Fundamental Difference

While the foreign ministers of seven nations gathered in Manhattan last week to debate the Suez Canal question before the U.N. Security Council, the West had its ear cocked to a development that ultimately might prove more important than U.N. resolutions.

One byproduct of the tense tactical discussions among France, Britain and the U.S. over the canal has been a resurgence in Western Europe of the idea of a federated Europe (see FOREIGN NEWS). Newest reason: such a federation would be able--with or without U.S. aid--to stand on its own feet in its dealings with the rising powers of the Middle East and Asia.

Crackling Cables. What did the U.S. think of such talk, a reporter asked Secretary of State John Foster Dulles at his press conference. Replied Dulles: "My reaction ... is extremely favorable ... I had the feeling that developments in the Suez situation were moving thoughts somewhat in that direction, and, if so, that probably would be a very happy byproduct, indeed, of what otherwise is a rather tragic affair."

Up to that point Dulles was on solid ground, for the European Defense Community in its various forms had long been a U.S. dream. But when a reporter led him into a discussion of the differences of opinion over Suez between the U.S. on the one side and Britain and France, his reply soon had transatlantic cables crackling. There is, he said, some difference "relating to fundamental things."

Problems Linked? Among the fundamental things: "You have this very great problem of the shift from colonialism to independence which is in process and which will be going on perhaps for another 50 years, and there I believe the role of the U.S. is to try to see that that process moves forward in a constructive evolutionary way ... I suspect that the U.S. will find that its role will be to try to aid that process, without identifying itself 100 percent either with the so-called colonial powers or with the powers which are primarily and uniquely concerned with the problem of getting their independence as rapidly as possible."

Later Dulles edited the official transcript of his answer to make it clear that there were no differences between Britain, France and the U.S. in either their approach to the Canal Users Association plan, or to the U.N. But by relating the traditional U.S. position on colonialism to Suez, Dulles touched off a mighty difference of opinion with the newspapers, pundits and editorialists of London and Paris, who resented his linking of the two problems. "A grave disservice to Anglo-American unity," growled the London Times; pouted Paris' L'Aurore, "Mr. Dulles has not used the language of an ally."

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