The Waterbury Democrat., 1944-11-16


 This does not mean that every na- tion would assume equal reSponsibil- ity in enforcing peace, nor an equal share of the cost in men or money, since some nations are obviously richer and bigger than others.
 The specific obligations which each nation would be expected to assume are not spelled out in detail in the proposed charter. That is one of the phases of organization left to be worked out in special agreements, thus keeping the charter free from being clutteered up with too many tight limitations which might re- strict its activities.
 In general, however, nations agreeing to a United Nations char ter would bind themselves to settle their disputes with other nations by peaceful means and to refrain from threat or use of force in settling in- ternational relations.
 INTERNAL AFFAIRS
 WOULDN'T BE POLICED
 An important point here is that the nation would be restrained from using force in it's relations with other nations only-not in policing internal affairs. If a nome rule" movement should break out in India or Java, Siberia or even in one sec tion of the United States for that matter, the governing power would be permitted and expected to cope with the uprising, as there is no in- tention to interfere with the inter- nal police powers of a sovereign state.
 To any action taken by the United Nations organization, however, the member nations would be expected to assume the obligation of giving their support This would apply even to using their armed forces to put down threats to peace outside their own borders.
 This of course might lead to com- plications, but nations in this pro- posed charter would be setting a new course of action for their future conduct, and they would be expected to behave differently than they have behaved in the past.
 Take hypothetical case for an example. Suppose trouble should break out between Argentina and Brazil. Suppose further that the United Nations organization should consider this threat to the peace of the world and should decide that outside interference was necessary to restore peace. Suppose Uruguay and Paraguay, two small nations caught between these two major powers, should have voted against United Nations interference. Would Uruguay and Paraguay then be ask ed to intervene?
 SOME MEMBERS MIGHT BE EXCUSED FROM ACTION
 No one can now give an arbitrary answer to that question. All states would be bound to give assistance to the organization in any action undertaken by it, but in actual prac- tice the organization would have the discretion of calling on all mem bers or only some of them.
 All nations would, however, be ob- igated to take no part in aiding the country against which enforcement action was taken. If Uruguay were to go to the assistance of Brazil and Paraguay were to go to the assist ance of the Argentine, without in either case acting under the author ity of the world organization, they would be contributing to breach of the peace and as such they would have to be dealt with just as though tehy themselves were warning coun- tries.
 Principles laid down in the pro- posed charter go even beyond that in suggesting that states which are not members of the United Nations organizations neutral countries not now listed as belonging to the United Nations - should be required to live by the same principles that govern members.
 This leads to discussion of con- ditions of membership in the pro- posed United Nations organization, which makes' up chapter III of the Dumbarton Oaks document, It will be discussed in this space in the next issue.