The Press SATURDAY, JUNE 18, 1955. Ten Years of the United Nations

Press, Volume XCI, Issue 27688, 18 June 1955, Page 6

The Press SATURDAY, JUNE 18, 1955. Ten Years of the United Nations

'Ten years ago the United Nations I was established in high hope at San I Francisco, primarily as an instrument of world peace. It cannot yet •he said to have failed. And, as the nations gather again at San Francisco to mark the anniversary, 'they can look back upon a very (good record of lesser achievements. The great force behind the creation iof the organisation was the idealism of President Roosevelt, who, accepting the common belief that the j League of Nations had failed because ' the United States remained aloof, j was determined that his country this | time should take a full part in a different and, it was hoped, a more effective international society. Whether the Russians ever really accepted President Roosevelt’s vision of a new world order, based on a charter recognising “ the sovereign

“ equality of nations ” and the “ equal rights ... of nations great “ and small ”, is doubtful. Their attitude since has often seemed cynical. But would the Communist Powers have agreed any better with the Western nations if there had been no United Nations? If the United Nations has been a sounding board for Communist propaganda, it has also been available to the democracies to expound their own philosophies. The United Nations has not stopped the cold war, but, particularly in the chaotic years after 1945, it served to stop fighting in several countries. Less spectacularly, the special agencies have gone steadily about their useful work of raising living standards and, perhaps more important, of accustoming men of different nationalities and races to working together. Delegates meeting in San Francisco have not only the opportunity of considering how the United Nations has worked in the past, but also the responsibility of deciding whether they think the charter could be amended to make it work better in future. And this raises immediately the question of the veto, which any of the five permanent members of the Security Council can use on any question of substance, including, of course, any proposed amendment to the charter, however much the other members may want to change. Two things should be said about the veto. First, it is a good deal less restrictive than the unanimity rule of the League of Nations. Second, it could not be supposed that the few great Powers would put themselves jn the hands of many tiny States. But it must then be conceded

that Russia has used the veto in a way not contemplated at the original conference, when the great Powers explained how they thought this particular right would be used. The veto, they said, would be used at the stage where “decisions and “ actions by the Security Council “ may well have major political “ consequences and may even “ initiate a chain of events which “ might, in the end, require the “council ... to invoke measures of “enforcement”. In the event, Russia has used the veto against such harmless resolutions as one welcoming the Anglo-French declaration to evacuate the Levant, in blocking action in disputes where war was not threatened, and in keeping out of the United Nations some countries that are as well qualified as some of the original members. If Russia could be persuaded to accept some modification of the vetp to limit its use to major issues the charter might be improved. Great hopes cannot be held for such a concession, nor for any major change in the charter. That does not mean that the attempt should not be made. Even if the attempt fails, the United Nations I can carry on with its limited but stfil important work, its weaknesses doing no more than to reflect the nature of international rrdntiont. Idealism is no less a virtue than it was 10 years ago. Nor, however, is it any worse for accepting the realities of an imperfect world.