U.N. Rocked, Not Wrecked By Mr K

Press, Volume XCIX, Issue 29336, 15 October 1960, Page 13

U.N. Rocked, Not Wrecked By Mr K

(Specially written for the NZP.A. by FRANK OLIVERI (Rec. 9 p.m.) NEW YORK, Oct. 13.

Mr Khrushchev certainly rocked this General Assembly, but he did not wreck it. .His success here was limited, if dramatic.

He came to do mayhem to the United Nations and some of its officials. He failed. He came to woo the neutrals and the uncommitted; and again he failed. He came to make the United States look silly over the disarmament problem; and he failed there, too.

However, Mr Khrushchev did score one limited success. The Russians fought and lobbied for the entrance of Communist China. In this, Mr Khrushchev

failed; but his failure enables him to meet Mr Mao Tse-tung saying he achieved the best vote vet for Peking and enables him to say. if he wishes, that he might have done better for Mr Mao if Peking had dropped its insistence on the inevitability of war with the West and conformed to the Moscow doctrine of peaceful co-existence and of economic and political warfare against the West

Many people think this position suits Mr Khrushchev at this juncture. Many people also think the socalled United States “victory” on this point was brought rather dearly—at the cost of a measure of goodwill among some of her foreign friends and a certain amount of prestige. They grant that most of the American arguments were founded in solid fact but they feel there are other uncomfortable facts and that anyway some of the American arguments can be applied to other members of the United Nations What pfeople of this mind want is, of course, disarmament before the nuclear sword of Damocles is accidentally dropped. The obvious question being asked everywhere is what is the worth of any disarmament agreement to which China is not a party.

Ths answer is that the United States would not dream of making a disarmament arrangement with Moscow while China remained armed and with the possibility of China becoming a nuclear Power.

China, many argue, must be in the organisation before disarmament becomes a practical possibility: and when is she to be allowed in? This sort of sentiment is being expressed outside the United Nations also. The legalistic posi-

tion of the Eisenhower Administration is naturally supported by the party faithful, but others speak with rather less assurance. The “New York Times” says the United Nations artion is hailed as an Ajnerican victory. but before too much satisfaction is taken it shduld be noted that the margin of victory for the American position is smaller, than ever before. The paper also points out that “•ome of our best friends abroad nations whose devotion to democratic ideals cannot be questioned, voted against us on this issue. Among them were Denmark. Norway, Sweden. Ireland and Finland.”, It also says there is a growing opinion in favour of the doctrine of universality and thinks it will continue to grow and that the time may not be far away when the United States and its allies will find themselves outvoted on this issue. "We will be wiser to anticipate the possibility. and give thought to it rather than permit it to catch us unnrepared,” adds the paper. The number of Americans who feel this way is certainly growing This correspondent has, in recent weeks, heard manv staunch Republicans disagree with the official American position The gist of their remarks is that they do not think the United States should accord

China diplomatic recognition, but that China should be allowed to enter the United Nations.

It may prove too ticklish a subject for discussion by the major candidates during the election campaign, but it .becomes increasingly clear that it is a subject which Congress will want to reassess. On this subject the American people appear, to this correspondent to be moving ahead of the Administration, considering the problem from the point of view of practicality and self-interest rather than the legalistic point of view. One American put it this wayChina wants membership in the United Nations and America and the rest of the world wants disarmament. What good would it do to wait until China is vntpa in against the vote of America? Another said that as America has been negotiating with China outside the United Nations (in Warsaw) why not negotiate inside the United Nations? What is the res’ difference? The China problem will not be on the agenda of this Assemblv but that does not mean it will not be discussed there—not on the floor, but in the corridors and Public rooms. The general impression is that before the Assemblv disperses, there may well be more sponsors for China’s entrv and less adherents to the inflexible American stand.