Evening star. [volume] (Washington, D.C.) 1854-1972, 1943-04-26
General Commitment of Nation
To World Peace Advocated.

To World Peace Advocated.
To the Editor Of The Star:
Messrs. Burton, Ball. Hatch and Hill
have sponsored a resolution intending to
put Congress on record with regard to
the kind and extent of cooperation
which this Nation might contemplate
in postwar world reorganization.
These lines of comment are not writ
ten in defense of the resolution as such.
the arguments of those who oppose any
kind of postwar commitment on the part
of the United States today.
Regardless of the protestations of our
leading statesmen both in and out of
Office, with regard to the pure motives
of our country in fighting this war, the
indisputable fact remains that the world
has long memory for the miscarriage
of good intentions. And there is no
gainsaying the fact that we did not con-
tinue to play on the same Allied team
after 1918. Nor did we even insist on
anybody else living up to very large por-
tions of the rules" for the post-World
War 1 world for which we then presum-
ably were fighting. Thus, bluntly put
we, as nation, do not have the full
confidence and trust of the world at
large, regardless of what we might wish
in this respect. This applies both
amongst our Allies and our enemies, and
is true irrespective of what the situation
may be SO far as the character or good
name Of any other nation is concerned.
Accordingly, truly national expression
of willingness to cooperate in postwar
organization without detailed commit
ments so long as 1t is designed to foster
peace, should be Of material immediate
assistance in the war effort. Obviously,
we cannot be too specific. But with all
sincerity we can give valid expression to
the desire for peace.
Those who are opposed to any such
expression by the only competent au-
thority which the Nation provides, bring
up various counterarguments. They say
that we do not know what the postwar
world will look like and this is undoubt-
edly true. They say that every one of
the United Nations has and will have
different plans and ambitions for the
postwar world, and in particular, for
its own goal in that world. This is not
necessarily true. They say that govern
ments in exile may not represent their
peoples and may even be repudiated by
them when the shooting stops. This Is
quite likely to be the case, but should
have no bearing on the question. For
it is proposed to have this Nation make
a general declaration Of its intentions
and not specific detailed commitment
on boundaries. politics or anything else.
They say further that such postwar
discussions now would tend to cause con-
flict amongst the United Nations and 80
seriously handicap the actual war effort.
They cite Estonia, Latvia, India, Hong
Kong, Shanghai, Manchuria, Singapore,
Puerto Rico and so on as problems
which would endanger the unity Of the
United Nations If brought into the open
for discussion now. Perhaps 50, but I
submit that If these problems would dis
rupt the United Nations now, before
the shooting phase Is over. they also
will disrupt the United Nations after the
cease Airing order = given.
believe We shouid have resolution
committing this Nation to full particle
patton in future world order designed
to provide lasting peace and without
detailed specifications for such world
order. For instance: BE 1t resolved by
the Senate and House Of Representatives
Of the United States Of Anle1ca IN Con-