THE New Zealand Herald AND DAILY SOUTHERN CROSS WEDNESDAY, JANUARY 5, 1938 AMERICA'S FOREIGN POLICY

New Zealand Herald, Volume LXXV, Issue 22928, 5 January 1938, Page 10

THE New Zealand Herald AND DAILY SOUTHERN CROSS WEDNESDAY, JANUARY 5, 1938 AMERICA'S FOREIGN POLICY

Whenever the President of the United States delivers a message to Congiess many other nations listen. This is not eavesdropping. Although the message is directed immediately to the American Senate and House, and through them to the American people, it is usually meant to be overheard. This is particularly the case with references to foreign policy in days of international tension. Signor Mussolini and Herr Hitler have frankly adopted a similar practice when talking to their own people about foreign affairs; enunciations of policy have been intended for others' ears as well. However, there is a characteristic difference between the Italian and German usage, on the one hand, and that of American Presidents on the other. Of the former instances it can be readily believed that they are designed to affect foreign thought and feeling, and so to play a part in advancing the national cause dictated by their authoritarian originators of policy; the nation is expected to listen and to applaud, not to criticise. Suspicion of this sort does not attach to messages of the American President; these are often spoken to test the mind of Congress and people—to offer a lead rather than to announce an unalterable decision. It is noteworthy therefore, that the foreign-policy phase of Mr. Roosevelt's present message has been received in the United States with virtually universal approbation. His stage whispers on this matter are consequently to be heeded with special interest beyond the limits of his immediate audience.

First to be noted are his factual statements. He asserts that the world trend is away from observance of treaties. This puts mildly one of the most deplorable aspects of the situation. Were every nation's word its bond there would be so high a value in negotiations that they could be entered with sure hope of achieving a better state of things. As it is, negotiations are discouraged by the prevalent realisation —it is more than a vague fear —that often the truth is not declared, the purpose not revealed, the promise not honestly made. Once upon a time a certain solemn pledge was flagrantly dishonoured by a prominent party to it and scornfully derided by its violator as "a scrap of paper." Now there is a grave risk that delusive trails may be deliberately laid with such scraps; the nations' search for peace has been reduced to a paper-chase spoiled by scurvy tricks. Agreements tend to become of less worth than the paper on which they are written. It is well to face this shameful fact. The United States, according to Mr. Roosevelt's message, is facing it with a determination to maintain a defensive strength sufficient to provide an alternative to trust in others' promises. This statement notes the need for a considerable measure of rearmament, a fact as undeniable as the degradation of treaties. To these related facts he has added a third, offering it as an opinion, although the truth is so patent that it might have been given downright expression: this, third fact is the safety of world peace in the hands of democratic, representative Governments only. The reasons for this are scarcely in need of discussion: it is enough to note that the wars and threats of war from which this age is suffering originate from countries ruled by a dictator or an oligarchy, and in no instance from a people possessing effective powers of . self-govejnment. Yet another plain fact is emphasised in the message—provocations that in other days would have engendered war have been endured in these times without recourse to war. What is true thus of the United States applies also to other democracies. It betokens their care for peace, whatever be thought of its final service in creating a pleasant world. What, then, is the foreign policy of the United States as envisaged by Mr. Roosevelt, and endorsed by general American approval 1 "We propose," he says, "to observe our own treaty obligations." This. may sound quixotic when it is accompanied by an uncertainty of others' faithfulness. Should not their denun-„ ciation of a covenant marked by mutuality of obligation relieve every party from its undertaking i In practice, this may prove inevitable, but Mr. Roosevelt takes rightly,the higher ground of principle, with a view to its application wherever possible. Next he makes clear his wish to see a policy of defence so thoroughly pursued that other Powers will hesitate to offer affronts and provocations. In this particular, as seemed probable a few days ago, Congress leaders have given him a speedy answer in their declaration of eagerness to expedite the passage of a Navy Bill authorising a greatly enlarged expenditure. As "a gesture to the world," this American decision should reinforce the salutary action taken by the British Empire. One thing more: side by side with this precautionary measure, itself in harmony with an enlightened civilisation beset by uncouth menaces, is to be "a civilised approach to the purposes of peaoe." If thiß should mean an abandonment of aloofness, a sharing r of world-wide responsibility for international law and order, a great step is in prospect; but even short of that participation there is held out the hope that the United States will combine with other democratic nations to safeguard the interests of peace. In its foreign aspect, the whole utterance makes good hearing on J