Evening star. [volume] (Washington, D.C.) 1854-1972, 1945-03-12
Strange Abb Seen on
Oaks Commitments

O0kS Commitments
World War Slogan Forgotten on
Secret Diplomacy, Says Writer
By Dapid Laurence
Everybody would agree that where
military questions are involved there
should be secrecy, but 1t has never been
asserted by any responsible section Of
American public opinion that our Gov
eminent had the right to make secret
commitments or to fail to tell the people
OPPORTUNITY about decisions affecting
postwar policy.
Yet one of the biggest decisions al
ready taken by our Government toward
the future international peace organ
ization was made secretly and now the
excuse Is being publicized that the
American Senate would not have APP
proved If the course had been otherwise.
Last summer and autumn conferences
were In progress relating to the charter
of the proposed United Nations organ
tzation. The meeting at Dumbarton
Oaks was participated in by representa-
tives of Great Britain, Russia and the
United States. The press was excluded
on the ground that the conference was
preliminary in nature, that the Russians
insisted on secrecy, that nothing final
was being decided anyway, and that
whatever was drafted would be SUBJ
mited for approval to each govern
ment" and in our case, of course, the
Senate is part of the Government"
under the Constitution.
Many Swallowed Excuse.
Many staunch supporters of the ad-
ministration swallowed that excuse and
Indignantly characterized persons who
felt the step was piece of trickery in
diplomacy as ''obstructionists" or per
fectionists." But it turns out now that
the draft of what was done at Dunbar
ton Oaks was not submitted to the
Senate for formal consideration or for
amendment at all, and that what was
agreed to at Dumbarton Oaks now
goes before the San Francisco Confer
ence without change and when it comes
out of the San Francisco Conference
it will have to be approved or rejected
by our Senate without chance for
amendment
Why were the American people not
told what their own Government stood
for last October at Dumbarton Oaks
on the matter of voting procedure for
the Security Council? Did our dele
gates favor the giving OF a veto to any
one OF the major powers so that each
big nation would, in effect, sit in
judgment on its own acts?
1t was common knowledge last
autumn that Russia objected to en-
towering the council to make any
decision on enforcement of peace which
did not give her veto What was
the American Governments view? This
was kept from the American people and
they were given no opportunity between
October, 1914, and February, 1945, when
the Yalta Conference was held, to dis
cuss or debate the matter on the basis
OF authoritative information. Now they
are being told that the United States
Senate would never have approved Of
anything but a veto for the United
States anyway, but how do those who
take that view know?
The truth Is the isoIationists, In the
1s20s, took the position that America
must retain the right of veto, but after
two world wars it was thought by some
OF us that the isolationists were defeated.
and certainly in view Of the last election
when the result was widely heralded as
defeat for "isolationists," one wonders
why the President suddenly veered to
the "isolationist" argument.
Slogan Forgotten.
The record of the senate in being
unwilling to submit issues "a. arbitration
is, OF course, bad, but who ventures to
say With assurance that the American
Senate today would refuse to permit
the Security Council to investigate any
international dispute in which the
United States was a party and would
refuse IN advance the award of court
OF international justice that might ad.
Judge us to have been in the wrong2
Certainly Senate that was supposed
10 be ready to approve Senator Balls
proposition, whereby Congress need not
be asked for additional authority to use
armed forces when a breach of the
peace occurs, could hardly be CHARGED
now With a refusal to ratify a treaty in
winch all nations, large and small, would
De required to submit to the majority
vote OF the council or at least the unani-
nous vote OF all governments except
parties to the dispute.
But why should anyone in the execu-
tive branch attempt to speak for thu
Senate in advance? Why shouldn't the
American Government view on voting
procedure have been made public last
October SO that the people and the SEN
ate could have debated it? The answer
probably is that the administration de-
cided after all that secret diplomacy
was best.
This certainly isn't in conformity
with the slogan of the World War which
promised an end to the vice of secret
diplomacy and offered in its place a
formula Of candor and publicity cpl
dramatically phrased by the late
President Wilson as open covenants
openly arrived at" Dumbarton Oaks is
an example of the exact opposite. And
now reports are being circulated, in
spired by the administration, to the
effect that the voting procedure adopted
at Yalta for the Security Council was