Foreign Relations: World Opinion

• Share

Why should my liberty be determined by another man's scruples?

—Paul to the Corinthians

In the long history of American foreign policy, no thought has weighed more heavily upon the U.S. than the Jeffersonian injunction to pay "a decent respect to the opinions of mankind"—a respect that the U.S. has always hoped mankind would return. But last week, in Belgrade, the leaders of 25 neutral nations, calling themselves "the conscience of mankind," issued a formal statement with the predictable condemnations of Western colonialism—and not one word of direct censure for the Soviet resumption of atmospheric nuclear tests. Shocked by the anti-Western tone of the statement, Washington could only wonder whether it was not past time to shape U.S. foreign policy on the basis of enlightened self-interest as opposed to the dictates of "world opinion."

Twice in the past month, the U.S. has confidently expected to reap sweeping propaganda advantages from unmistakable evidences of Communist brutality. But there was no world outcry over the blockading of the border between East and West Berlin; and the private dismay of neutralists over the Soviet testing was hidden in guarded words at Belgrade. Last week, in a departure from his past policy, President Kennedy publicly warned that U.S. foreign aid in the future would go primarily to those countries whose thinking comports with that of the U.S.—and whose professed neutralism is not merely a disguise for pro-Soviet feelings and dollar-blackmail.

But Kennedy's warning did not pretend to answer the larger questions: Has the U.S. too often deferred to an imaginary court of world opinion? And has this deference prevented the U.S. from achieving the aims that it deeply believes to be right, not only in its own interests but in the cause of freedom? Last week TIME posed those questions to U.S. leaders in many fields.

A Great Partnership. Inevitably, there was a divergence of thought. To Pulitzer Prizewinning Historian Allan Nevins, the U.S., in determining its foreign policy, has not paid sufficient attention to "reasonable" overseas reaction. "The U.S.," he says, "is now the leader of the free world. With this leadership rests a great responsibility. Remember, Australian boys. South African boys, Israeli boys may die as a result of the actions we take. This is a great partnership, and we are not by any means running a foreign policy for ourselves alone." Editor-Publisher Barry Bingham of the Louisville Courier-Journal emphatically agrees. "It is terribly important that we show the world that we are not just acting out of self-interest. If we try to compete with the Soviets just on the basis of might alone, we might find that we have lost a vital part of our armor. We badly need to convince neutral opinion that our cause is their cause."