Skip to main content
Read page text
page 1
THE TABLET, August 15th, 1959. VOL, 213, No, 6221. TH E TABLET Published as a Newspaper A WEEKLY NEWSPAPER & REVIEW Pro Ecclesia Dei, Pro Regina et Patria FOUNDED IN 1840 AUGUST 15th 1959 NINEPENCE TFee Trade and Nationalism: How will Western Europe Evolve? Beyond the Parish; The General Mission in France. By S. G. A. Lull Don Luigi Sturzo : Father of the Italian Christian Democrats Sacerdotii Nostri Primordia; Final Passages from the Recent Encyclical Critics' Columns : Notebook : Book Reviews : Letters : Chess EISENHOWER WITHOUT DULLES JpOR a long time now M. Khrushchev has kept his sharp­ est thrusts for Dr. Adenauer, and so he cannot be at all pleased that President Eisenhower’s first call is to be at Bonn when he comes to meet his allies and friends before meeting M. Khrushchev. From the Western point of view, the President’s decision to go to Bonn is a very sensible one. Just as justice must not only be done but be seen to be done, so it is not enough to keep a basic solidarity of the NATO countries. It must be shown to the world, which, in particular, must be shown that the West German Republic, which is more directly concerned than any other with what happens in East Germany, is not being relegated to a secondary role. It was the fear that this impression might be given that caused both Dr. Adenauer and President de Gaulle to show themselves not very pleased at a tête-à-tête taking precedence of, and perhaps replacing altogether, a conference of Heads of Governments in which they would be taking part. Whatever mutterings there may have been about Dr. Adenauer inside his own party and among the German public, he can point out with obvious truth that he has secured the presence of the American President to meet him as Chancellor, and that it is unlikely that a new Chancellor would have been able to secure this result. The French and the Germans both have at the moment leaders better able to assert the rights of their countries than any possible supplanters, and in a period of high international colloquy this becomes a great source of strength to them both. One of the main deductions that will be drawn from the long and melancholy Foreign Ministers’ Conference is that, while M. Khrushchev is at the head of affairs in Russia, both negotiation and informal discussion means nothing at Foreign Minister level. It may not mean much at Heads of Government level. But it is still a question to which we cannot give an answer, how far M. Khrushchev may be receptive to new ideas. It is true that he is in his middle sixties, not ordinarily a receptive lime, and seems to live and think inside the Marxist formation acquired in early manhood. On the other hand, he would not be where he is were he not a man of realistic intellect, and quick and acute apprehensions, and he may acquire some new ideas in Washington. He has certainly pursued a policy very unlike Stalin’s in wanting to travel and to receive visitors, and to engage in public dialogue. But he had a sharp warning in what began to happen in the satellite countries in 1956, that the Soviet system cannot afford to liberalise itself without running a great risk of falling apart. The room for manoeuvre is small for increasing cultural exchanges with the outside world. Although he was once President of Columbia University, President Eisenhower is not personally the man best fitted to bring M. Khrushchev into the academic world. But it would be very useful if, instead of conversational repartee, he could be invited to more serious discussion of his Marxist belief, and its materialist basis, and if he could be brought into discussion with American Christianity and confronted with the extreme inadequacy of the Marxist description of religion and its origin and significance. This would be very much more useful than showing him American technical achievements, about which he probably knows a great deal already. The world is divided by ideas, not by rival productive systems, which have come out of them. But it is much more probable, with M. Khrushchev addressing the United Nations, that his visit will be almost wholly concerned with the American public. This need not worry the American administration. It will all help to prove to the public that President Eisenhower has done everything in his power to ease the tension before relinquishing the presidency next year. From this point of view, the death of Mr. Dulles may prove to have been timely for the Republican Party. If there should be any success it will redound to the Republican credit, and will be attributable to the mixture of firmness and conciliatoriness of the Dulles-Eisenhower combination. If nothing concrete emerges, and the position remains much the same, as is probable enough, the Democrats will not be able to say that the fault lies at the White House.

