The Press WEDNESDAY, AUGUST 10, 1955. “Quiet Diplomacy”

Press, Volume XCII, Issue 27733, 10 August 1955, Page 12

The Press WEDNESDAY, AUGUST 10, 1955. “Quiet Diplomac y”

\/UlVl The atomic energy conference at i Geneva is perhaps the greatest i achievement of the United Nations’ so far. Whatever the outcome, the gathering of hundreds of scientists; at the biggest meeting of national, representatives ever held is striking evidence of the usefulness of the' United Nations in arranging what' the Secretary-General (Mr Dag Hammarskjold), in his annual report.; calls “ conference diplomacy j Optimistic critics of secret diplomacy used to believe that all world problems could be settled in this way and saw this as the supreme function of the United Nations. Mr Hammarskjold knows better. His report emphasises that the United Nations’ machinery and expert staff can also serve helpfully secret diplomacy—.but he calls it “quiet diplomacy”. 'No doubt such quiet diplomacy is already practised extensively ! concurrently with international conferences, which, in fact, provide the opportunity for it. Probably the habit will grow, particularly if the Secretary-General can continue and expand his promising activities as a liaison between nations that do not want to be caught talking to ; each other. Quiet diplomacy within . the United Nations will not avoid [ the need for ordinary diplomatic contacts, however, and will hardly be efficient enough in present conditions to prevent the by-passing of the United Nations noted in Mr Hammarskjold’s previous report. Meetings outside the organisation will remain necessary as long as the membership is limited by the refusal of the principal members to support the election of new members and by their inability to agree on which China, or how many Chinas, should be admitted.

Excluding the Chinese problem, the United Nations has 22 applicants waiting for membership. Russia has blocked the membership of West Germany, Spain, Austria, Cambodia, Ceylon, Finland, Ireland, Italy, Japan, Jordan, Laos, Libya, Nepal, Portugal, South Korea, and South j Vietnam. Whatever view is taken i of its validity, the reexon why Russia opposes some of these candidates is • plain enough; but why Ireland? and | why, particularly, Ceylon, which J defied Western opinion by its policy tof trading with China? For their [part the Western Powers are blocki ing the admission of Albania, • Hungary, North Vietnam, Bulgaria, i North Korea, and Outer Mongolia. ' The general reasons are again I obvious, but a special reason is also advanced by the United States in its objection to the European satellites. The American definition of a “ peace-loving ” State, one of the conditions of eligibility, differs from the Communist definition, and is upheld with a mistaken devotion to legalism. According to Thomas J. Hamilton, writing in vhe “ New .“York Times”, the United States (would probably vote for the Soviet j proteges, or most of them, if this adjective were removed from the charter. Only seven new members have been added to the original 51 since the inaugural meeting, which is clearly contrary to the spirit of the United Nations and the intention of its founders. A useful advance in international relations would be to get agreement on the admission of prospective new members. It would considerably enlarge the field for both kinds of diplomacy.