Communique Criticised For Its Omissions

Otago Daily Times, Issue 27569, 11 December 1950, Page 5

Communique Criticised For Its Omissions

NZPA—Copyright

Rec. 8.20 p.m. WASHINGTON, Dec. 9. The Truman-Attlee conference produced a communique more remarkable for its omissions than its contents, says Reuter’s diplomatic correspondent. Pointedly absent was any attempt to pin the label of aggression on Communist China. This charge, has been repeatedly levelled by United States leaders ever since the Chinese fullscale intervention in the Korean war. The British view has been to avoid making a formal charge because it would set in motion the whole complicated machinery of the United Nations Charter for dealing with aggression—eventually by armed action against the aggressor. The writers of the communique appeared to have bent over backwards to refer only to “ intervention.” President Truman and Mr Attlee did not indicate what policy the United States and Britain would advocate if the Chinese Communists continue their refusal to negotiate. Another notable omission was any reference to efforts to “ unify ” North and South Korea. Well-informed sources said no secret agreements had been reached for future action on Communist China. President Truman and Mr Attlee also had not decided what to do if the Chinese drove the United Nations forces' out of

A high French source said:' “There are still two stumbling blocks which President Truman and Mr Attlee failed to remove—whether there will be negotiations on Korea only or on all Asiatifc problems, and disagreement, on the admission of the Peking Government.”

Democratic leaders in Congress said the communique raised hopes of eventual peace, but some key Republicans were sharply critical. Three Republican Senators said they were not satisfied with the Truman-Attlee agreement and proposed that the United States arm the Chinese Nationalists to fight the Communists. They are the Republican leader, Senator Robert Taft, a member of the Foreign Relations Committee, Senator H. Alexander Smith, and Senator William Knowland.

i The Truman-Attlee communique has been criticised in France and Italy. One French newspaper described the communique as “ lukewarm and ' insufficient.” Italian Government officials fear that the Communists will take advantage of the questions left unanswered to launch a new propaganda campaign.

Korea. At Lake Success, many United Nations delegates were frankly disappointed with the Anglo-American statement because it left unresolved the Chinese-Korean problem. The reaction among the Indians, who have taken a lead in trying to negotiate a settlement of the Far Eastern crisis, was pessimistic. A sojurce close to India’s delegation said:,“lt is now a little worse than before thd talks began. There is no agreement now, whereas, before the talks, there was at least the hope of agreement.”

Dutch Government circles at The Hague expressed considerable satisfaction that the communique contained “ such general unity of thought and policy.” Neither Moscow radio nor Tass, the official Soviet news agency, have so far referred to the communique. Most East German newspapers ignored it, but West Berlin papers displayed it prominently on their front pages.