3685106077

#v

^ -    103

of the Polieh-epeaking locafts of the C.I.O. and A.F. of L. unicns.    3imilar ideas ;.ave be en exprr cl ad reeertly by a rroup

of Pol    etr.igres iri Grent Britain* ’ lere are miner differencea

In detali or errphnnie bet cen these groups (or persona within groupe), but the folio- < ng vlevm of the present ri ter rany be tnken na fnirly re: resentative.

Ppland is deeply interested in the ciaintolnnrice of a ciosa underet mdlng betwccn Greut Britain, the United St tes fióviet Union. The freMom of poland will bo pern^nent only if guerentod Ty -n internet i on al e stew ofcollecti vc- security The hiBtcry of this 'Y^r hne shown thet e country of t;.e si ae of Pol nd is not rblc to maintoln ito freedom by ite owr. stroi tfc; it need8 oollectivr eedurity. But collective security will work only if it rrlll    be based on the fim akeleton of a "nuclear

nllirr.ee” of the Unitę3 States, Greet Britain md the Sovict Union (aud China in Asia). .Yithout s eh *m ‘illionce collective security will break do’ n, as the L0e3u.fi of Hat i one did. roi ni wculd egsin lose bor independence* In the absence of affeol r coliectiye security, there will be d vieion of 'Surcpe into soheres cf influence, with ert--rn Europę the exelusi v'~ aphere of influ^rnce of Greot Britcii u- the United ftatefi, md E stern Europę the exclus”ive erhere c: influence of tho 8oviot Union, The linę of division r/ould go śomewhere tbrougb Germany nd Lcl rrl /c.uld fali by neceonity, in the £cvlct ephere. In adćltion tc f• fcr.ing to safeguard the ponee cf tho orld, ruch ' 3ivision of Eurece into epherer of influenc wouir rcduce cone id r-rblp roland^fs independence gb cemparod with eollecttTŚ security. The atterapts of the Oovern-rcerit in exilc to rronotc n a lit between tho Anglo-firxon powers and the Soviet Union endanger soriously Pol nd ¹ s indepr-ndence.

Polsa eanpot ho aby but irdest aupportera of Britlah-Sovlet • nd .-\meric Ti- oyi^r t 'rirndehip.

But even in n system of collcctive sec’ rity, there raust be n rerionⁿl diatribution of tr.e res oneibilitj for the pr ot cc t i on cf the freedom of the _: rtirip.ting naticna. To eeure effectirenesB ivć pt^Mlity of tho eollective security system, the region&l fllstribution rcuet T>e such ns to make reeponsil Hity coincide V7jth pelf-3nter©at• This, ca ,ej.l ° the neceaeity to put effoctirc ot'er behind coliectiye security, causes bi:-?i the responsibility of u inteining: the freedom of nt?.tionc in ony region ^j- e    i nround the - eorv jhically prozioate power. Thus

in the beetem Hisphere the United States wuet be the center of reaponsibility (cc it r.ct il.y U ) for the protection of the freedora of Mexico and of Canada. In ,*estern Europę Oreat Britain and Pr-ince roust. be the center of res >onsibilit;/ for the freedom of the Low Countries.    IiiJjiYAtćm.uaul..OGaJ».r.ulJ^i^rc>pc the oviet

Union rigur. cnn »ct s a center of reer onsibility_w|br the nstienal indepjszuJonc' of x.othnd nd 'C2e'ClR)iXov^:‘A^::ib. Thic imposes uroń Po land and Cscchos lovnkj a the oblignt icn to co-opernte with t '

)oviet Union in f; -.fęgur.rding their rnutucl independence (as C .nada co-operates v ith t>^,,:’ United St -te©). The basis fer sr.eh <•. co-operation is already orenared m the Czechom' k-Gorifit alll noe. This alli-mce nhould bo oxtonded tc 1 tripertite allie ee between Fol^nd, Czechoi?loY kia and the • oviet Union. A s' r:- lar ^c Y1! rce between the B-lkan countries nd the 3oviet Union would :^:trcngthen the cecurity system.