The Waterbury Democrat., 1944-04-13

and the United states make up the
table. The stakes are Germany
Great Britain Is vulnerable and
China has scattered strength. The
United States opens the bidding
| (for surrender of italy, with few
clubs, but the Soviet has great
strength in spades and wins the
! bid.
Early in the play, Great Britain
and the United States, as partners,
disclose that they have strength in
the King (of italy, and Ace Badog-
Ito, and the kibitzers all yell What
business have these partners bid
ding such cards in their hands?
Then when the Soviet quietly
trumps both Ace and King (by rec
ognition) the kibitzerS yell still
more loudly, wanting to know why
the partners didn't think of trump
ing their own high cards. From the
dismay Of the kibitzers, hand, game,
rubber, match the whole darn
war has ben lost by playing of the
diplomatic game.
But great grief! Is this just
bridge? 1t most decidedly isn't This
is war. and it's played for keeps.
DIPLOMATS ON
THE DEFENSIVE
Department of State has been
under terrific criticism from the
kibitZers. Not being in a position to
tell specifically what it was doing
in every situation because of the
close tie-in between diplomacy and
the actual fighting, the department
has still tried to justify what it has
ben doing. using broad principles
and generalities. The result so far is
that almost every attempt to ex-
plain has stirred up more criticism.
The 17-point defense of U. S. for
eign policy, culled from back
speeches and declarations, merely
put the State Department further
on the defensive.
The conference with the fresh
men Republican congressman was
another effort of the same kind, but
it went sour. It can be shown that
disclosure of Hull'S condolences at
that meeting actually gave aid to
the enemy. /.
There YOU have the key to this
whole business. The Department Of
State can't make an open book Of
everything 1t is doing in wartime
because practically everything that
1t does IS a part of military opera
tons.
Everyone would like to know all
the answers to all the questions
about Italy. Spain, Germany, the
Balkans, Turkey, Poland Finland,
If you will check the criticisms on
all these issues, you will find usually
that the critics constitute a press
ure trying to force policy in one
direction = for recognition of De-
Gaulle or Tito. a kick in the pants
for Franco or Badoglio, telling
Great Britain, what 1t should do
about India or the Jews In Pales-
tine, telling Soviet Russia how far
1t should go into Poland.
QUESTIONS UNANSWERABLE
NOW
How can those things be answer
ed now? How can the location of
every boundary, the formation of
every government, be determined at
this stage of the war? The Depart
ment of State can't answer those
questions and neither can anyone
else.
Foreign policy except on the
broadest principles as re-stated in
the last Hull speech, has always
Eeen a matter of expediency, and in
war the actors, the scenes and the
situations change fast. No other
nation has infinitely detailed for
eign policy set down in black and
white. Why should we? A change in
the political complexion of the
United States this fall might call
for change in U. S. foreign policy
Why get the country out on an IN
ternational limb? Change Is pos
sible In other countries, to. Such
changes could conceivably cause
changes in U. s foreign policy.
Viewed from these angles the
writing Of specific foreign policy
for every country, underground
movement, outlaw government or
absentee political faction is impos-
sible. That, however, is a hard bill
OF good to sell. Secretary Hull's
speech will therefore be criticized
by the kibitzers for weeks a Offer
ing nothing new.
1t doesn't. But how could 1t and
what Of It?