“BEES IN THE BONNET”

Greymouth Evening Star, 17 September 1946, Page 7

“BEES IN THE BONNET”

MR. WALLACE’S BEWILDERING SPEECH BRITISH PRESS OUTSPOKEN [N.Z.P.A. Special Correspondent.] LONDON, Sept. 16. Mr. Henry Wallace’s foreign policy speech was criticised by the British press this morning from the Right, Left, and centre. From the Right, the Daily Telegraph says: “Bees in the bonnets have seldom buzzed louder. To a British reader, who may well be bewildered at such language'from a Minister-of a Power with which we have the closest relations at the present time, it is worth explaining that Mr. Wallace is notoriously emotional and notoriously independent. He has quite often shown himself a victim-of political I delusions.” ■ After emphasising that the speecn ■ was obviously macle lor Ameiican political purposes, the Daily Telegraph continues: “Was it British troops who refused to withdraw from Persia? Was it British guns which re- i cently shot down American aero- j planes over Jugoslavia? ■ I Russian Phrases Borrowed. | “At a time when Britain has vir- ■■ tually withdrawn from India and is proposing to withdraw from Egypt and when we are vainly seeking American aid to enable us,to with- j draw from Palestine it seems a little • odd to hear Mr. Wallace borrowing I from Mr. Gromyko or Mr. Manuilsky 1 these phrases about British Imperial- ■ ist policy in the Near East.” : The Daily Telegraph concludes by I remarking that Mr. Wallace’s speech and Mr. Truman’s endorsement of it are matters more for sorrow than anger. There was unlikely to be any change in American foreign policy, and any feeling deeper than regret would be left to the Americans. From the centre, the News Chronicle says: “A great many people in this country have been worried by the opposite fear to that which troubles . Mr. Wallace. It seemed of late that America was setting both the -pace and the policy in dealing with Russia, and we were being carried along. American policy towards Russia may be either right or wrong or—since judging by the reception of Mr. Wallace’s speech it is highly confused—a bit of both.

“Right or wrong, Britain is not responsible for it, and Mr. Wallace's pictures of the United States in leading strings is quite fanciful. We had to hold a lot of other peoples’ babies in the past year or two, but are not holding this one.” Leftist Paper's Attack. From the Left, the Daily Herald says: “Where does Mr. Wallace find evidence of a British Imperialist policy? Does he find it in India? IE so, how does he explain the fact that Pandit Nehru has become Prime Minister of India and that the country is free if it wishes to pursue its own independent future? In his reference to the balance of power manipulations and oil, is Mr. Wallace referring to Persia? Does he recall that Britain withdrew her troops from that country according to a treaty, while Russian troops were kept there till promises of oil concessions were made by Persia? So the questions might continue.

“Since the end of the war Britain has abandoned any Imperialist claims on India, I'gis sought a new treaty on an equal basis-with sovereign Egypt, and has approved plans lor political advance in a dozen colonies. “America,” says Mr Wallace, “wants co-operation, and this is exactly what Britain wants. This is not an Imperialist demand.- It is the right of a free commonwealth which fought the might of Fascism and spent its recourses in battle when the rest of the world could not make up its mind.’' SPEECH BY MR. BYRNES CRITICISED NEW YORK, Sept. 15. The former Under-Secretary of State (Mr. Sumner Welles), in a broadcast, criticised the speech made at Stuttgart by the Secretary of State (Mr. James Byrnes). He claimed that the United States, with Britain’s support, was feverishly attempting to gain the German people’s goodwill to offset Russia’s increasing influence over the German masses. Mr. Welles said that the formation of a German Central Government implied grave dangers to world peace and to American national safety. The hurried establishment of a politically united Germany under a central authority would lack the indispensable foundation for any real federation and union—the German people’s will. The only way to create a real United States of Germany would be

by an Allied agreement to restore to the German States the independence they had before 1870.