only by State ■planning is there any hope of rebuilding society in the war devastated countries, and that for successful State control, there must be autonomous Governments, supported by real political parties. Theirs is not the American conception of democratic freedom. The moral strength of Mr. Churchill’s position is he can speak, if he will,mot only for England but for Europe as a whoie. If he elects to manoeuvre and back Mr. Truman’s general line of Wilsonian Liberalism, in the hope of securing American financial aid and American support for British intervention on behalf of discredited persons and parties in Eastern Europe, he will court disaster. The last hopes of genuine Three Power collaboration will vanish, and with them every chance of restoring economic health and social decency for this generation of Europeans.