The Penalty of Abstention

Winston Churchill, speaking sternly to the London Poles, also spoke sternly to Franklin Roosevelt. It is high time, said the Prime Minister (in parliamentary language), that the U.S. Government quit its role as a eunuch in world affairs (see FOREIGN NEWS).

Mr. Churchill first publicly betrayed signs of impatience with the lack of interest of "my honored friend, the President" last October when he reported to the House of Commons on his last talk with Joseph Stalin. Then he hoped that Roosevelt, Stalin and he would get together for a joint talk and action immediately after the U.S. elections. Last week he said that final decisions "not only on the Russo-Polish question but on a host of vital matters . . . stand at bar and wait."

Churchill's reproof in the form of an invitation did not sit well in Washington --no better than Stettinius' reproof in the form of abstention had sat in London a week before.

Secret or Scandal? The Churchill statement raised a corollary issue in the U.S.: what is U.S. policy? In the Senate Michigan's Arthur Vandenberg, the ranking minority voice on foreign policy, was not so much interested in the dismemberment of Poland as in the U.S. attitude. Cried he: "The U.S. should not be a silent partner. ... If Churchill consulted the U.S. [on the Polish question] it is a state secret. If he did not, it is a state scandal."

Washington newsmen attempted to pursue the matter further. Two days before. Secretary of State Stettinius had informed the Senate Foreign Relations Committee that the U.S. needs a "liberal and forward-looking foreign policy with levelheaded and businesslike effectiveness."

Now the newsmen trooped into Ed Stettinius' office to test the new businesslike effectiveness. Stettinius was cordial, as always. He was also mum as a clam. The correspondents probed and pounced, trying one approach after another, but to no avail. The New Dealing New York Post's William O. Player asked: "Does the U.S. attitude depend on Churchill?" Replied Ed Stettinius: "No comment." To all questions, he returned the same answer. Finally, the Chicago Sun's exasperated Tom Reynolds remarked tartly: "It seems to be possible to be more frank in London." Once again, Stettinius purred an amiable "No comment."

The silence had one great effect: it gave U.S. Anglophobes--and isolationists--a new lease on life. In the Senate, Illinois' C. Wayland Brooks, the Chicago Tribune errand boy, let loose with a gusty anti-British blast: "The American people did not send their sons abroad to fight and die for the safety of Britain or the triumph of Russian influence." And in the House, Pennsylvania's squat, aggressive Leon Gavin cried: "It's about time for Uncle Sam to get tough with Winston Churchill and Anthony Eden."

Platitudinous Paraphrase. Sensing the growing strain on U.S.-British relations, Britain last week dispatched its ace trouble shooter, Minister of State Richard K. Law, to Washington.

This week Ed Stettinius answered the clamor for a U.S. statement. It was nothing more, in effect, than a lengthy paraphrase of his earlier statement on Italy. To the deadlock between Russia and the U.S.-recognized Government of Poland, the Stettinius statement contributed a platitudinous cipher. Ignoring the fact that the Polish question arose because of the inability of Moscow and the London Poles to agree, it said: "In the case of the future frontiers of Poland, if a mutual agreement is reached by the United Nations directly concerned, this Government would have no objection." In effect, the U.S. did not want to play power politics, but did not want to condemn its allies for doing so.

As matters now stood, one of the Big Three, the U.S., was standing aside while the next biggest three--Britain and Russia in collaboration with France--were attending to the world's business.

The U.S. Government, presumably informed of these arrangements, and apparently unwilling to say "yes" or to back an alternative, could support them or not, as it pleased. The arrangements would stick, anyway.

This file is automatically generated by a robot program, so reader's discretion is required.