U.S. AND U.N. NEW AMERICAN DEBATE OVER UNITED NATIONS

Press, Volume XC, Issue 27445, 3 September 1954, Page 10

U.S. AND U.N. NEW AMERICAN DEBATE OVER UNITED NATIONS

(By f

NEAL STANFORD

in the Boston “Christian Science Monitor”!

(Reprinted by Arrangement)

Washington.—We are in the opening round of a “great debate on the United Nations. The demand by Senator William F. Knowland that the United States get -out if Red China is admitted is one sign. Another is the considered view of General Mark Clark, former United Nations commander in Korea, that the Unitea Nations is an asset to Moscow but a liability to the United States, and that the United States should at least work to expel the Soviets from that body. These views take issue with those of the Eisenhower Administration and (it appears from the latest Gallup Poll) with those of the majority of Americans. But the issue is joined and will become increasingly provocative as the time nears next year to review the whole Charter—as is provided for by the Charter itself. Those who would either try to expel Soviet Russia, or have the United States withdraw, or liquidate the United Nations entirely, are also at odds with those 50-odd leading citizens who recently spent several days in New York examining America’s stake jn that organisation, and who concluded it would be America’s loss if the United Nations were dissolved. They took the position that It was actually an asset to the United States, and that Soviet membership in it was preferable to trying to make it an anti-Soviet coalition. American People Approve The Gallup Poll disclosed that three out of four Americans approved of the United Nations and that three out of five believe it is doing a good job in general. Thus the majority of Americans appear to agree with the Administration—or vice versa—that it has a real value apd that our membership in it is better than leaving it to the Soviets to run as they might wish. The Administration’s position on the matter has changed little since it took over. President Eisenhower still feels that the United Nations is a “sheer necessity” and “man’s best organised hope to substitute the conference table for the battlefield.” The Secretary of State, Mr John Foster Dulles, still believes that “the United Nations as it is, is better than no United Nations at all.” ' And America’s chief delegate to that body, Ambassador

Henry Cabot Lodge, still believes ’’while the United Nations has (S brought the millennium, it is useful' and that “it stands between us .L international anarchy." T ** The three special issues on whirt debate has already opened and Which are sure to develop a crescendo ar. should the United Nations be tranl formed into a super-state? Should ii be turned into an anti-Soviet coalitim or forum? Should the United Stab, quit the' organisation? Super-state not Possible There is realistically little, if a .. chance of the United Nations ever coming a super-state. For its f„J; or the rules governing its actions car not be changed without specific Amwf can approval—or without spent Soviet approval—as both the UnitS States and the U.S.S.R. have veto ri»S in the Security Council. Howevw

this concern lest the United Natimu ever become a super-state alarm numerous Americans—some of who? in fact, appear to believe it is alrea* a super-state. Also, realistically, there is ijm, chance of the non-Soviet memtefi being able to expel the U.SAR while Articles V and VI of the Ch» ter permit suspension and expulsi™ such action must be approved by th! Security Council, and there again > run into the veto. So there is no w. of expelling Moscow since it can r>rs vent it with the veto. Actually it v Washington's feeling, and that Of mo" other members, that it is better i have the Soviet bloc in the Unite Nations where they. can be called b» fore the bar of world opinion than 1 have them operating outside such n stralnts. Fire or Frying-pan? And third, while the United State could withdraw from the Uteta Nations, it raises that old questin whether it is better to stay in the tn ing pan or jump into the fire. In othe words, would not the United State lose more by withdrawing than h staying in? Certainly the Eisenhower Adminii tration feels membership has a na value. However, a vocal opposition I developing on these points, thus n suring that these issues will beeon increasingly important as the tine draws near to consider rewritten < modernising the United NationsChuter.