Page Text

View plaintext

THE TABLET, August 15th, 1959. VOL, 213, No, 6221.

TH E TABLET

Published as a Newspaper

A WEEKLY NEWSPAPER & REVIEW

Pro Ecclesia Dei, Pro Regina et Patria

FOUNDED IN 1840

AUGUST 15th 1959

NINEPENCE

TFee Trade and Nationalism: How will Western Europe Evolve?

Beyond the Parish; The General Mission in France. By S. G. A. Lull

Don Luigi Sturzo : Father of the Italian Christian Democrats

Sacerdotii Nostri Primordia; Final Passages from the Recent Encyclical

Critics' Columns : Notebook : Book Reviews : Letters : Chess

EISENHOWER WITHOUT DULLES

JpOR a long time now M. Khrushchev has kept his sharp­

est thrusts for Dr. Adenauer, and so he cannot be at all pleased that President Eisenhower’s first call is to be at Bonn when he comes to meet his allies and friends before meeting M. Khrushchev. From the Western point of view, the President’s decision to go to Bonn is a very sensible one. Just as justice must not only be done but be seen to be done, so it is not enough to keep a basic solidarity of the NATO countries. It must be shown to the world, which, in particular, must be shown that the West German Republic, which is more directly concerned than any other with what happens in East Germany, is not being relegated to a secondary role. It was the fear that this impression might be given that caused both Dr. Adenauer and President de Gaulle to show themselves not very pleased at a tête-à-tête taking precedence of, and perhaps replacing altogether, a conference of Heads of Governments in which they would be taking part. Whatever mutterings there may have been about Dr. Adenauer inside his own party and among the German public, he can point out with obvious truth that he has secured the presence of the American President to meet him as Chancellor, and that it is unlikely that a new Chancellor would have been able to secure this result. The French and the Germans both have at the moment leaders better able to assert the rights of their countries than any possible supplanters, and in a period of high international colloquy this becomes a great source of strength to them both.

One of the main deductions that will be drawn from the long and melancholy Foreign Ministers’ Conference is that, while M. Khrushchev is at the head of affairs in Russia, both negotiation and informal discussion means nothing at Foreign Minister level. It may not mean much at Heads of Government level. But it is still a question to which we cannot give an answer, how far M. Khrushchev may be receptive to new ideas. It is true that he is in his middle sixties, not ordinarily a receptive lime, and seems to live and think inside the Marxist formation acquired in early manhood. On the other hand, he would not be where he is were he not a man of realistic intellect, and quick and acute apprehensions, and he may acquire some new ideas in Washington. He has certainly pursued a policy very unlike Stalin’s in wanting to travel and to receive visitors, and to engage in public dialogue. But he had a sharp warning in what began to happen in the satellite countries in 1956, that the Soviet system cannot afford to liberalise itself without running a great risk of falling apart. The room for manoeuvre is small for increasing cultural exchanges with the outside world.

Although he was once President of Columbia University, President Eisenhower is not personally the man best fitted to bring M. Khrushchev into the academic world. But it would be very useful if, instead of conversational repartee, he could be invited to more serious discussion of his Marxist belief, and its materialist basis, and if he could be brought into discussion with American Christianity and confronted with the extreme inadequacy of the Marxist description of religion and its origin and significance. This would be very much more useful than showing him American technical achievements, about which he probably knows a great deal already. The world is divided by ideas, not by rival productive systems, which have come out of them.

But it is much more probable, with M. Khrushchev addressing the United Nations, that his visit will be almost wholly concerned with the American public. This need not worry the American administration. It will all help to prove to the public that President Eisenhower has done everything in his power to ease the tension before relinquishing the presidency next year. From this point of view, the death of Mr. Dulles may prove to have been timely for the Republican Party. If there should be any success it will redound to the Republican credit, and will be attributable to the mixture of firmness and conciliatoriness of the Dulles-Eisenhower combination. If nothing concrete emerges, and the position remains much the same, as is probable enough, the Democrats will not be able to say that the fault lies at the White House.

read next page

My Bookmarks

Buy this Book
Skip to main content