American Criticism of Churchill's Foreign Policy

Manawatu Times, Volume 69, Issue 122, 26 May 1944, Page 5

American Criticism of Churchill's Foreign Policy

Received Thursday, 9.10 pm NEW YORK, May 25. “Mr Churchill’s speech in the Com mons could not avoid the weakness inherent in the tangled issues which accumulate as victory begins to dawn,** says the Herald-Tribune editorially. “Mr. Churchill in repeating the stock of never very logical excuses lor refusing de Gaulle full recognition seemed simply to be following President Roosevelt’s obscure policy Just as the State Department seems to he following an equally obscure policy to that of Downing Street towards the reactionary Spanish dictatorship. “This is not the hour for needless criticism, but because victory may be near it becomes a duty to insist that not even in the tense hours of military decision should there be any compromise with any wrong which can cloud the great issue or confound our true friends.” The New York Times says: “Mr. ohurchill is fully entitled to the candid expression of British views on the problems of war and peace Just as Marshal Stalin is entitled to express the Russian and President Roosevelt the American views. But if «ach great Power answers the questions separately at this stage, at what stage are we to have joint definitions of policy? Mr Churchill speaks on specific points which can be settled only by agreement. Does he speak also for Moscow and Washington? Surely, the time has come when the three great Powers must speak with one voice.’* Commenting on Mr. Churchill ’£ speecli at a press conference at Washington, Mr. Edward Stettinius (Assist ant Secretary of State) said the British Prime Minister’s remarks on the policy towards France were generally in line with the thinking of the American Government with which Mr. Churchill was thoroughly familiar. Referring to Mr. Churchill’s view that Yugoslavia should be united under Marshal Tito, Mr. Stettinius said he did not know at present what the American position would be. He refused to comment on Mr. Churchill’s remarks on the Russo-Polish situation.

However, diplomatic circles in Wash ington, says the New York Times, are of opinion that the reported arrival In Moscow of a delegation from Poland might be used by tho Kremlin as a device for furthering its efforts to reach accommodation with the Polish people through encouraging changes in the exile Government or otherwise. OUTSTANDING FEATURES OF COMMONS DEBATE (British Official Wireless. J Received Thursday, 9.20 p.m. RUGBY, May 24. Two outstanding features in the debate in the Commons following Mr. Churchill’s speech wero demands for tho recognition of the French National Committee and doubts about the possibilities of a postwar armed League of Nations. Mr. Harold Nicholson (National Labour) said: “We treated France as a full ally on tho battlefield, but ignored her in the diplomatic field. It is a grave error of policy.” Captain Grey (Liberal) believed that if wo recognised tho National Committee tho commonsonso patriotism of the French people would ensure the establismhent of a democracy in France.

Mr. R. A. Cary (Conservative) urged that the old ties of friendship and understanding with France bo restored to the full.

On the subject of the League of Nations, Lord Dunglass (Conservative) emphasised that we must not neglect our own security. He insisted that there was not the necessary minimum of confidence on which a big international organisation would be built and urged that if our own interests conflicted with world interests we must stand by our own. Mr. Pethick Lawrence retorted from an Opposition bench that the test of our own interests is whether they conflicted with world interests, If they did they could not survive in the long run. He would like to see a new League with new powers, added strength and more universal membership. The debate was adjourned.