The Daily Record

These Days
By Sokolsky

JOHN FOSTER DULLES

John Walters, in a dispatch from Washington to London "Daily Mirror," writes a biographical and political sketch of the American Secretary of State that must give the large number of readers of that newspaper an altogether false picture of John Foster Dulles.

Each correspondent can only write what he sees, presuming that his object is to tell the truth. I have known John Foster Dulles for about 20 years and as I read the Walters article in the London "Daily Mirror," I could not help but wonder whether he was actually writing about the same man. For instance, after painting Dulles as an isolationist, with a quotation to prove it, Walters says:

"Nevertheless, after Pearl Harbor, Dulles was on the band wagon cheering his nation to victory. Although a Republican, he had a big job at the San Francisco conference when the United Nations was established. And on and off he continued to serve the Democratic Administration."

This can only be attributed to ignorance of our two-party system and of Dulles's role in the State Department. Actually, he served as a Republican in a Democratic Administration. This is not unusual in American history, but in Dulles's case it was done with the consent of the Republican Party as part of a device called the Bipartisan Foreign Policy.

Perhaps I need to explain that I never believed in the Bipartisan Foreign Policy, but it was accepted by both political parties. Actually its authors were Senator Arthur Vandenberg and John Foster Dulles, with the approval of Senator Robert A. Taft. Its object was to present a united front on international relations no matter what the differences may have been on strictly domestic issues. The Bipartisan Foreign Policy did not work because President Truman and Secretary of State Acheson kept too many matters secret which should have been submitted, under the arrangement, of both parties simultaneously.

It was as part of the Bipartisan Policy and with the consent of his party that John Foster Dulles was attached to the State Department. Actually, he became a bridge between the State Department and the Republican Party. In fact, I can state categorically that had Robert A. Taft been nominated and elected President, he would have appointed Dulles as his Secretary of State.

Senator Taft told me that before the Chicago convention in connection with the planning of the foreign relations planks of the Republican Platform.

His appointment to his present post as Secretary of State by President Eisenhower was therefore anticipated. It was at the time assumed that Dulles was appointed because of his close relationship to Governor Thomas E. Dewey. Actually, the Taft element in the party also supported him. The alternatives were Harold Stassen and John J. McCloy, both of whom the Taft group could not accept for many political reasons.

Of Dulles, the correspondent of the London "Daily Mirror" says:

"For Mr. Dulles is a dangerous man.

"As he races and veers from side to side, frightened spectators all over the world fear that his ultimate destination is disaster.

"Dulles claims to be guiding us all to a peaceful world. At the same time he destroys the chances for such a world by spurning full conversations with Communist China and Russia. He threatens and waves a big stick. He annoys America's friends as well as her enemies."

Who are America's friends whom John Foster Dulles annoys? This London "Daily Mirror" correspondent is not painting a true picture for his British readers. The most expressive criticism of Dulles is that he has not driven out enough of the pro-Russian and pro-British employees of the State Department, held over from the discredited Acheson regime. Most Americans desire a pro-American State Department and hope that they will get it in due course.

The United States is not Great Britain or a British dominion and our way is, for better or worse, not the British way after some 300 years of history between us. And conversely, it can be said that the British way of life is not ours. The differences are numerous and need to be understood and respected.

If the two nations are to maintain their relations without developing an irreparable enmity, it is essential that news reports from London and Washington be accurate and correct and not designed to support temporary policies which may change overnight, meanwhile stirring up unnecessary ill-will.