Evening star. [volume] (Washington, D.C.) 1854-1972, 1958-08-08
FuIbriqht's Critique

Senator Fulbright's latest speech on
American foreign policy adds up TO an
eloquent indictment OF what he regards
as the industrious failures Of that
policy since the end OF the Second World
War. Taken as a whole, since II by no
means places all the blame on the Eisen-
hover administration, II may be viewed
as nonpartisan critique presented in a
genuinely earnest and patriotic spirit,
and there can be no doubt that there
is much justification for 1t.
Certainly, as Mr.. Fulbright has told
the Senate, no American can look
around the world today without feeling
with a sense of sorrow and diSmay--
that his country has lost the pre-emi-
nent position 1t occupied, morally, mill
tarily and otherwise, as recently as a
decade ago. Why has this happened?
Why have we suffered severe setbacks
in the Middle East2 Why have Latin :
American mobs committed outrages
against Vice President Nixon7 Why has
the popularity of the United States suf-
fered what seems to be very sharp
decline in Africa, Asia and even free
Europe2 And why have some of our best
and most reliable allies tended to show
an increasing lack of confidence in the
way our Government handles interna-
tional affairs2
In raising these and similar ques-
lions, Mr.. Fulbright-whose deep mis-
givings are shared by a lot of other
Americans, Democrats and Republicans
alike--has not pretended to know the
answers. He has suggested, however,
that one reason for the present adverse
situation is that our Government, be-
sides overSimplifying matters by blam-
ing everything on Soviet-led Commu-
mist conspiracy, has been a defender
of the status quo throughout the world"
In other words, as he sees the situation,
we have been backing the wrong horses
in an age Of ferment and revolution-an
age in which great masses Of people,
especially in Asia and the Middle East,
are ardently intent upon achieving
something better than things as they
are or have been. But is the Senator
really right on this point? Doesn't he
himself oversimplify? After all, or so 1t
seems to us, his status quo accusation
collapses when measured against the
fact that postwar American policy
wholly apart from granting full indie
pendence to the PhilippineS-played
major role in bringing about self-gov-
eminent in such nations as India and
IndoneSia.
Similarly, at least as far as details
are concerned, there is reason to chal-
lenge Mr.. Fulbright's assertion that our
country will run into far greater troubles
than it is experiencing now unless
there is drastic, sweeping revision of
our foreign policy" Such revision may
well be necessary. But what is 1t to be
like, specifically? The Senator does not
say. And this is the weakness of his
critique 1t finds fault; it deplores; it
cites failings; it rings with high-Sound-
ing generalitieS; it makes cryptic Sug-
geStionS; but 1t still fails to propose con-
crete alternatives to the foreign policy
now in effect-alternative of sort that
would get our country out of the diff
cultieS about which he has spoken.
To say this, of course, is not to
suggest that Mr.. Fulbright'S obServa-
lions are shallow, which they certainly
are not. 1t is merely to suggest that
the situation can be more easily criti-
cized than corrected. Actually, as the
Senator himself has declared, there are
no simple answers to the great problems
before us, and in such circumstances
which obviously are not happy circum-
Stances-the American people can do
little more than hope that the Senates
prospective review of the matter will
help to improve and strengthen our
foreign policy.