Evening star., 1943-10-13
Senute Criticism

rIeSluellG NOOSePelGS ) COHlNlSnG Oh
the criticisms voiced by five Senators
following their tour Of the battle
fronts is similar in tone to the reac-
ton of the foreign-notably the
Rritish-press. Mr.. Roosevelt broad
ened his discussion to include the
matter of the Siberian bases, and he
reviewed the rather obvious reasons
why the provision of such bases,
however desirable, is not feasible at
this time. He also dealt, however,
with the adverse senatorial comments
on the British-comments which
have brought disturbed and some
what resentful replies from British
newspapers
Before discussing those comments
specifically, it is well to realize their
basis. To begin with, no official text
of the Senators reports has been
published. They were delivered in
closed sessions of the Senate and
were technically secret, but unofficial
versions Of what was said appeared
at some length in the American press.
1t is those press versions which were
cabled or Wirelessed to London and
were used there as the material for
comment.
This raises several questions.
Should the Senators have delivered
what appear to be exparte reports
before preliminary consultation and
checking of their facts with the State
Department and other governmental
agencies? Should any information
Of what was said at the secret ses-
sions of the Senate have been per-
mitted to get to the American press
and public? Lastly, should the Brit
ish press have commented so fully on
what was obviously incomplete in
formation?
AS reported from London, certain
British editors appear to have drawn
deductions broader than are justified
by the known facts. For instance,
the London press seems to assume
that the Senators assert a refusal by
the British government to requests
from our Government that more oil
from the Persian and Mesopotamian
fields be used for the Allied forces
and other common uses. Yet, so far
as American press reports go, the
Senators merely called attention to
the fact that the United States was
contributing larger percentage Of
the oil from its diminishing reserves
than was called for since the reopen
ing Of the Mediterranean, and that
the British we're sitting back when
they could step up production and
refining in the Near East to a much
greater extent than is now the case.
Their criticism seems to have been
largely directed against the admin
iStration for not having made repre-
sentations to London to change that
situation. Much the same is true Of
the Senators charges about the
postwar use of airfields built in Brit
ish or other Allied territory by us,
and the requirement of postwar
rights to strategic bases on British
territory. The gravamen of sena-
torial criticism repeatedly was that
our Government was not securing
those postwar uses and rights, rather
than that it had diligently tried and
been turned down by the British.
Those are obviously two very differ
ent matters, and it is strange that
the London press seems to have gen.
orally tended toward an interpreta-
ton not warranted by the American
press accounts.
Going beyond such technical diff
ferences, the net result Of this affair
is clearly unfortunate. Any contro-
versy between Britain and America is
regrettable at this crucial moment,
when harmony and mutual under
standing are unusually necessary on
the eve of the momentouS Moscow
conference. The lesson to be drawn
is the meticulOus care which should
be exercised in making statements
and the need for close checking of
the facts upon which they are based.