Evening star. [volume] (Washington, D.C.) 1854-1972, 1945-03-19
Churchill More Frank
Than Atlantic Charter
His Strong VS.. Weak Philosophy
Believed Outmoded
By David Laurence

Believed Outmoded
BY Dauid Laurence
Prime Minister Churchill is not only
one of the most persuasive personals
ties in public life, but also one of the
frankest. He expounds his conservative
philosophy forthrightly and without
equivocation.
But it may be doubted whether Mr.,
Churchill, having served England in
her gravest hour, will ever express the
liberalism of tomorrow in Britain and.
indeed, whether he reflects even now
the underlying currents of the British
peoples thought toward the arrange
ments that must be made some day
to assure the success of the general
international peace organizations.
A significant outcropping of this diff
ference came in the recent debate in
the House of Commons wherein Mr..
Churchill conceded the automatic
truth" in the statement of Rhys Da-
Wes, Laborite member, that after the
Yalta agreement there is nothing at
all to deal with aggression by the great
powers" in the United Nations plan
for peace. The Prime Minister added:
las far as We are concerned, we
made perfectly voluntary agreement
with other great powers that were
gathered at Yalta and that does pre-
scribe for differentiation between
nf
in these matters and of the smallest
powers"
Point Raised by France.
This must mean that Great Britain
considers the United States as well as
Russia pledged to support the Yalta
voting procedure agreement and that
he would not consider the American
delegation free to present any amend
ments to it. Precisely this point was
raised by France in declining to have
her hands tied in advance of the San
Francisco meeting which Gen. De
Gaulle's cabinet thought might be the
case if the invitation to sponsor" the
next conference was accepted.
But Mr. Churchill reveals another
important aspect of his thinking. He
defends the idea that the strong must
be recognized as entitled to special
privileges. He says, for instance:
I'VE may deplore, if we choose, that
there is difference between the great
and the small, between the strong and
the weak in the world. There undoubt-
edly is such a difference and it would
be foolish to upset good arrangements
proceeding on a broad front for the
sake of trying to attain Immediately
what is hopeless IDEAL
Mr.. Churchill's viewpoint has been
warmly espoused always by those con-
servatives who feel that big business
and monopoly are justified and that the
strong enterprises in financial or
economic life are entitled to do virtually
as they please. Liberalism rightly re-
flutes such view whether in inter-
national or national matters.
Nobody is going to object to the stipu-
lation that on the security council of the
new league the major powers must be
permanent members. That was done in
the old league, too. For with bigness
must inevitably go large responsibility
But this is far different thing from
immunizing the strong from the
restraints or discipline imposed on the
weak.
1t is the perfectionist who is always
claiming that the benevolence or good
intentions of the strong must be &C
cepted and that law or regulation Is I'M
necessary or that unlimited discretion is
preferable to specific delineation of what
is or is not the law. The voice of ex-
perience tells us that, where laws are
vague, law-breaking is frequent espe-
cially where materialistic factors are
present.
The grave implications of Mr. Church
ills reiteration of an old. old philosophy
that seeks to defend the word power
in power politics" will in due time be-
come apparent. The smaller nations
will find refuge only in combination OF
in alliances of armament to make them
the equal of the larger nations. Balance.
of power will present new rivalries ane
new sources of friction. That is tn,
historic answer to the European con
servatives' unwillingness to embrac
collective security plans. 1t is UNI
fortunate that this philosophy shoult
be revived SO soon after the splendit
declaration of purposes adopted as re-
Gently as October I, 1914, at Dumbartor
Oaks, wherein no distinction between
strong" or weak" was drawn and the
idea of equality" was so splendidly
stressed.
Obsolete" Language.
The language of the principles" of
Dumbarton Oaks makes no exception
and yet seems curiously obsolete already
but it is worth re-reading:
81. The organization is based on the
principle of the sovereign equality of all
peace-loving states.
y. All members of the organization
undertake, in order to ensure to all OF
them the rights and benefits resulting
from membership in the organization, to
fulfill the obligations assumed by them
in accordance with the charter.
%. All members of the organization
shall settle their dispute by peaceful
means in such manner that information
al peace and security shall not be en-
dangered.
a. All members of the organization
shall refrain in their international rela-
tons from the threat or use of force in
any manner inconsistent with the pur-
poses of the. organization.
IS. AL members of the organization