Greymouth Evening Star. FRIDAY, SEPTEMBER. 20, 1946. Whither Mr. Wallace?

Greymouth Evening Star, 20 September 1946, Page 6

Greymouth Evening Star. FRIDAY, SEPTEMBER. 20, 1946. Whither Mr. Wallace?

’J’HE foreign policy speech of Mr. Henry : Wallace, United States Secretary of Commerce, which has caused a stir in the capitals of the Western nations, needs to be read against the. background.of ’American politics. He was addressing a very large meeting of the political wing of the Congress of Industrial Organisations, a body which has not wholly abandoned the traditional American Labour procedure of avoiding ties and playing for the greatest obtainable 'advantages from both the great parties. What are known as the midterm elections are being held in November and the support of the Left Wingers, such as those who heard Air. Wallace’s speech in New York, will be needed if the Democrat Party is to win in that city. In this connection it has to be remembered that, according to report, President Truman is said to be convinced that he has no hope of winning the 1948 election unless he has the support of Labour. The Democrats may be hard pressed at home, but that is no justification for Air. Wallace, a responsible Alinister, speaking on foreign affairs as he did. The views he expressed run counter to the policy being pursued by Air. Byrnes abroad, despite the President’s hasty assurance that they were “exactly in line.” Indeed, it would not be surprising if the President’s attitude to the whole affair costs him a heavy loss of prestige in that he will be seen as a,politician doing his best to act as a statesman. The leader of a. nation who will permit his representative abroad to adopt one policy and then allow a Alinister at home to advocate another cannot complain if he is subjected to criticism. Is it Appeasement ?

The policy enunciated by Mr. Wallace smacks of appeasement, a policy which all. Western, nations have come to abhor since the unhappy days of the Munich agreement. Mr. Byrnes’s method, put in a. nutshell, is to bo firm with Russia. Mr. Wallace advocates a policy of “speaking gently.” There has doubtlessly been some chuckling in the Kremlin. Mr. Wallace also suggests that growing exasperation with Soviet .policies and diplomatic tactics—his own State Department has declared that Russia has given good cause—has been engineered by Britain in order to bring about a situation that will enable British interests in the Middle East to be preserved. He did not, however, mention that America has interests there in the shape of oil resources which she is desirous of preserving.

Mr. Wallace, also draws the conclusion that Mr. Byrnes’s policy is aimed at bolstering the British Empire. He ignored the fact, however, that in two World Wars British bastions have held the enemv at bay for long and arduous years until America was ready to fight in defence of things which were as vital to her as to Britain. Mr. Wallace should come out in the open with a statement making it clear whether or not he advocates that America should abandon Europe and Biitain with it, and allow Russian ambitions to go unchecked;

The impression which Mr. Wallace has created among competent observers is that he is something of an amateur in the sphere of foreign policy. He accuses Britain of imperialism but has elected to ignore the fact that that charge may now, more justly, be levelled at the Russians—the Russians, as an American newspaper comments, who have demanded military bases in Turkey, who tried to take over North Persia and apparently are succeeding, who control the theoretically independent Outer Mongolia, and who are dominant in Poland, Hungary, Bulgaria and Rumania. It is from the Russians that Mr. Wallace would have Washington, ascertain from a fresh viewpoint what they believe to be essential to their own security. But where does Russian security” end? Far From Just.

Mr. Wallace is far from .jiist. His charge of imperialism levelled against Britain will not. bear analysis. In contrast to that of Russia is the present and recent British policy in India, Egypt, Persia, Iraq and Transjordan. In Persia, it was Bri tain, not Russia, which implemented the promise to withdraw troops. Indian in.de pendence is being hastened at consider able risk. The Iraq mandate has been wound up and Transjordan has. reached full determination. Where is the imperia ism? t . All Mr. Wallace has succeeded in doing is to under-cut the entire, course o - . m erican policy. Even his own countijmen are perplexed. Mr. Byrnes’s policy is to e firm but patient with Russia neither appease nor to provoke. It is a policy i<e ly to command more respect in the iem lin than that advocated by Mi. Wai ace.

“Because of pillaging on Singapore the shipment AUS ’ al twO to that port has been delayed a ? t lian months,” said the secretary of the Australian Exporters’ Federation (Mr. A to-day. “Australian exports Vd , q thousands of pounds have al l ea y fbp ginhalaeed this year. To restrict thieves the pore officials will not allow moi e S hacl be landed until the overcrowded w been cleared.”—Sydney September