Evening star., 1943-09-25

war objectives
and any debate David Lawrence.
at this time would necessarily raise
questions as to the intentions of
each of the United Nations and
especially of Britain, Russia and the
United States
The Foreign Relations Commit
tee members feel that no good pur-
pose would be served by the debate
and that it might produce irrita-
tions. This alone is not a sufficient
reason because if there is one tt.ing
that needs to be debated it is the
war or peace aims of the Allied pow-
ers.
Perhaps more persuasive reason
is that the Senate, which by the
terms OF the Constitution is sup
posed to advise and consent" to in
ternational agreements, does not
know what the executive branch of
the Government has in mind. To
attempt to furnish advice ahead Of
time and before the mind of the
Exevutice is disclosed is likely to
produce embarrassments for the
Senate, If not for the executive
branch of the Government.
In Dark on Allies Aims.
Thus, for instance, the President
and the State Department know
at this moment something of Rus
sia's intentions. Admiral Standley,
who has just come back from Mos
COW, presumably brings the latest
information as to Premier Stalin's
point of view A three-power ton-
ference is scheduled to take place
soon at which the ideas of Russia,
Britain and the United States will
be crystallized. Until such an ex-
change of views takes place, the
Senate is in the dark concerning
postwar aims or plans.
There is little known also as to
what Prime Minister Churchill and
President Roosevelt have agreed on.
What, for instance, Is to be Britain's
view about freedom for India. and
Is Britain planning to annex the
lost territories of the former Italian
empire? If these areas are to be put
TN der international trusteeship,
what provision is to be made about
ultimate ownership or is the man
date" idea to be used again to
camouflage annexations.
There is also the question of
Americas territorial desires. Are the
inundated islands in the Pacific
when wrested from Japan to be
tnternationalized or are they to be
given the United States as air and
naval bases? This may be objected
to as imperialism" yet it is illogical
to suggest that because the British
already are committed to imperial
ism they alone should be permitted
to have such islands.
Question of Bases.
Also the question of bases in the
Atlantic is up for settlement and
any blanket statements about ter
ritories or boundaries, either in the
two big oceans or in continental
Europe, could conceivably breed
friction and disunity among the
A1lfac tho dot af NOV
Finally there is the question of
an international police force" and
q "super-state" The Republicans
seem to imply that the President
and his associates favor super
state" and a single international
police force. There is as yet no
foundation for such conclusion.
The Republicans speak often of
retention of sovereignty" and of
postwar action to be taken, as indi-
Gated in the Fulbright resolution, by
constitutional processes" If that's
what they really mean then logically
they should support the adoption of
the League of Nations Covenant,
which gave each nation freedom of
action to determine its contribution
OF army or navy or air forces to the
common cause on the outbreak of
war by an aggressor nation. The
League preserved sovereignty" and
provided for action by "constitu-
tional processes"
1t certainly would be strange
turn of affairs if, after two decades
or more, the Republicans who helped
to reject the League Covenant we're
to be found to be its principal spon-
sors. But stranger things than that
have happened in our political his
tory and, as for European statesmen,
they will accept any form of inter-
national organization in which they
can be sure the physical might as
well as moral influence of the
United States will be exerted to
maintain the peace of the world.
Reproduction RIGHTS Reserved)