Tug of War

As it hesitantly approached the post-truce political conference to try to settle the future of Korea, the U.S. was being jerked and stretched like a hawser in a great diplomatic tug of war.

On one side stood South Korea's stubborn Syngman Rhee, demanding implacable enmity to the Communists. On the other stood the U.S.'s European allies—in particular, Great Britain—demanding conciliatory gestures to Red China. When the political conference fails, insisted Rhee (he said "when," not "if"), South Korea wants to resume the war to unify Korea. The U.S., he insisted, had committed itself to joining him in resuming the war. The U.S. had made no such flat promise. On the other side of the globe, the British rose to a gentlemanly boil when they read that John Foster Dulles would not agree to a bargain that admitted the Chinese aggressors to the U.N. Dulles also said, before taking off for Korea to visit Rhee, that the U.S. would walk out of the Korean talks after 90 days if they were getting nowhere.

"It seems extraordinary to me," cried Labor's ex-Prime Minister Clement Attlee, "that [at] this conference Korean unity must be achieved, and that ... if everything does not go exactly as Mr. Dulles wants it, then the U.S. may go on its own . . . That is a very dangerous matter." Labor backbencher Jack Jones carried this attackon policy into personal vituperation. "I do not want to be rude," he said, "but one could quickly misconstrue the word 'Dulles' into 'dull ass.'"

Though more polite, Tories talked the same way (no one had a kind word for Dulles). "Her Majesty's government believe that the [Peking] government should represent China in the United Nations," said Minister of State Selwyn Lloyd. "We do not say that recognition should come at once, but it... should be discussed ..."

The Economist gently twitted the Laborites for arguing that "the right way to approach a bargaining match with Oriental Communists is to tell them in advance that their main demand will be conceded." But even in that, the Economist seemed to be saying that if Britons would just be patient, the U.S. would back down.

Fifteen years ago, Lord Beaverbrook's powerful Daily Express (circ. 4,000,000) tried hard to convince the world that Hitler was not dangerous. Last week Beaver-brook's Express set the tone for wanting to do business with the Communists, in words that Nye Bevan could not top: "In Britain," said the Express, "the people want world peace . . . The conviction prevails that the world is ready for peace and that governments, whatever their character, must yield to the popular will on this issue . . . Statesmen must obey their master, the public, when the master has made up his mind."