Brave New Words

Where stood the U.S.? To many a U.S. citizen, to most of the world, the nation seemed to have shrunk farther & farther from responsibility in world affairs. Was it a great power, with a voice and a goal of its own--or just a nervous broker between an implacable Russia and an impoverished Britain?

As long as its leaders could not make up their minds, the nation blundered down a dark road. Last week the blunderer made a sudden turn. Secretary of State James F. Byrnes, a man of many turnings, rose and spoke words which heartened the world.

The Firm Stand. "If we are to be a great power," he said, "we must act as a great power. . . . Our diplomacy must not be negative and inert." The U.S. must stand firm on its own principles--and against any "unilateral gnawing away at the status quo"; any aggression "accomplished by coercion or pressure"; any maneuvering "for further and undisclosed penetrations of power"; any imposition of troops "upon small and impoverished states"; against any "war of nerves to achieve strategic ends."

He did not point squarely at Russia. But no one misunderstood him. His meaning was plain. It became even plainer with the disclosure by William Lyon Mackenzie King (see CANADA) of the busyness of Russian espionage.

Said he: "We have welcomed our Soviet ally . . . as a great power second to none. . . . [But] we will not and we cannot stand aloof if force or the threat of force is used contrary to the purposes and principles of the Atlantic Charter."

The Firm Shove. As a declaration of policy, Jimmy Byrnes's pronouncement belonged in diplomatic history. This week, around the world, foreign offices studied it. Critics also studied it, knowing that it had to be read in the light of its circumstances.

Byrnes had been forced into taking his position. The day before he spoke, Republican Senator Arthur Vandenberg had also made a speech calling for a more dynamic foreign policy (see below). Vandenberg's plea, applauded by the nation, was a clear challenge. Byrnes's fellow delegate to the UNO London conference had not even mentioned the fact that Byrnes was also there. The omission was almost contemptuous. Vandenberg had pointed to Stettinius, Vishinsky, Bevin (especially Bevin, who had so inspired the Senator that "my hat flew off"). Byrnes had given the delegation little or no guidance. Over the months he had lost prestige. He had not even done very effectively the thing he does best--wangle good compromises.

The Firm Line. Jimmy Byrnes himself also had to be considered. The onetime court reporter and shorthand expert, onetime Representative, onetime Senator, onetime Supreme Court Justice, onetime "Assistant President," full-time compromiser, had made eloquent and forceful speeches before. Critics wondered whether Jimmy Byrnes was as big as his words.

Nevertheless, as Secretary of State he had laid down a line. Foreign offices applauded. U.S. citizens felt the national dignity and self-respect somewhat restored. Jimmy Byrnes had laid down principles from which deviation now would be painfully apparent.

The chance to implement his brave new words lay embarrassingly close at hand. This week Iran asked the U.S. to protest Russia's action there. Russia's refusal to quit Azerbaijan (see FOREIGN NEWS) could well be interpreted as: 1) the "unilateral gnawing away of the status quo"; 2) aggression by "coercion or pressure"; 3) an entering wedge "for further and undisclosed penetration of power"; or even 4) "a war of nerves to achieve strategic ends."

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