Evening star., 1949-08-23
Biportisonship and the MAP

The President has said nothing new or
striking in his Miami address to the
Veterans Of Foreigns Wars. He has simply
restated the main arguments IN FAVOR OF
the foreign policy we have been pursuing
to protect ourselves and the rest OF the
Western world from the further spread OF
Red totalitarianism. He might well nave
done more. The policy, as he has observed,
has had overwhelming bipartisan support
as far as Greek Turkish aid, the Marshall
Plan and the North Atlantic Treaty are
concerned, but he has failed to make a
really vigorous appeal for the continuation
of such support in connection With the
Military Assistance Program.
Considering how the Republicans in the
House have joined Democratic minority
in voting to slash the MAP, considering
also that many of them in the Senate are
hostile to the program, it seems deficiency
of sorts that the Presidents speech has
not warned against the dangerous posi-
bility of breakup in the type Of bi-
partisanship that has played such vital
role so far in countering the Russians in
the cold war; The possibility needs to be
reckoned with and headed of, and Mr.
Truman himself must take the lead in
doing whatever can be done to that end.
Certainly, more is required than a mere
rehash of the excellent but familiar argu-
ments in support of our foreign policy
There can be no doubt that that policy
is as sound as it is imperative. Nor can
there be any doubt that something very
much like the proposed Military Assistance
Program is an essential part of 1t, along
with such other key projects as the Mar
shall Plan and the Atlantic Pact. These
measures taken in concert with our free
friends abroad, are vital. without them,
as the President has said, we would face
q hopeless task in trying to build decent
and enduring peace by checking and re-
versing the Soviet Unions direct and in
direct aggression. Demonstrate as all
this is, however, the fact remains that the
arms-aid proposal has failed up to now
to win strong bipartisan backing.
Thus, although our military leadership
has emphatically and unanimously urged
adoption Of the full program advocated by
the administration, the House has voted
to cut 1t in half with only eight Repub-
Hcans lining up on the other side, as
against 1877 favoring the slash. Coupled
with signs OF mounting COP opposition in
the Senate as well, this clearly indicates
that the MAP is putting congressional bi-
partisanship to its severest test to date.
It indicates, too, that unless the Presi-
dent-by means other than generalixed
speeches-acts energetically to change the
present trend, serious trouble may lie in
store nnt 1aerely for arms aid but for our
foreign policy IA general.
In the Presidents words, peace with
freedom and justice cannot be bought
cheaply." To attain it, the United States
must undertake burdensome and expen-
sive programs like the MAP. But those
programs, If they are to come into being
and not be too little or too late, must
have the support of both parties In Con-
gress, and the reaction to the arms
proposal strongly suggests that such BIZ
~partisanship Is beginning to dwindle away
Too much is at stake in the world to let
that happen. One way or another, the
administration must make every effort
to win back and hold strong Republican
cooperation in the all-important field of
foreign policy