NO CHANGE IN POLICY

Greymouth Evening Star, 16 September 1946, Page 6

NO CHANGE IN POLICY

PRESIDENT TRUMAN ISSUES DISCLAIMER CABINET MINISTER’S SPEECH ! NEW YORK, Sept. 14. Against a flat White House wall of silence which the New York HeraldTribune comments “leaves American policy hanging in mid-air,’ Washington is buzzing with comment and conjecture about the speech by Mr. Henry Wallace (the United States Secretary of Commerce) about . foreign policy. The burden of political speculation in the capital. is _ that a first-class Cabinet brawl is imminent, with the possibility of the removal of either the Secretary of State (Mr. James Byrnes) or Mr. Wallace. ' „ Mr. Wallace is the last of Mr. Roosevelt’s New Dealers in the Cabinet. Other speculation is that the speech has relatively little importance because Mr. Truman did not realise its significance. The President is receiving numerous protests from Congressmen of both parties, and nations on both sides of the East and West, diplomatic conflict have asked their representatives in Washington for information as to whether the speech indicated a redirection of American policy towards a pro-Soviet sphere of influence conception. Not Veering to Left. The’ United States State Department tendency is quietly to reassure foreign diplomats and journalists that United States policy is not veering to the Left. Mr. Truman said that there had been a “natural misunderstanding” of his endorsement of Mr. Wallace’s foreign policy speech. He declared that there had been no change in the established foreign policy of the United States. Mr. Truman, referring to the announcement that he approved Mr. Wallace’s entire speech, said: “It was my intention to express the thought that I approved the right - of the Secretary of Commerce to deliver the speech. I did not intend to indicate that I approved the speech as constituting a statement of the

foreign policy of this country. There has been no change in the established foreign policy of our Government. There will be no significant change in that policy without discussion and conference among the President, the Secretary of State, and Congressional leaders.” Mr. Truman added that when he announced his approval of Mr. Wallace’s speech he answered the press question extemporaneously, and consequently the answer did not convey the thought that he intended to present. Protest to President. The Associated Press says that early to-day official informants disclosed that the Under-Secretary of State (Mr. W. L. Clayton), two hours before Mr. Wallace delivered his speech, protested to Mr. Truman that it would embarrass Mr. Byrnes 'in the peace treaty negotiations. In Paris, Senator A. H. Vandenberg issued a statement calling for unity on American foreign policy, and declaring: “We can co-operate with only one Secretary of State at a time. The authority of American foreign policy is dependent on the degree of American unity behind it. “Paris, rightly or wrongly, is doubtful about this unity this morning. Our two-party foreign policy during the last 18 months has had overwhelming two-party support on behalf of the unselfish aims for which we fought the war. Republicans, if differing on some points, have been glad to join most Democrats, this presenting a united American front to the world. “This is the only road to organised peace and collective security. Those who leave the road jeopardise the very objective they profess to embrace. I am sure most Republicans, in spite of the inevitable differences on some aspects, will be glad to continue to seek unity with the Administration in a two-party foreign policy on a sound American basis, which rejects dictatorship by anybody, which is neither hostile nor subservient to any other Power, and which defends human rights and fundamental freedoms. “The situation equally requires unity within the Administration,” concluded the senator. Mr. Wallace's Position. “Although Mr. Truman’s statement in which he withdraws support for Mr. Wallace’s foreign policy speech avoided personalities and seemed-.designed to prevent precipitating a Cabinet resignation,” says the New York Times, “some Washington circles believe Mr. Wallace is placed in such a position that his resignation is a distinct possibility. Political and diplomatic opinion is that Mr. Truman’s statement will be accepted abroad at its face value and will repair the damage done to Mr. Byrnes’s position at Paris “It is widely reported in Washington that Mr. Byrnes’s anger at Mr, Wallace’s speech was conveyed to Mr. Truman before to-day’s statement.” Mr. Truman’s statement provoked a volley of Congressional comment, the tenor of which, the New York Herald-Tribune says, was that it was “a pretty lame let out.” The newspaper declares that the almost universal observation in Washington is “Wallace Dumped Again.” Too Late to Undo Damage. The Paris correspondent of the New York Times says: “Mr. Truman’s statement could not undo the damage Mr; Wallace’s speech caused : in Paris. This is indicated by thej; fact that Senator A. H, Vandenberg

did not retract his critical comments made with Mr. Byrnes’s approval earlier in the day, and that Mr. | Molotov made a speech which is re-. garded as the most uncompromising’ 'and bitter he has yet delivered in, Paris, although his mood previously appeared mellowed since his return from Moscow.” The New York Herald-Tribune, commenting editorially on the speech and on Mr. Truman’s endorsement of it, says: “The world has been given the unedifying spectacle' of American policy being moulded; off-handedly with scant relation to! the facts. To watch the destiny of! one of the most powerful nations of! the world being made so openly the; pawn of the inner conflicts of one; its parties cannot fail to impress j profoundly and unfortunately states | which are struggling to find their j own course in a troubled world. It must arouse Americans to the abso-' lute necessity of evolving a truly, national policy, and entrusting it to! men who will carry it out earnestly! and devotedly as an expression of' national will instead of as an incident of an international policy feud.”. Describing the speech as “isola- j tonist,” the New York Times edi-! torially questions Mr. Wallace’s right; as a member of Cabinet to dissent j from established American foreign ■ policy. The article remarks: “Mr. Wallace departed from the policy of! Mr. Roosevelt, of whose leadership he believed himself to be a faithful adherent.” | “Like a Thunderbolt.” | “Mr. Wallace’s speech hit the American delegation to the Paris, conference like a thunderbolt,” says the Paris correspondent of the Associated Press. “There was no comment officially but an American source said Mr. Truman and not Mr. Wallace sets American foreign policy. The President has not in-! formed us of any change in cur policy at the conference. “The Russians have not attempted to hide their jubiliation over the speech,” adds the correspondent. ■ Mr. J. W. Gerard, a former United States Ambassador to Germany, plans the formation of a council ofy 22 former United States Ambassa-|i dors, no longer in the Government! service, to help to formulate “a : settled practical foreign policy.” 1 Former Ambassadors to Britain, : Messrs Charles Dawes, J. P. Ken- • < nedy and Joseph Davies; to Japan, - < Mr. Joseph C. Grew; to Germany,! < Mr. H. R. Wilson; to Russia and ! i France, Mr. William C. Bullitt; I to L Mexico,.Mr. Daniels; to Belgium and'l Brazil, Mr. Hugh Gibson, are re-! 1 ported to have agreed to join thecouncil. - ' J