Evening star., 1949-07-13
Mr.. Taft and the Pact

greatest discomfort" and with the typi-
cally frank and honest admission that he
may be completely wrong Senator Taft
has made up his mind to vote against the
North Atlantic Treaty In his own words,
he has done so because he cannot escape
the logic of the situation" as he sees it.
But the logic of the situation" as seen by
those most intimately informed on the cold
war, certainly seems to have escaped him.
Indeed, in his speech to the Senate an
nouncing his stand, Mr.. Taft has displayed
brand of logic whose logicalness-th though
undoubtedly quite clear to him-is ex-
tremely difficult to follow Thus, with some
necessary oYersimplidcation, the essence of
his argument may be summed up as fol-
lows: Cd The threat of direct and indirect
Soviet aggression is not imaginary; (2) in
the age of the atom and supersonic flight,
with the world greatly shrunken in size,
our own national security is affected by
what happens to our friends abroad; 90
accordingly, he would like to vote for "a
policy that will commit us to war if Rus
sia attacks Western Europe; "a the
Atlantic Pact represents such policy;
(5) unfortunately, however, it is "inex-
tricably involved" with program that
would obligate us to supply vast amount
of arms to the other SignatorieS co for
that reason, instead of deterring the men
of the Kremlin from new adventures, 1t
would be likely to bring about an armed
conflict; and CD though he would support
it if it had no ornaments implications, he
must therefore oppose it, his alternative
proposal being that we should merely ex-
tend the Monroe Doctrine to cover like
minded nations everywhere.
1t may be taken for granted, of course,
that Mr.. Taft has arrived at this position
only after considerable soul-searching and
conscientious thought. But his obvious
earnestneSS and sincerity do not make his
views a whit less illogical or unrealiStic
than they clearly seem. He has come out
against the pact primarily on the ground
that it cannot be divorced from the pro-
jected military assistance program. Tech
nically, the two measures are definitely
separate and distinct, and he is wrong in
that sense AS practical matter, however,
he is right in declaring that the treaty
implies an American obligation to help
arm the other Signatories, even though
pro-treaty Senator could vote against such
help without legally or morally stultifying
himself. But he is right only up to a point;
he is not right when he goes beyond that
point and suggests that our ornaments all
must be vast and unlimited when actually
the plan is to keep it very strictly within
internal defensive bounds confined to exist
ing forces. And certainly his logic and
realism are altogether unimpressive when
he argues that a simple declaration of
broad intent, without teeth, without specific
commitments-a declaration like the Mon
roe Doctrine-Would instill a sense of
security in Western Europe and discourage
Russia from further aggression.
Though he is one of our ableSt domestic
legislators Mr.. Taft himself has acknowl-
edged that he is no expert on foreign pol
icy. His deficiency in that respect has
been shown in the past (for example, at
the beginning of the debate on interna-
tional atomic controD, and it is being
shown again now in relation to the At
lant1c Pact. The substance of his position
is that he is all for shaking warning fist
at Russia but against doing anything to
organize the defensive strength of the
West in manner calculated to make that
fist truly effective peace preserving in
Strument.
In other words, to paraphrase an old
writer. the distinguished Senator from
Ohio would have the free world let its will
roar when its power could but whisper.
The Soviet threat-which is a real one in
a cold war of indefinite duration simply
cannot be countered in that way Mr..
Tafts suspicion that he may be COM
pletely wrong is not ill-founded, and we
must hope, therefore, that not many of his
colleagues will follow his lead.