The Wilmington morning star., 1945-03-08

Ll1C1 WoS OO pei SCAAI oSA SO1A1OI4L
at the Dumbarton Oaks conference
last summer and that 1.-The other 10
per cent was ironed out at Yalta, :"
what this really means is that
there is now agreement on the
problems which the four powers
deemed it most important to dis
cuss. There are other problems,
which they have touched on only
lightly and vaguely, that will have
to be solved before the other ma
tons can confidently accept the
charter, before in fact the charter
can be made a workable instru-
ment.
By analogy from our own con-
stitutional system, the unsettled
problems of Dumbarton Oaks have
to do with the relation between
the central authority ond the
local. There is much hard think
ing of any constitutional system.
The problem has been raised but
not settled at Mexico City. Here
too is the basic reason why France
is withholding her unqualified en-
dorsement. Only by solving these
problems more clearly than has
as yet been done, will it be possible
to meet the criticisms which Ca
NADIA, the Netherlands, and, I be-
lieve, Brazil and Mexico, are max
ing. Finally, it can be shown, I
think, that the question of how
much authority to use armed force
the Congress should delegate to the
President can be answered prop
erly only after we have clarified
the relation between the Dunbar
ton charter and other peace-keep-
ing agreements-the inter-Ameri-
can, the treaties to deal with
Germany, with Japan, and in
other regions OF the world.
: American thinking in this field
has been retarded because in the
State Department the leading ex-
pert advisers Of Mr.. Hull, notably
Mr.. Leo Pasvolsky, started off
initially with the idea that the
world organization should have a
monopoly in keeping the peace.
They looked upon any security
arrangement which was not world
wide as regrettable deviation
from the ideal of a universal So
ciety pledged to follow universal
principles. At the beginning they
expected the new league to do all
the peace-keeping, to enforce the
Standardization of Germany and
of Japan, to manage the pac1flca-
ton of liberated Europe and OF
liberated Asia, and its charter was
to supersede, TO eliminate and
liquidate not only the military
alliance OF this war but also al
the specific alliances such as the
Anglo-Soviet, the Franco Soviet
or an Anglo,French. .
This conception Of the Dunbar
ton Oaks organization as a globa
monopoly has had gradually to oe
modified. But any modification
has been regarded officially among
the State Departments experts a!
rather regrettable concession b,
the children Of light to the chill
dren of his world. Yet the desire
to concentrate the whole power
and responsibility for keeping
peace in one institution, instead O.
decentralizing it, is the main cause
of most of the serious criticism o.
Dumbarton Oaks. It is the rea'
son why the security council is
attacked as being an attempt at
a horsepower dictatorship over
mankind: if all authority to keer
the peace could be concentrated
there, that is just what it would
be. It is also the reason why the
"realistic'' governments-meanine
those which like France and the
Soviet Union have been invaded
and will now take no chances
are insisting on specific pacts tt
make sure of their own security.
But for tn. we'll intentioned bu
over-theoretical desire to make
Dunbarton Oaks a global monop'
DIV the question Of how much
authority to delegate to the Presi'
dent would have little practical in
terest. He would be given-as i
is going to work out he will b.
eiven-specific Congressional all
thority to enforce a German set
Element. He will be given specifi;
authority to enforce a japanese
settlement. He will be given spe.
cific authority to maintain inter.
American security. Other grants
of specific authority will no doubt
be considered also. After that the
general authority needed in the
Dumbarton Oaks organization vii