BRITAIN AND BIG THREE

Grey River Argus, 31 January 1946, Page 2

BRITAIN AND BIG THREE

New Line Suggested IN CONSULTATION WITH MOSCOW LONDON, January 28. The “Economist” in an article on the “situations” in Greece, Indonesia, and Persia, said.—“At the moment all three Great Power’s are engaged in the oldest of all games—the diplomatic struggle for a ‘favourable’ balance of power, for strategic security, for concessions, bases, and zones. The Americans appear to have stretched the Monroe Doctrine to China, the Russians are pursuing a similar policy on their strategic fringe, and ’the' British have vital spheres of influence, for instance, in the Eastern Mediterranean or the Indian Ocean, where they defend their vital interests by diplomatic and political means. To-day, as always, the danger points in world affairs are areas where the lines of interest and influence of the Great Powers overlap. At these points their struggles to make their influence exclusive inevitably lead either to, conflict or to a retrbat by one side or the other. This is neither a pretty nor safe way to conduct the affairs of the world, but that it exists must be recognised as the starting point to any attempt to improve international diplomacy, or to work out the guiding lines of national statesmanship.”

Britain appears to enjoy an intermediate position between Russia and the United States. It has grown clearer with each passing month that the British have very largely lost their freedom of manoeuvre. Again they have appeared -.in the role of a brilliant second to American diplomacy. Accordingly, the Russians are striking at the weaker partner. They will not bring American intervention in China before the Security Council. On the contrary, they have joined the Far Eastern Commission. They strike at Britain in Greece and Java. It is at this point that the last justification for believing in an Anglo-Saxon bloc breaks down, for whatever backing the British may give the United States, they are receiving less and less,” continues the article. “At Moscow the division of spheres in the Far East was amicably settled m favour of the United States, and of spheres in Eastern Europe in Russia’s favour. When it came to the Middle East, where vital British interests are at stake, Mr. Byrnes (United States Secretary of State) went home. Last week again, the raising of the Greek and Indonesian questions by Russia did not alter the Secretary of State’s time-table. Meanwhile, some sections of public opinion in the ' United States are ready to denounce every British move in the Middle East, and the Russians shrewdly picked, in Java and Greece, on the two favourite anti-British topics in the American Press.”

The “Economist” expresses the opinion that two alternative courses appear to be open to Mr. Bevin. “The first,” he says, “would be to end the practice of prior consultation with Washington and attempt to do direct ‘Power politics’ with Moscow, however much the Americans might dislike it. The second is to persuade the Americans to a greater realism in their estimate of British support and friendship. If they genuinely regard Britain as a valuable partner they cannot afford to see steady weakening of Britain’s position in the world. In war time they recognise their own vital interest in British security, but in peace time they are so obsessed with the need to avoid ’playing Britain’s game’ that they run the risk of lending themselves to everybody else’s game.” The “Economist” considers’ these two possible policies for Britain cannot be pursued simultaneously. It adds: “The foreign policy of Britain is clearly reaching the crossroads, at which the fundamental choice must, be made. Neither alternative will end the balance of power and diplomatic see-saw, but one or other might' ensure that Britain is not always at the lower end of the plank.”