THE OTAGO DAILY TIMES THURSDAY, MAY 13, 1948. ENTR'ACTE?

Otago Daily Times, Issue 26770, 13 May 1948, Page 6

THE OTAGO DAILY TIMES THURSDAY, MAY 13, 1948. ENTR'ACTE?

A few days ago, in the course of his memoirs, Mr Churchill gave an impression of the character of Mr Molotov in which lie remarked: “ Correspondence with him upon disputed matters was always useless and if pushed far ended in lies and insults.” This judgment is recalled unhappily to mind by the reading of Mr Molotov’s reply to the United States proposal for discussions with Russia. Mr Molotov said the Soviet Government had adopted a “ positive attitude ” towards the United States wishes to improve relations with Russia and agreed with the suggestion to hold talks to settle the differences existing. If he had gone no further than this, the statement could have been accepted with some satisfaction, but Mr Molotov went on to reply to the American Note in terms which leave small room for h&pe that there will be any reconciliation of opinions. There is, however, a chance that this overture comes at a time when it suits Soviet policy to drop into low gear, or even into neutral. If this is so, it will be solely because a pause is more in the interests of the Soviet than of any other Power. In this case it may be anticipated that discussions will be held in the near future; that they will be amicable, and that they will conclude with mutual expressions of goodwill and relief that certain misunderstandings have been removed* Time alone will reveal the amount of good faith in these exchanges. If Mr Molotov’s reply is an honest statement of how the Soviet views the situation—and, unlikely though that may seem, it is a possibility—it must appear improbable that there can be an amicable understanding between the two Powers. Mr Molotov blandly remarked that the relations of the Soviet Government with its neighbours “ had actually considerably improved since the war”—he did not say that the improvement is regarded as mutual—and goes on to claim a parallel with the pan-American policy of the United States. To Western minds the suggestion is ludicrous. Further, Mr Molotov not only specifically denies Soviet interference in the affairs of the Eastern European States, -but he charges the United States’ with this very crime in Greece. It would require more than mere charity of mind to believe that Soviet plotting in south-eastern Europe has not greatly exceeded in directness any American moves and that even greater pressure would not have been brought to bear had this territory not marked the boundary of spheres of influences from which the United States—and the Western Powers—could not afford to retreat. Clearly enough, Mr Molotov’s view is that the Soviet can do no wrong and that United States foreign policy, whatever shape it may take, is really a manifestation of Satanic capitalist aggression directed against the Communist paradise. In these circumstances the caution with which the Soviet acceptance has been received is understandable. A conceivable interpretation is that the Soviet has reached the limit of one stage in its possible territorial development and its first moves beyond the iron curtain—in France, in Germany and in Italy—have been effectively countered in the meantime. If Act One has now ended, an entr’acte may be welcomed by Russia, and by the United States. It may, possibly, have some bearing on whether the drama of the nations is to be a tragedy or not.