The Gisborne Herald. IN WHICH IS INCORPORATED "THE TIMES.” GISBORNE, MONDAY, DECEMBER 15, 1947. RELATIONS WITH THE UNITED STATES

Gisborne Herald, Volume LXXIV, Issue 22511, 15 December 1947, Page 4

The Gisborne Herald. IN WHICH IS INCORPORATED "THE TIMES.” GISBORNE, MONDAY, DECEMBER 15, 1947. RELATIONS WITH THE UNITED STATES

'JMIE American Secretary of State, Mr. Marshall, sees no reason why differences in the British and American economic systems should hamper the natural development of Anglo-American relations. “In different circumstances,” he said in a London speech, “the two countries have evolved different approaches to modern economic problems, but I am confident that this offers no serious difficulties between two peoples enjoying a common heritage. We should proclaim the existence of the benefits of a relationship unique in history. ” This extract from Mr. Marshall’s address epitomises American statesmanship at its wisest and best. It constitutes a complete breakaway from the spirit pf 1776 and all that. For too long Americans have been educated with a bias against the British “villains” of the Boston Tea Party era. It is the only possible explanation of the anti-British feeling which undoubtedly exists in America—not in all States or among all classes of the community, but certainly to a sufficiently comprehensive degree to hinder the development of the close and friendly relations which should bind the two peoples. Admittedly the fault does not lie entirely with the Americans. Whether or not it has been in retaliation for the effects of what a writer in the Christian Science Monitor calls the “1776 complex,” Britons have at times said harsh and bitter ithings about Americans. Fortunately, most of these unfriendly exchanges across the Atlantic occurred before the Second World War. There are now signs of an increasing mutual respect and an encouraging recognition of the fact that, no matter what happens in other lands or in world councils, peace and democratic freedom will be preserved if the British Commonwealth of Nations and the United States of America speak and act in full harmony. Safeguarding Freedom and Progress Writing in the Sunday Times, of London, “Scrutator” recently said: “The saving of freedom and progress in the world lies with two countries —the United States and Great Britain. Others may make precious contributions: France, Italy, the smaller Western nations, the British Dominions, and, ultimately, it must be hoped, India and China. But none of them could stand without us and America, and America herself could not eventually stand without us.” All this is very true, and American statesmen of Mr. Marshall’s calibre know it. There should be no compunction about proclaiming our faith in Anglo-American co-operation as a sure means of saving the world if the United Nations fail. In their case strength is not synonymous with aggression. In actual fact civilisation will be safer when Britain is stronger; in the meantime America has to be given the status of the senior, or at least the more powerful, partner. The sharing of a common language is not necessarily the basic feature of the common heritage. Indeed, it is in some respects a disadvantage, for whenever Americans criticise Britons or Britons criticise Americans, none of the implications is missed by those at the receiving end. In spite of the spirit of 1776, the common heritage to which Mr. Marshall has referred dates back to Magna Carta and the new era of liberty for mankind. The United States built up population by permitting migrants to enter the country from all parts of Europe. Many of them may not have known a word of English when they arrived, and some of the older ones may never have become proficient in that tongue. But one thing they did master with ease and personal appreciation—the art of living as man was intended to live. They became freedom-loving Americans with their first loyalty to the Stars and Stripes. No Swing-back to Isolationism Politically there is much ground for satisfaction in the present position. The thing to be feared when the recent war ended was that America would repeat the fatal mistake which she made after the war of 1914-18—succumb to a swing-back of her pendulum into isolationism and withdraw from Europe. Towards the end of 1945, when “Bring the boys home” became the slogan on American platforms, this very nearly happened. But early in 1946, and in part through Mr. Bevin’s strong stands in the United Nations, the eyes of the American people were opened. They saw that they could not afford to leave Europe, and they saw, too, that Britain, some, of whose policies had till then incurred much undiscerning and irresponsible criticism in the United States, had in fact been standing up to the real danger more effectively than anyone else. Then came America’s manifestation of interest in the Mediterranean and the practical measures proposed for the rehabilitation of Europe.

. Anglo-American relations are now developing in a manner which, considering the lingering difficulties, could hardly be improved. What some Americans have yet to learn, however, is that it is useless to ask people of the Dominions why they do not break away from the English. Possibly there are not so very many Colonel McCormicks, of “another Star for our Flag” fame, but when American servicemen were in Australia and New Zealand during the war it was noticeable that a fair percentage of them were puzzled as to why the Dominions, presumably expected to follow the example of the American Colonials, did not sever the ties with Britain. Here was further evidence of the faulty teaching of history in the United States. If less time were devoted to the blunders perpetrated in the reign of one English King and more time given to the growth of the British Commonwealth of Nations in a spirit of freedom unsurpassed even in America itself, this feeling of puzzlement would be removed from the minds of Americans early in their school years.