THE OTAGO DAILY TIMES Wednesday, January 2, 1946. AGAINST AGGRESSION

Otago Daily Times, Issue 26040, 2 January 1946, Page 4

THE OTAGO DAILY TIMES Wednesday, January 2, 1946. AGAINST AGGRESSION

Behind the question of the power of veto in the Security Council of the United Nations is that of the organisation of a world force to deal with threats of aggression after peaceful means have failed. The importance of the power of veto, however, although it is essentially a technical point of administration, is that it bears closely on what was revealed as one of the weaknesses of the League of Nations. As Field-marshal Smuts pointed out in his statement at the San Francisco Conference, the League was an organisation simply for consultation and not, in the first instance, for action; and it did not actually purport to prevent wars. The furthest it ever went was to purport to enforce economic sanctions. The new set-up for the United Nations differs fundamentally. It is an organisation to prevent war, and the body which represents the new organisation in its most important aspects is the Security Council. Its object is, when war is threatening, to employ not only methods of consultation, conciliation, arbitration, and otherwise to forestall trouble, but, in the last resort, it is a body for action. The idea is not only to take peaceful steps, but actually to resort to force in order to prevent wars. The provision for the veto was disputed at the Sdn Francisco Conference, and it may be presumed that the discussion will be resumed this month at the General Assembly of the United Nations. In this connection Mr Eden’s recent reference to this subject is of interest in the Dominion because it supports the view which Mr Fraser has expressed. “ Nothing shows more clearly the hold nationalism has on all of us,” he said, “than the decision at San Francisco to retain the power of veto. I hope the nations, having looked at it again, will decide that its retention is an anachronism in a modern world.” The actual matter of the composition and organisation of the force, which will be the teeth of the United Nations, will possibly also be discussed this month. It has been announced that a conference of military leaders of Great Britain, the United States, Russia, France, and China is to be held in London shortly, and the suggestion has been made that the discussion will be on this important subject. On the other hand, it is possible that the discussions may refer to the future control of Japan. There has yet been no announcement of details concerning this world force, and there must be interest in the question of what, for example, the Dominion’s national commitments will be in relation to it. It is possible that such an announcement cannot be made until after the meeting of the Assembly. Another point for interesting speculation is raised in the recommendations framed at the Moscow Conference concerning atomic energy. The proposed commission is, in particular, to make specific proposals, among other matters, “for the elimination from national armaments of atomic weapons and other major weapons adaptable for mass destruction.” From this wording it is at least permissible to suggest that atomic ■weapons and such other weapons as may come under this ban may find their place exclusively as implements for the maintenance of peace through the United Nations’ world force. Such a proposal, if practicable, would probably meet with objections, but it would certainly make the world peace force a fully effective body which no would-be aggressor could contemplate with equanimity.