WALLACE AGAIN

Greymouth Evening Star, 19 September 1946, Page 8

WALLACE AGAIN

ADVICE TO PRESIDENT . ACCORD WITH RUSSIA ON ATOMIC POWER TENSION IN WASHINGTON WASHINGTON, September 18. The United States Secretary , of Commerce (Mr. Henry Wallace) in a letter to Mr. Truman on July 23 urged him to negotiate* a treaty looking to international control of the development of atomic energy even at the risk of courting "appeasement” with Russia. The Department of Commerce published the letter to-day when it appeared that its contents were likely to leak out •to the public. Mr. Wallace disclosed his belief that the United States should seek ..accord with Russia even though, the Soviet might prefer to stall until it attained equality in atomic warfare potential. He said that his letter was based on the assumption that the United States had infinitely greater bargaining power now than any other nation through the possession of a stock pile of atomic bombs, S ie /. bombers and a far-flung network ol military bases. Russia’s efforts were at present, “small change” by comparison. „ “Only Reasonable Choice. The Soviet had indicated that it “is willing to negotiate seriously, if we are to head off atomic world war. The United States must take one ol two points s>f view, either that war with Russia was inevitable or that such a war would bring catastrophe to all mankind. The only reasoriable choice was the latter point of view. “The fundamental objective should be to allay any reasonable Russian grounds for fear and suspicion. , We should ascertain from a fresh viewpoint what Russia believes essential to her own security as a prerequisite to the writing of the peace,, and to co-operation in the construction of a world order. We should be prepared, even at the expense of risking the epithets of appeasement, to agree to reasonable Russian guarantees of seceurity. We should not pursue further the question of the veto in the United Nations in connection with atomic energy because the question is irrelevant and should never have been raised. “We should be prepared to negotiate a treaty which will establish a definite sequence for the establishment of international control of the development of atomic energy. I believe this is the most important question and one on which the present trend is definitely towards a deadlock rather than ultimate agreement.” ■ Mr. Wallace advocated closer economic and commercial ties with the Soviet. He added that agreement. with Russia was difficult because of cultural differences, Russia’s traditional isolationism and her insistence on a visible quid pro quo in all agreements, but the task was not insuperable. Preventive War. Mr. Wallace said his proposal plainly called for some shift 01. American thinking about international matters, but he declared it was imperative because the United States had little time to lose. While it, was desirable to maintain unity at home, there was danger if the nation yielded too much to isolationism masquerading as tough realism in international affairs. Mr. Wallace said ’ there' was a school of military thinking which advocated a preventive war by an attack on Russia now before Russia had atomic bombs. This scheme was not only immoral but stupid. “If we should attempt to destroy all the principal Russian cities and heavy industry we "'might well succeed, but Russia’s immediate counter measure would be the prompt occupation of all of Continental Europe by the Red Army,” said Mr. Wallace. “Would we be prepared to destroy the cities of all Europe in trying to finish what we had started?”

Washington has been stirred by the publication'of Mr. Wallace’s letter, Ihe revelation of which is believed to be designed to show that Mr. Truman should have been familiar with Mr. Wallace’s views when he checked his recent speech. According to Mr. Wallace’s aides, Mr. Wallace will go to the White .House conference to-morrow determined to’continue to express his views on foreign policy, including his opposition to what he describes as Mr'. Byrnes’s “get touch with Russia” policy, even if he must do so cutside the Cabinet. Whether Mr.

Truman is prepared to force Mr M allace’s resignation—which the New York Herald-Tribune says will not be voluntarily offered —remains in doubt to-night. Tension at the Capitol. There is tension at the Capitol at what may result from to-morrow’s conference. Seme observers believe Mr. Truman will demand Mr. Walllace’s resignation. Others believe he will be content to insist that Mr. Wallace leave the definition of America’s attitude on foreign relations to the White House and lhe Stale Department. The New York Herald-Tribune, again criticising Mr. Wallace-’s comments on British imperialism contained in his recent speech,_ says that even the most casual reading of the newspapers should convince Mr. Wallace that the British are less imperialistic to-day than for 200 years. “Perhaps there are serious flaws at times in British policy and . actions, but is any other nation trying with! such skill and grace to get out of the business of imperialism?’ adds the newspaper. < . “How do the -British actions compare with those of the saintly. Russians of whom Mr. Wallace is so; fond? The Russians, who demanded military bases in Turkey, who tried to take over North Persia and appai - ently are succeeding, who control the theoretically independent Outei Mongolia, and who are dominant m

Poland, Hungary, Bulgaria and Rumania. It isn’t British, is it, Mr. Wallace?” Speech Cancelled. The Secretary of the Navy (Mr. James V. Forrestal) suddenly cancelled the foreign affairs speech he intended to deliver to the Navy Industrial Association’s dinner ‘in New York last night, Mr. Forrestal told lhe press he had decided it would be better to keep quiet. The advance copy of Mr. Forrestal’s speech showed that he intended to support Mr. Byrnes’s policy, and while saying the United States would hold steadfastly to its faith in peace, proposed to emphasise that the nation must have the ability to make swift, effective war as an essential to the building of a permanent peace. The Under-Secretary of State (Mr. William Clayton) told, a press conference in Washington that he assumed that, any foreign policy speeches by Government officials lenceforth must be cleared by the State Department before delivery. Mr. Clayton made this statement when reminded that the Secretary of Commerce (Mr. Henry Wallace) had arranged to speak at Providence] Rhode Island, on September 24.