Evening star., 1946-12-29
'Either-Or'

Mr.. Baruch's statement to the
working committee of the United
Nations Atomic Energy Commission
Is his bluntest and most eloquent to
date on the question of setting up a
control system entirely free from the
unanimity rule of the Big Five. In
his own words, it constitutes an
"either-or" declaration Of American
policy. The powers must either
agree to our plan to remove the,
veto from this field, or we must hold
on to our currently exclusive knowl-
edge and possession OF nuclear power
and armaments.
Indeed, Mr.. Baruch has served fiat
notice that without a genuinely
vetoless control system the Amer
lean people woodland they
withdraw their support"
from the United Nations. This is
an extremely strong assertion, but
the reasoning behind it is persuasive.
Nothing looms larger in the overall
problem of disarmament and peace
than effective control of the atom.
But if a treaty drawn up to estab-
lish such control should leave loop
holes protecting possible >violators, it
would be little more than noble
but empty statement of intent, and
the U. N. itself-as far as the basic
realities are concerned-would be
merely "a debating society and a
place to exchange ous-sounding
documents"
Up to a point, all members of the
Atomic Energy Commission have
accepted Mr.. Baruch's thesis. They
have agreed to the idea of setting
up world control authority. They
have agreed also-or at least Mr..
Molotov seems clearly to have linked
Russia with us and the others in
favoring it-that there should be an
international system Of supervision
and inspection and that the day-to-
day operations of this system should
be unhampered by the veto. But
they have not agreed on the prin-
ciple of vetoless punishment of vio-
lators. Although the Russians have
not yet specifically rejected it, they
have insisted that action be delayed
on the proposal, and for we'll over a
week now they have entirely dis
sociated themselves from any discus
sion of it. Further, France, Canada
and Britain-although likely to vote
for it in showdown-have taken
the position that Mr.. Baruch's in
sistence in this respect is somewhat
unrealistic, their argument being
that an effort to punish a violator,
with or without the veto, would be
tantamount to war anyhow.
But this argument has not i'm
pressed Mr.. Baruch. If vetoless pun
ishment is as unrealistic or academic
as some contend, then why should
any power object to providing for
it in the projected world atomic
treaty? AS he sees it, it is neither
unrealistic nor academic, but an
essential part of effective control
solemn and inhibiting warning
to any possible violator that the
nations are firmly committed, with
no legal loophole out Of the COM
mitment, to take swift and common
action against whoever dares to
break the law. 1t is for this reason
that Mr.. Baruch demands that the
Atomic Energy Commission, in its
impending report to the Security
Council, recommend that there
shall be no legal right, by veto or
otherwise, whereby willful vio-
lator" might find protection. Can
ada, France and Britain hold that
the words "by veto or otherwise"
are unnecessary, and Russia simply
refuses to talk about the subject.
Thus the matter stands at the mo-
ment, With the commission Scneo-
uled to act upon it-one way or the
other-tomorrow.
Mr.. Baruch's "either-or" state
ment, of course, does not mean that
a commission vote against him to-
morrow would lead directly to an
American withdrawal from further
discussions. It does mean, how
ever, that unless the United Nations
eventually accepts the proposal for
vetoless punishment, the United
States will retain it's secrets and that
all international collaboration will
bog down in Illustration. In this
sense, his warning has the utmost
historical significance, and all
friends of peace must hope that the
great powers will heed it.