U.S.A. LOOKS ABROAD

Te Awamutu Courier, Volume 56, Issue 4045, 9 May 1938, Page 6

U.S.A. LOOKS ABROAD

PACIFIC PERILS. ISOLATIONISM IN DECLINE. Not since the great days of the New Deal has America been so interesting a study as it is to-day, writes a New York correspondent. In 1932 the world was watching the nation, under Mr. Roosevelt’s guidance, striving against domestic depression; now Americans are looking abroad and pondering on the foreign policy that is linked up with an increase in naval strength. The majority of Americans have always thought that the country was persuaded into the World War by Wilson, and that it spent lives and moneys in a spirit of pure devotion to democracy. It is doubtful if history will support such a belief, because nations do not go to war and risk extinction on an impulse of mere chivalry. A core of selfishness must lie at- the heart of any decision that a nation may make on so momentous a matter as war. Nevertheless, many Americans still feel that the late war m which they fought was not really their affair. This view lies behind the oft-expressed determination never again to pull out of the fire other nations’ “chestnuts.” But now, when Mr. Roosevelt has asked for a larger navy, Americans realise that the United States Government is not thinking idealistically out is facing a very concrete problem of vital importance to the country. There are, of course, politicians preaching isolation, even at the cost of retiring behind the national coastlines, but the rising power of Japan makes such advocates of peace at any price look foolish. And the nation knows it. The Real Frontier. The Secretary of State, Mr. Cordell Hull, is accused of talking vaguely when he says that America’s navy is for defence alone. No doubt it is the duty of a statesman to tread delicately in the field of international politics, but others need not be so careful, and Mr. Walter Lippmann, America’s leading commentator, assumes the duty which (as he says) neither the President nor Mr. Hull can do. He tells his readers that it is obvious to all the world that the “fundamental concern of the American Navy is with the Pacific, primarily with the defence of our real frontier, which is a line drawn from the Aleutian Islands in Alaska through Hawaii to the Panama Canal. It is also obvious that Japan is the only Power which could conceivably invade the seas and lands behind this frontier.” These plain words state what is in the minds cf all who ponder America’s foreign policy, and they explain why the United States cannot plead idealistic motives as she prepares fo adequate defence. Whatever were her reasons for entering a World War, should one arise in the Pacific it would be her own welfare that would be at stake. For this reason the plans for a largei- navy are causing intense interest. The peace groups, especially strong in this country, urge that a big navy leads to war. Admiral Leahy, Chief of Naval Operations, replies that the new naval programme does not permit aggression. Nevertheless, no one knows what the remodelled navy will be when completed, because the more the Government and the nation delve into the problem of defence the more complex its difficulties grow. Already Mr. Roosevelt has hinted the need of defending two oceans—the Atlantic and Pacificand no present views on naval building would satisfy that big demand. There is, of course, one method by which the United States could aid herself without constructing what might be regarded as an “aggressive” navy, and that would be by forming an alliance with a foreign Power whose interest lie in the same sphere of influences. It may well be that if the threat of war grows Americans will persuade themselves that such an alliance would be profitable. At present, however, the very word is feared by officials and politicians alike. Some hard commentators may mention it in the newspapers, and even recommend an alliance as mere wisdom, but the nation is not yet prepared to accept the advice. Mr. Chamberlain’s decision to seek peace through negotiation with Italy has for the moment widened the diplomatic distance between the United States and Great Britain, although no one can say at present where Ihe Prime Minister’s move will lead his country. Obviously an alliance that would help America in the Pacific would be one with Great Britain. Neither of these two Powers can look on Japanese domination in the Far East with equanimity. Such an alliance is so plausible that Mr. Hull, who believes in international co-operation, although for trade and not for war, cannot eradicate an impression that the two Governments, while not signing any documents, are, nevertheless, in such close conference that at least an “understanding” exists between them. Mr. Hull must be tired of writing his letters of denial, and may be astonished that the more he says “No” the more persistent is congressional opinion that a “parallel naval policy” between the United States and Bri-

tain, should trouble arise in the Pacific, has been planned. It would seem that congressional opinion is here jumping ahead of truth, reasonable though the plan of co-operation would appear to thoughtful Americans. The nation, is, however, withdrawing from its isolation on a middle road. The American people are unwilling to risk war with Japan, Dut the perfervid isolation policy of a few year’s ago is giving way to the realisation that the nation should protect its interests abroad. Some Americans interpret the proposed trade treaty between the United States and Britain as the Government’s first step toward closer relations with Great Britain. Mr. Hull is determined that Great Britain’s decision to begin negotiations with Italy in the hope of preserving peace in Euroe shall not prevent the success of these negotiations. Meanwhile the peace societies and their comrade-in-arms, the isolationists, are speaking with no uncertain voice against Mr. Roosevelt’s naval programme. But they are fighting a rearguard action, and in the future the United States will probably develop a foreign policy that will seem to many of her citizens like moving into a new world. This does not mean that the nation will go to war, but that Americans will grow less fearful of burning their fingers in the hot water of foreign diplomacy. The changes in the Far East, even those in Europe, are making them less certain that events abroad are of secondary interest to them.