Evening star., 1945-06-03
The Veto and Syriu


In calling for a peaceful" settle
mentrof the Syrian affair, the Mos
COW government, according to the
British, has pointed out that events
occurring in Syria and Lebanon do
not correspond to the spirit of de-
ciSionS taken at Dumbarton Oaks
and the aims of the United Nations
Conference at San Francisco, namely
the founding Of an organization for
safeguarding the peace and security
of nations"
While this same observation might
be made with respect to other oc-
currences, it is certainly true of the
unhappy state of affairs prevailing
in the Levant. AS the delegates to
San Francisco we're laboring over
formulas for concerted action to
maintain peace, the French were
pursuing a unilateral course in the
Near East-a course which entailed
the sheuing and looting of the an
cient city of Damascus. The British,
supported by this Government,
served a peremptory demand on
General de Gaulle, calling for ces-
sation of firing. and recall of
French troops to their barracks.
This demand, amounting to an ulti-
matum, was accompanied by de-
sc D~i% %ielo oI
which, while having the desired
effect on the French, also involved
the risk of a clash between the
troops of two of the nations which
are to have permanent seats and a
veto power in the Security Council
of the new organization for the
maintenance of peace. 1t was at
this juncture that the Russians
moved into the picture with their
demand for a peaceful settlement
"a demand which might be con-
strued either as a rebuke to General
de Gaulle or as an indirect warning
to the British against the use of
military force.
There, for the moment, the matter
stands. General de Gaulle, while
indicating his unwillingness to dis
cuss a settlement with the British,
has made no further effort to use
force, and there may be an indefinite
and uneasy period of armed truce
in that quarter of the world, Should
this be the case, however, it will not
materially soften the repercussions
which this affair will have in San
Francisco.
The delegates to the United Ma
tions Conference are struggling with
the issue of the Big-Five veto power,
and the latest word is that the Rus
sian government is adamant in its
opposition to any modification.
Should this view prevail, any one
of the major powers-Russia, Brit
ain, the United States, France and
China-Would be able, in event OF
future aggression, to veto the use of
force or even the making of recon-
mendations for a peaceful settle
ment by the Security Council. If
the security organization were in ex-
istence today, and if the French
chose to exercise their veto power,
nothing effective could be done
within the framework of the organ
ization to restrain them in the Le-
want. All that the security organ
ization could do, as an organlza-
ton, would be to let events take
their course and abide by the con-
sequences.
Perhaps this is unavoidable, the
mood of the great powers being
what it is. But if so, the resulting
weakness in the proposed organiza-
ton is a serious one-too serious to
be camoufaged by the false conten-
ton that. the veto is unimportant
because, in any event, there must
be unanimity among the so-called
great powers. AS the Syrian affair
suggests, there may be many occa-
sions when aggression or threatened
aggression can be curbed without
unanimity. The real question is
whether a sufficient number of the
great powers really want to keep the
peace, and are prepared to pay the
necessary price.