The Wilmington morning star., 1946-06-21
MORE ABOUT
LIPPMANN
FROM PAGE ONE

Lie t1CoIy lIluot, III OllSl WOl 10,
satisfy us or we shall veto it. There
can be no international control of
atomic energy without our con-
sent. The power to prevent ONE
thing from happening by with
holding consent is the veto. In the
case of atomic energy the Ameri-
can veto is unique and absolute.
Every sovereign state has the
legal right not to be bound by a
treaty to which it has not given
its consent. But if, let US say,
China or Brazil refuses to ratify, it
would still be legal and feasible
for other nations to make a treaty
for the international control of
atomic energy. China and Brazil
have no present prospect of max
ing atomic bombs. But if the Unit
ed States refuses to ratify, interna-
tional control will have been vetoed
absolutely. For the United States
has at present a monopoly of the
bombs, stockpiles, and plants which
the international control would
have to control.
Now Mr.. Baruch, as our repre-
sentative, not only has no slight
est intention of surrendering this
American veto; on the contrary,
he intends to use it for all it is
worth to induce the other govern
ments to agree to a treaty which
we judge to be good enough not to
veto. We intend to use our veto as
a diplomatic instrument to obtain
what we believe will be a construc-
tive and beneficent treaty. That
being our intention, and an alto
gether honorable intention, what is
the good of concealing and confus-
ing it by talking as if the veto
the principle of unanimous consent
among sovereign states-Were a
peculiar device which, but for the
Russians, we should gladly
abolish?
What we really want is not to
abolish the veto but to persuade
the Russians to agree to a treaty
which they and we can and will
ratify. The treaty itself cannot be
made except by the unanimous
consent of the leading industrial
powers. But if they ratify this
treaty they will have consented to
the abrogation of the veto on any
subject about which the treaty is
clear and definite. If the treaty
says that only the International
Atomic Development Authority
may mine and own uranium and
thorium, nc government which has
ratified the treaty can thereafter
veto the monopoly of the author
ity. Why should there be any con-
fusion on this point? The Presi-
dent has the right to veto a bill,
Just as every nation has the right
to veto the treaty. But if the bill
becomes law, the President can
not then continue to veto its ad-
ministration. The veto controls the
making of agreements, laws and
treaties, but when they are made,
trere can be no veto of anything
which is by agreement the law of
that thing. Obstruction, resistance,
non-enforcement, are then not the
veto power, but law-breaking.
X + 4
Obviously Mr.. Baruch wa sthink-
ing of what would happen to the
atomic treaty. first, if in admins
tering it the Russians always said
no as they have so often in recent
months and second, if after rati-
flying the treaty, they conspired
secretly to make illegal atomics
weapons.
The first difficulty can best be
met in the treaty itself-by taking
every care before it is ratified that
the rights, duties and powers are
as definite and clear as language
can make them-and by providing
I should suggestion judicial in
depreciation of any point in the
teraty about which disputes may
arise subsequently among the d.
r%ectors and managers of the Atom
ic Development Authority.
The trouble we have had with
the Yalta and the Potsdam decla-
rations teaches~us that ambiguous,
hastily improvised ~generalities are
to be avoided like the past. The
drafting of this treaty should be
done with exhaustive care by an
international commission of jurists
and scientific men. In so far as
they can write a treaty which eff
fectively says what it means, and
exactly how conflicts of interpreted
ton are to be resolved, the treaty,
when ratified, will in that degree
be uncontrolled by the veto pow
er. When a treaty exists, and
where it is explicit, there can be
no veto power.
| There can be only open rebellion