If the oil controversy in Iran can be settled in a way that would leave the British operating the wells so that the oil would continue to flow toward the West, that would be fine from our point of view. But something else is important too, and that is the feeling of the people of the East, not merely Iran, but all of the East, toward the Western countries. If the oil is gained at the price of intensifying the feeling of distrust and hate, it will come high in the long run.

Wendell Wilkie spoke of the reservoir of good will toward the United States which it was so important to maintain. [Lawyer, businessman, GOP nominee for President in 1940] But it is of the greatest importance that all the Western nations build up such a reservoir in the East. Unless we do, we are riding for a fall.

According to the news dispatches, Great Britain is adopting the tough attitude, the “gunboat attitude”, toward Iran. The campaign follows two courses. The first is economic pressure. Iran is to be cut off from scarce and necessary goods. In the words of the reporter, the economic noose is to be tightened around neck. At the same time the political angle is developed by the re-emergence of one Zia Ed-din, head of a political party, hostile to the present government, and friendly to Great Britain. [Seyed Zia Tabatabai] The strategy is to make the Iranian people feel the pinch of suffering and when it gets acute enough and the complaints begin, to point to Mossadegh and say there is the cause of it all. Throw him out.

That Zia Ed-din is a subsidized creature of the British may not be true at all, but it will certainly be charged that it is so and with no proof one way or the other, he who runs may read. It can be set down that the people of the East will believe that it is so. [Zia was, in fact, a British stooge]

The British program may work, although until recently at least it was generally believed that Mossadegh’s action in nationalizing the oil was in response to a national feeling, and his fall would be followed by a Communist government. But even if Great Britain wins, it will be precisely the sort of victory Great Britain has had in the East before; the kind that has led to the deep distrust and animosity of the East toward the West.

The old days are dead. The old relationships believe East and West are no longer possible. The situation of the world, the hope of peace, depends on healing the cleavage between East and West. Power will no longer serve. Good will is imperative. And good will is a two-way street.

It is an unfortunate truth that the present tension in the world can be traced to the failure of the West to give the East good will. The British have boasted about their enlightened colonial policy, but the proof of the pudding is that after years of control of eastern peoples, there is not one shred of loyalty of good will toward-Great Britain in India, in Burma, in Malaya. This was in sharp contrast the feeling of the people of the Philippines toward the United States. How well Carlos Romulo put it when he said, “Filipinos are regarded all through the East as the chosen people.” [Filipino diplomat, UN General Assembly President, 1949-50. This quote does not appear to be accurate.]

The East today is distrustful of the West, because there is a deep-seated feeling that all the West wants to do is exploit the East. There is a lack of good will because the East knows the West feels superior and regards Orientals as inferiors. There is distrust because there is a feeling that there is really no goodwill on our part, but merely greed and that in the pinch we will use power to get what we want. “We” means the western nations.

The present policy of the British in Iran may make for “oil in our time” to paraphrase Mr. Chamberlain’s words, but it is not the basis on which peace can long be kept. [Neville Chamberlain] Rather it will intensify the old feeling that the Russians have been capitalizing on so much.