BRITAIN DEPENDING ON U.S.A. AID AT FULL BLAST

Grey River Argus, 28 February 1949, Page 5

BRITAIN DEPENDING ON U.S.A. AID AT FULL BLAST

One Minister Corrects Another

(N.Z.P.A.—Reuter)

(Rec. 9.30) LONDON, Feb. 26. Sir Stafford Cripps (Chancellor of the Exchequer), repudiated a statement by the British Under-Secretary for Foreign Affairs, Hon. Mr Mayhew, at Lake Success on Wednesday. Mr Mayhdtv said that Britain was now well advanced on an economic recovery. Sir Stafford Cripps, denying Mr Mayhew’s version, stressed that Britain has need of American aid. Mr Mayhew told the United Nations Economic Social Council that Britain had “long passed the recovery stage,” and Britain did not need as much aid as that which was proposed for the second full year of the European recovery programme. Sir S. Cripps, in his statement, said that Mr Mayhew had ‘‘referred to the economic situation in the United Kingdom in terms which suggested that recovery was now complete.” Doubts had been expressed in the United States as to whether in these circumstances, Britain needed further aid to the amount of nine hundred and forty million dollars, as was proposed. “In fact, recovery in the United Kingdom is not complete,” he said. “Its achievement is dependent on the continuation of the American assistance. There is no doubt that we do need American aid. We can speak of our recovery being completed only in the very limited sense that our production is now back to levels substantially above the levels of prewar. The continuation of the American assistance, therefore, is a vital element in our progress towards full recovery. Moreover, the aid, to Britain is essential, not only to our own recovery, but also to the recovery of Western Europe.” U.S. TO KEEP UP MARSHALL AID WASHINGTON, Feb. 26. The U.S. Secretary of State, Mr Dean Acheson, said: “If the Marshall aid to Britain were to be stopped now, it would undo everything that has been done in the Marshall plan so far, and would jeopardise the future of Western Europe.” He said that he most certainly did not think that the recovery of Britain justified cutting down aid. Confusion has been caused by a well-intentioned, but a somewhat over-enthusiastic statement (presumably Mr Mayhews).

U.S. Senator Inquisitive

WASHINGTON, February 26. The Senate Foreign Relations Committee to-day ordered a public review of the proposed 940,000,000 dollar recovery grant to Britain. It summoned Mr Paul Hoffman, the Marshall Plan Administrator, to explain the “wide discrepancies” in the estimates of Britain’s recovery progress. Mr Hoffman will appear before the committee next Monday. The move was requested by Senator Arthur Vandenburg, who cited the wide discrepancies between the reports on Britain’s recovery given by th® Economic Co-operation Administration and the British Under-Secretary of Foreign Affairs (Mr Christopher Mayhew), who told the United Nations Economic and Social Commission on February 23 that British recovery was virtually complete. Senator Tom Connally, chairman of the committee, told reporters that the members were determined to allot foreign aid funds only “when they were needed and direly needed”. Economic Co-opration Administration officials have told Congress that Britain still has a long way to go before she gets back on her feet. They asked the Senate committee to include the 940,000,000 dollars for Britain in the Bill extending Marshall aid for another fifteen months. Senator Vandenberg said: “Mr Mayhew’s speech has raised a question both in the public and Congressional mind. It seems highly desirable that there should be ■no question about the validity of the E.C.A. figures”. The British Ambassador (Sir Oliver Franks) said Mr Mayhew’s remarks had been misinterpreted. He added that Mr Mayhew meant only that Britain was moving back toward a balanced foreign trade, not that she had overcome all her post-war economic difficulties.