NIXON IS DEFINITELY IKE'S RUNNING-MATE

COLUMNIST ROSCOE DRUMMOND:

VICE President Richard M. Nixon will, for certain, be renominated if President Eisenhower runs again in 1956. It can be stated authoritatively that Nixon is the President's personal and only choice as a 1956 running mate. This decision has already been made and in the view of the White House, including Eisenhower and all his top associates, there is no conceivable set of circumstances, present or prospective, which would produce any Republican Vice Presidential nominee other than Nixon himself.

CHURCHILL STILL DELUDED ABOUT THE RUSSIANS

THE LONDON ECONOMIST :

THE exchanges between the Prime Minister and Bevan brought out even more fully than before the irresponsible and dangerous aspects of the whole project for "talks at the highest level." It was, not unexpectedly, Bevan who restated the concept in the most misleading way. He pictured Britain as "unable to reach the potential enemy in time to arrive at an accommodation, because we are now at the mercy of the United States," thus combining two gross distortions in a single sentence.

He spoke, in fact, as if the prolonged and unencouraging contacts that Sir Anthony Eden has had with Molotov at Berlin and Geneva in the past year had never been; as if Britain and the Soviet Union had no permanent diplomatic missions in each others capitals, no opportunities for exhaustive exchange of views at the United Nations or, to take a current example, at the disarmament talks now being held at Lancaster House. But Bevan does not bear sole responsibility for this caricature of reality. He has merely drawn a crude copy of the more deft original that Sir Winston Churchill produced before the last general elections.

The Prime Minister himself daubed in some glaring new patches of colour during Wednesday's debate. He had had hopes, he said, of an Anglo-Soviet meeting "at some neutral place like Stockholm," as "a sort of go-between prelude to a meeting of the three"; and he implied that only the Soviet campaign against the EDC (and, presumably, the subsequent campaign against Western union) had prevented him from persevering with this idea. He thereby laid his flank wide open to Bevan's assaults, and provided fresh material for not one but two malicious and false suggestions by those who seek to destroy the Anglo-American partnership. In Britain, they will now be able to claim that this country has been blocked by the Americans in its efforts to reach a settlement with the Soviet Union. In the United States, Sir Winston will be charged with seeking to deal with the Russians behind Mr. Eisenhower's back. It is hard to think of anything more mischiefmaking. It is patent to all who know the Prime Minister that he is the last man to weaken the Atlantic bridge. It is equally patent that as long as Soviet policy remains as unyielding as it is now, no mere placing of top-level legs under a table is going to make the world's great problems vanish into thin air.

SOUTHERN LIBERALS SPEAK ONLY FOR WHITES

C. L. GOLIGHTLY, Negro assistant professor of philosophy at the University of Wisconsin, writing in the monthly PROGRESSIVE:

THE Supreme Court decision outlawing racial segregation in the public schools puts a strong searchlight on a chink in the moral armor of Southern liberalism. Southern liberals have thought it possible to define democracy and human equality as compatible with an enforced dual social structure. These men were willing gradually to give the Negro all that was right and just--but only within the conceptual framework of two parallel societies, one black, the other white. When the concept of segregation itself was challenged, the Southern liberals drew back in alarm. Who is a Southern liberal? The well-known names of Harry Ashmore, Hodding Carter, Jonathan Daniels, Mark Ethridge and Virginius Dabney immediately come to mind.

What these men have in common is a seemingly contradictory pair of characteristics: 1) advocacy of better treatment for Negroes and 2) the confidence and respect of a considerable number of their white neighbors, including many men and women who are not liberal at all. Each of these characteristics is necessary for the definition of a Southern liberal. But just how democratic are these Southern liberals? Granted they have openly criticized the South's callous treatment of the Negro, the fact remains that their efforts in behalf of the Negro have been limited by the separate but equal doctrine. The Southern liberals are primarily spokesmen for the South--the "changing South" or the "new South." In practice this amounts to doing a public-relations job for the white South. Since the Supreme Court's bombshell, the Southern liberals have been largely silent.

It will be difficult for Southern liberals to admit to themselves that with the legal rejection of the separate but equal doctrine there is no longer a middle ground between the reactionaries who oppose and the progressives who support complete human equality. Because of their role as spokesmen for the white South, the Southern liberals have retained the confidence and acceptance of their Southern neighbors. Thus they can now take the initiative in working for the immediate implementation of legal reforms--if they are genuinely sincere in wanting the political, economic, and cultural equality of all American citizens.

AUSTRALIA LOOKS TO U.S. RATHER THAN TO BRITAIN

THE TRUTH, Australia's biggest weekly (circ. 1,200,000):

IF for no other reasons than geographical ones, during the last decade Australia has frequently found herself at variance with Britain over foreign affairs and strategic concepts. England clings to the idea that the arena in which the world's destiny will be determined is Europe. That is an understandable view; England herself is in Europe. Britain knows what is best for her, just as we know what is best for us. Australia is in the Pacific. Australia shares America's view that Communism must be contained in the Pacific. Britain has shown herself more conciliatory to Communism's Asian bastion--Red China. Britain has recognized the Peiping Government, but Australia has not. Britain has supported Red China's efforts to join the United Nations, but Australia has not.

The fact of the matter is that Britain is not very interested in the international situation in the Pacific. She is very anxious to trade with China, whether it is Communist or nonCommunist.

She is not anxious to see the deployment of huge American forces in the Pacific area. She prefers to see the majority of American troops, if not the total deployment, in Western Europe. She has made it clear that, even if she should Contribute any military aid to contain Red China, the smaller islands between the mainland and Formosa are excluded. In certain directions Australia, with other nations, will undoubtedly exist in the closest cooperation with Britain, but generally it appears inevitable that the past close relationships between Australia and England are drifting apart. Situated as Australia is in the Pacific, on the fringe of Asia, it is foolish for anybody to suggest that we have any other alternative but to stand solidly alongside the United States, the only nation in the world that can give us the protection we will undoubtedly need in the future.

This file is automatically generated by a robot program, so reader's discretion is required.