Evening star. [volume] (Washington, D.C.) 1854-1972, 1956-01-30
Not by q Pen Stroke

AILIlOuSn uldulIdlIllIlS d pOllIc dIu
amicable tone, President Eisenhower has
not beaten around the bush in his reply
to Premier Bulganin'S letter. Instead,
while leaving the door wide open for fur
ther peace promoting discussion, he has
forthrightly rejected the Soviet leaders
proposal for a 20-year Russo American
treaty of friendship and cooperation"
And he has done so in a way that should
effectively minimize whatever propa-
ganda advantage the Kremlin may now
seek to gain from this latest exchange OF
missives "at the summit"
In view of it's timing, Of course, and
also its headline winning personal deliv-
cry by Soviet Ambassador Zaroubin, the
Bulganin letter unquestionably has been
motivated in large part, if not entirely,
by propagandiStic considerations. There
is ample reason to assume, for example,
that it has been designed to have
diversionary impact on world opinion IN
connection with the important talks
beginning today between British Prime
Minister Eden and Mr.. Eisenhower In
addition, since the men of the Kremlin
must have realized in advance that the
Presidents response to it could hardly
have been Eyes," there is solid ground for
suspecting that another of its detectives
has been to put the United States in the
position of seeming to spurn RuSSia'S
proffered hand Of friendship.
However, even though the so-called
"neutralists" in. India and elsewhere may
be gulled las usually by this Soviet ma
neuver, the Presidents letter is so per-
SuaSive, and so much in accord with the
realities Of the world, that it more than
holds its own in the propaganda field.
Thus, in explaining why our country
takes dim view of joining Russia in the
sort Of treaty proposed by Marshal Bull
ganin, Mr.. Eisenhower has emphasized
that the full substance of such pact
already exists in the multilateral United
Nations Charter. And he has further
emphasized that the words of that solemn
agreement have not prevented the pres
ent state of international tension. And
why have they failed in that respect?
The answer is simple: Because they have
been honored more in the breach than in
the observance by the Soviet Union.
President Eisenhower has not stated
the case quite SO bluntly as this. Nor
has he made any direct reference to the
Kremlin's recent denunciation OF its
friendship" treaties with France and
Britain, or its past shocking violations
Of similar pacts with countries like Fin
land. But he has said enough, and elo-
quently, to make clear why the United
States is in no mood to sign an agree
ment of this sort with RUSSIA mere
paper accord that might actually work
against the cause of peace by creating
the illusion that stroke Of the pen had
achieved a result which, in fact, can be
obtained only by change Of spirit" 1t
is the change of spirit that is needed most
of all right nova change that would
translate che Soviet Unions fair words
into deeds of comparable fairness as
regards such issues as German unif1ca-
ton, self determination for the satellite
countries, and disarmament.
Certainly, it cannot be said that the
Kremlin's performances on these matters
have lived up to its promises. In Mr..
EisenhowerS words, there Is no "honor-
able thing" that the United States would
not do to promote world peace, but what
is imperative above everything is some
concrete evidence of Russian good faith.