In Our Time

There was no simple touchstone, no all-embracing word to sum up the world organization that emerged this week from San Francisco. Augustus had sought the security of his world through Roman "justice"; Gregory through Christian "brotherhood"; Napoleon through "law" and the Grand Army; Metternich through "legitimacy"; Wilson through "democracy." The San Francisco conference had no comparable key; it just said "security." By stressing the goal rather than the path, it opened the door to all opportunities--and to all contradictions.

Perhaps that was the only way. In spite of radio, cables, telephones and the airplane, the world of 1945 was a far more various world than that of Augustus or even of Wilson. The oilcans, the machine guns, the bomb-wrecked homes looked alike. But the aspirations of men, from land to land, were vastly different. All wanted security ("Give peace in our time, O Lord"). But on what other fundamental did they agree? Area of Agreement. Yet for nine weeks, and in surprising amity, the delegates at San Francisco labored together. One thing they had in common--nationhood, and the precious sovereignty which went with it. A great fact of San Francisco was that the nations were willing to give up a little of their sovereignty--just a little--to the world organization.

Even the two giants, the U.S. and the U.S.S.R., made concessions. The revolutionary Russians remembered that only their defense of the homeland on home soil had saved their country when revolutionary propaganda failed to undermine the enemy. The U.S. knew that its highly mobile armed might could go anywhere in the world, but had no wish to send its forces anywhere once their current chores were done.

So San Francisco had an area of agreement. Never was there serious danger that the conference would break up without writing a charter. Nor was there ever much hope that the charter would embody genuine, total "collective security." What was it, then? In different countries the answers of the returning delegates would be vastly different.

"Our Colossus." A Latin American delegate might say:

"The world we knew, senores, is a casualty of the war. In the past, without strength of arms, we pushed the notion of sacred sovereignty as far as it would go. We had to do that, because only by asserting our moral inviolability as sovereign states could we build a moral defense against the Colossus of the North.

"San Francisco recognizes two limitations on sovereignty: the world organization itself and the regional systems. In our franker moments, we have always recognized that we belong to a regional system and that our safety lay in that same Colossus of the North, who was bound to protect us against aggression from outside the hemisphere. Now the world is split into legalized spheres of influence, and at San Francisco we were actually in a position of fighting for this regionalism which, in a way, we have long opposed.

"There are powers in the world we fear more than the Colossus. He is, after all, our Colossus. Besides, if he becomes predatory, as he used to be, we now have the world organization to appeal to. Not that it will do much good--the Colossus has his veto. But there is the Assembly. And moral suasion. And in our little spats with each other, there is the Court."

"The Important Point." A British delegate might put it like this:

"We've no guarantee that the bombs won't come again. Everything depends upon agreement between the United States, the Russians and us. The other two are quite unpredictable, you know. We would have gone farther toward collective security, but even if Russia and America had seemed willing to go farther with us, there was always the danger that one or both would turn back. So we did not try to push them.

"We protected what we needed to protect. Holding the colonies and India will be difficult, but the charter does not make it more difficult. The trusteeships section was a ticklish business, but we got through it with no more than the verbal thrashing the Russians gave us.

"The Americans are in this thing as far as we. That is the important point."

"If It Falls . . ." When Dmitry Manuilsky takes his seat in the Politburo he can say:

"What did we lose, comrades? Is it necessary to remind me of the gulf between us and the capitalist world? On the other hand, there was Lend-Lease and there was a second front. It is not certain that we would have survived otherwise.

"We may have certain political opportunities which the world organization will be asked to block. We can stop any real action against us with our veto. True, the Assembly may be a troublesome forum for stirring up anti-Soviet sentiment. But this matter of 'free discussion' is still complicated, you know. After all, comrades, we shall have something to say about what subjects lie 'within the charter' and therefore are subject to discussion. And the Assembly offers certain opportunities to discuss social and economic matters upon which our viewpoint will be of interest to many millions.

"This charter may help to keep the peace. And peace is what we want. If it fails, there is always the Red Army."

"For the People." To their colleagues in the cloakrooms. Senator Connally or Senator Vandenberg might say:

"There's nothing to cheer about, boys--and nothing to be afraid of either. A lot of screwballs seem to have an idea we were going to scrap the Army & Navy and submit everything to a vote. We told them the Senate and the people wouldn't stand for it.

"But these little countries had some sensible arguments on their side. We went along on a lot of points. Nothing essential, you understand. We will get the Pacific bases on our own terms. We hold a veto in the Security Council. We have almost a majority of the Assembly on any really vital issue that might come up there and the charter is better now than it was. No doubt about that!

"The Russians are tough, but they made a lot of concessions. Stalin wants to play ball. This world organization will go over big with the people. It may help keep the peace. And peace is what we want. If it fails, there are always the Army and the Navy."

The Little People. And in the small countries--Greece, Yugoslavia, Holland. Belgium, Norway--they can say:

"Let's be frank, friends. It may not work. The great powers rely essentially on their ships and planes and guns. Even now, in spite of all the terrible lessons, they will not compromise their sovereignty to any great degree. But if the Council fails, we at least have the Assembly where we can talk. This organization will keep the peace as long as the Big Powers stay together. They cooperated at San Francisco more than we thought possible. Even the Americans. Even the Russians. In terms of what we know is necessary, this charter is not much. But it is the best that is possible in 1945."

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