DIFFRERENT SLANT ON LKE

To the Editors of the CRIMSON:

Concerning your editorial on Republican foreign policy--I wish the CRIMSON would discard its mantle of petulant and partisan criticism of Republican policy. I'm sure it was a dreary day for the CRIMSON when funny-boy Stevenson was defeated by a popular here who did not have direct experience in politics. The CRIMSON seems unable to adjust to the fact that the Republicans are in office, and that the President has shown himself to be a sane and extremely able leader.

First you stated that Eisenhower "could have let his foreign policy be dictated by those members of his party" who favored the America First or Arsenal of Democracy approach with its comparative isolationism. Dulles' statement that there would be an "agonizing" re-appraisal of American foreign policy if France failed to toe the line, so to speak, in the near future was a compromise attitude. It reflected Eisenhower's desire to consolidate Western strength and was, I feel, entirely justified considering France's delaying tactics on EDC and a European federation. America, the world's strongest nation, has been rejecting its responsibilities as a strong and decisive world leader. Truman failed to grasp the meaning of world leadership. Truman's foreign policy, once it recognized the Russian threat, is not all black nor all white on his matter, but Europeans strongly opposed to Communism characterized the world situation like this: Russia is weak and unafraid; America is strong and afraid.

Second, you stated that America is in a more favorable position to "take the initiative in foreign affairs." You assert that all Eisenhower has done was to continue the foreign policy of his predecessors and to claim credit for winning the Korean War. In the first place, the war is not over; in the second place, Eisenhower has recognized America's position of leadership by supporting Dulles' statement to France and by issuing a threat to Red China warning that if China should resume hostilities in Korea, America would not limit the conflict to Korea. This is not a weak President speaking, nor one following the Truman policy.

Third and finally, your opinion that Eisenhower's foreign policy is not as "flexible or farsighted as could be" is only based on the "decline" on foreign civil service morale. I do not believe that this alone warrants such a far-reaching condemnation. First, Eisenhower must cope with the revision of twenty years of Democratic foreign policy which (need I mention Tehran and Yalta) did not exactly perceive the nature and scope of the Russian threat, the situation in China before and when the Communists took power, nor America's necessity for taking world leadership. Second, he must weld into a workable "party in government" a disorganized and rather motley Republican Party. This latter, not considering the work required to remedy the first, is a tremendous job. It is certain that Eisenhower is not "buying time" and that he reflects a common sentiment in America--America no longer needs to put up with a timid and irresponsible foreign policy. David A. Titus '56