Evening star. [volume] (Washington, D.C.) 1854-1972, 1956-12-14
Dim View ofU.S. Policy

.0IIU view OI " ,. FOI1Cy
Recent events and, in par
ticular, Americas representa-
tons in the U. N. and else
where lead one to wonder
upon what principles-if any
United States foreign policy
rests.
Our stern, puritanical atti-
tude vis-a-vis our leading
NATO allies whom we feel
that we Justly chided for hav-
ing been so unreasonable as to
think Of their own national
interest and economic we'll
being, would either seem to
denote that realism plays little
part in our international deal
ingS or that we are no longer
DESTROYS Of retaining the faith,
confidence and future support
Of France and Great Britain.
But it is doubtful whether any
realistic approach to our for
eign policy would admit that
the approaches to the Eastern
Atlantic and to the Mediter-
ranean are Of no concern to
our country. If we, therefore,
eliminate this first alternative,
must we either assume that
our allies are "spinelesS" and
accept our rebuffs and eco
nomic sanctions with full
grace and in thanks for our
decisions as to what their ma
tional interests are, or must
we assume that we are strong
enough to shift for our own,
needing help from none? If
our allies are "spinelesS," of
what use to US will their de-
ciSion be when the fatefuI
hour-not far off-comes and
If their national interests are
not reconciled with ours?
Where then lies the realism
Of our policy If such realism"
can be said to exist?
However, If we assume that
instead Of realism" our policy
rests upon international mo-
rality and ethics, we are truly
In q dilemma. For by what
hypocrisy or refusal to profit
from historical events can we
close our eyes to human short
comings and conveniently for
get even more fragrant VIOLA
tons by our country Of inter-
national covenants, executive
declarations, or Of q nebulous
international morality which
is o convenient sanction to use
against others but not appli-
cable in ones own dealings?
The catch-all or bugaboo Of
"colonialism" with its naive
stigma, or Of "racial equality"
and economic self-interest"
are dangerous theological con-
ceptions that can as readily
be turned against us as against
our closest parents in the
family Of nations.
If theology and the theories
Of Montesquieu, Rousseau and
Paine play their part in deter
mining our foreign policy, why
then do we sanction powers
that have some moral and legal
justification for their action
In Suez and close our eyes to
the barbarous action Of the
Tartar hordes in Hungary who
have no such pretense and
care less? Why this incon-
gruity II theology, international
morality and Justice" dictate
our foreign policy as we claim
they do? Do we think we can
really fool all Of the people
all Of the time" and particu-
larly when we are not deal
ing with naive, uninterested
peoples?
No. our foreign policy, II
policy 1t Is. is neither realistic
nor theological but a pot
pourri Of scattered, unrelated
thoughts concerning q theo-
logical mission" with realism
and down-to-earth thinking
thrown in only when the PEN
dulum swings to one extreme
and we are faced with q major
conflict. When next time comes
1t is unlikely that we will again
have q two-year respite prior
to waging war.
A Jeffersonian approach to
present world problems with
tine consequent neaoacne re-
sulting from the process OF
rationalizing and thinking out
our aims and policies Is GER
tainly not too high a price TO
pay for q greater degree Of
world security than we have
thus far been able 10 guaran-
tee. This would not necessarily
be In conflict with moral lead
ership. IN any event II would
not cause the deception Of rails
ing false hopes and then ind
ing our political and military
resources fan short Of realizing
our theological aims. In the
words Of Teddy Roosevelt. let