A Year for Reflection

Almost a decade ago, millions believed that the world had beaten its spears into pruning hooks and had hung its trumpet of war in the hall of the United Nations. Today, some people believe that, when the U.N. sounded its trumpet in Korea, it defended the peace with pruning hooks. Others believe that the U.N. is a spearhead of world government and, therefore, a menace to national sovereignty.

One who seems to believe both is California's William Knowland, who told the Sons of the Revolution in Manhattan last week that it is time "to stop kidding ourselves into believing the United Nations is something it is not." What is it, and what should it be? Next September the U.N. General Assembly must decide whether to call a conference for 1956 or 1957 to review the U.N. Charter. Senator Knowland's remarks are at least timely; they might touch off a discussion of U.N. Charter revision. His criticisms point up both the need for improving the U.N. and the difficulty of agreeing on how to do it.

In Korea, said Knowland, the U.N. "seriously compromised" its moral position. It showed "alacrity to act against a small aggressor [North Korea]" but "procrastination in acting against a large aggressor [Red China]." When Russia supported the aggressors, "no steps were taken to expel the Soviet Union from the United Nations." Russia "in effect defied the United Nations to do anything about it. They did nothing." Although "the terms of the Korean armistice have been violated on numerous occasions," Knowland charged, the U.N. has been "impotent and paralyzed" in enforcement of the armistice.

Though he complains that the U.N. has been too weak, Knowland is fearful lest it become stronger. He fears that the U.S. Constitution might become diluted by participating in an organization some of whose members have no respect for free institutions. Said Knowland: "Lest we be gradually edged into such a world state before we learn too late wherein we have been taken, I believe that every candidate for public office . . . should be asked to give a forthright view on this great public issue. It is later than you think."

Next day at his press conference President Eisenhower was asked for comment on Knowland's alarmed view of the U.N. Said the President: "We do not cease our efforts in research in cancer, nor do we abolish the laboratories in which the research goes on, merely because of lack of success."

How can the U.N. be made a more effective laboratory? Officially, the U.S. has made few suggestions. Secretary of State Dulles has suggested that the veto power be eliminated on questions of 1) admitting new U.N. members and 2) peaceful settlements of disputes. The U.S. is probably not prepared to yield its own veto far beyond that.

The late Robert A. Taft pointed out that while the Security Council is charged with maintaining "peace and security," this is not synonymous with maintaining justice. As an example of keeping the peace at the expense of justice, Taft cited Neville Chamberlain's agreement to give the Sudetenland to Germany. Taft called for the principle of justice under law to be substituted for the U.N.'s method of peacekeeping by expediency.

But intrinsic to international law based on a concept of justice is the proposition that the nations give up to some degree and in some respects their freedom of future choice. To Senator Knowland and millions of other Americans, such a proposition is likely to sound like the thing they fear most--the yielding of sovereignty. Nevertheless, the U.S. this year needs to reflect upon and discuss such a basic revision of the U.N. The reality of thermonuclear weapons poses the problem of international law in a way that can not be brushed off.

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