The Wilmington morning star. [volume] (Wilmington, N.C.) 1909-1990, 1946-01-21
MIR. WELLES ACCUSES

MIR. WELLES ACCUSES
In his most recent articles MI.
Sumner Welles accused the Amerl'
can government of having acted In
bad faith. No more serious charge
can be made by a citizen against
his government, none SO damaging
to its influence in the world. Once
it is made, especially per-
son who speaks with authority, the
damage is done, as it is when the
honor of a man or the chastity of
a women has been impugned, even
though the charge has not been
proved.
Mr.. Welles rests his charge on
the indubitable fact that at Mos
oow in December Secretary Byrnes
Feceded on two points which he
had insisted upon at London in
September. He had said at Lon
don that he would not negotiate
peace treaties with Bulgaria and
Ronania, as Mr.. Welles puts it,
until representative governments
had been freely elected in those
countries. At Moscow he agreed
to negotiate peace treaties before
there was free election in these
countries but provided their pro-
visional governments were made
somewhat, though no doubt not
very much more, representative.
At London Mr.. Byrnes had also
insisted that France participate in
the negotiation of the Balkan trea-
ties; at Moscow he compromised
on this point.
There is no question but that on
both points he receded from the
position he had taken previously.
But that is not the whole story.
And before Mr.. Welles or anyone
else has the right to pronounce
70 damning a verdict, he must
eonsider-not omit even to men,
tion-the rest of the story.
For as Mr.. Welles expounds
what happened at London in Sep
TENDER, the picture he draws is abb
solutely and fundamentally false.
He makes it appear that at Lon
don the United States stood for
set of principles, and that Mr..
Byrnes. who had just inherited
them, later abandoned them. But
the truth is that at London the
United States was not standing for
the principles which Mr.. Byrnes
inherited. It was standing Tor
them only in one small specific
area of the globe-in the Soviet
sphere of influence There, as Mr..
Bvrnes inherited the policy, we
stood for an equal voice for all the
great powers and many OF the
smaller ones.
But in the American sphere OF
influence we were opposed to this
principle, and in the determination
of policy in Japan, China, and the
Pacific Islands, We were excluding
not only France, though she is
Far Eastern power, and the Meth
erIands, Australia, and New, Zea-
land, which are Far Eastern pow
ers. but also Great Britain and the
Soviet Union.
At London the moral position OF
the United States was untenable,
and utterly contradictory. Far
from its being, as Mr.. Welles'
argument assumes, position rest.
ing on high principles, it was a
fragrant case of double moral
standard.
It is against this that the NOR
alists who set up to make moral
judgments must measure the
transactions at Moscow. There
were two alternatives-at least in
theory-open 10 Mr.. Byrnes at
Moscow. He could stand absolute
ly on the original principles which
we had announced, if he did, then
he had to revise our policy in the
Far East and make it consistent
with these principles. This would
have meant the dethronement OF
General Macarthur, and the re-
nunciation of our exclusive claims
in the conquered islands.
Since that was not possible, as
am sure Mr.. Weles will have to
agree, the other alternative was to
narrow the gap between principles
and policy by modifying the prin-
ciples somewhat, by modifying
Soviet policy somewhat, and by
modifying American policy some
what. This is in fact what was
40 - - - -