The Wilmington morning star. [volume] (Wilmington, N.C.) 1909-1990, 1945-06-25
SHUTS REVIEWS
CHARTER CHANCES
Continued From Page One)

Continued From Page One)
not be necessary to prevent aggres
sion. All states were equal ane
sovereign, and none could be com
PEELED to take forceful action with
out its free consent.
A universal veto and the absence
of force were thus far main feature!
OF the Covenant.
An all-in Universal League wa!
arrived at, and smaller league!
or groups for peace were looked
upon with disfavor, as an encroach
ment on the universal reign of the
League.
Such in rough outline were the
basic ideas of the Covenant.
Today we can appreciate why il
failed.
For we have learned much dur
ing the last Is years, years in which
the hopes and visions of thu las
peace have suffered a sad eclipse
We have seen military force rise
to unheard OF heights. The rise
Hitler's Germany has been a rev
elation of evil in human nature
and of Warpower such as had new
err been seen before; and his ex
ample had been followed by Japar
and others.
Idealism is clearly not enou~h
and a much more realistic view
has to be taken of world war and
its prevention.
In contrast with the Covenant,
the Charter therefore adopts a plan
based on the following main points:
l. That force is necessary to
maintain peace.
2. That only the combined force
of the great powers can guarantee
the world against total war, and
that therefore, great power unity
is necessary condition for worlc
peace.
3. That the other nations accord
ing to their measure should bine
themselves in advance to suppl,
forces against aggression.
4. And that smaller defensive
groups should be encouraged under
the world organization to help il
maintaining the peace in thei,
areas, so long as the organizatio,
itself does not take defensive &C
ton.
1t will thus be seen that tn,
Charter is based on our terribl,
experience since the last war, an,
that it corrects the Covenant pre-
cisely in those points where it hat
admittedly failed.
These poin are:
Great power leadership TO;
peace; great power unity, as pro
vided by the voting arrangement!
at Yalta; the obligation of al
states to join with force agains
aggression; and regional group.
for defence, in the default of &C
ton by the World Organization.
All these main features of tn,
Charter scheme have been &C
cepted without demur by the 81
United Nations. The lengthy con
ference debates have only servee
to clear up minor points and tt
secure agreement on details.
Nor have these details given any
real trouble, with the exception
of one point. That is the position
of the great powers in the organi
cation, and the requirement O.
their unanimity in voting, or theil
veto right as it is called.
This is not objected to by the
smaller powers, but some of Their
have been particularly active ir
pointing out the defects of thi:
arrangement, and in limiting it:
application so far as possible. The
limitation OF the veto has in fac
been the main cause of contention
and of the duration of the confer
ence.
Personally I have not attached
so much importance to this veto
question, and l do not expect dire
consequences from it's exercise
The necessity of great power uni
ty as a protection against chaos
is admitted, and I see no reason
to anticipate that the veto will
be used unfairly or arbitrarily by
reasonable and responsible bodies
like the great powers. It is q
precaution, and a necessary pre-
caution, for keeping the great
powers together, and it would be
senseless on their part to abuse
it and thereby break up the or.
ganization itself.
The heat and the length OF the
veto debate has been out Of all
proportion to its intrinsic import.
ance. II the veto is an evil, it is
a necessary evil in the interests oil
world peace, which would benefi,
none more than the smaller pow.
e-s now objecting to its applica.
ton.
In laying so much emphasis or
power and force, have we re.
nounced the ideaism and the
human vision of Is years ago? BY
no means.
The Charter even more than the