The Wilmington morning star., 1946-06-26

and clearly defined law on a sub
ject. Once there is a law, the veto
cannot be invoked to repeal it.
Once there is a law that says who
is to enforce it, before what tri-
bunal cases under it are to be
heard, by what institution it may
be amended, there is no veto
power left in matters which that
law deals with.
So it is through the enactment
of laws, and in no other way, that
the veto problem can be solved.
That is the reaso why Mr.. Gro
myko's contribution opens up such
an immense opportunity for ere
alive and constructive statesman
ship. Let us not look is gift horse
in the mouth. Let US have the
magnanimity to welcome it and
then ride it, recognizing that it is
not an alternative to own pro-
posals but that it is capable of be-
ing made into the necessary and
imposing framework and support
of u W proposals.
The Soviet Union mas argued
that the production, use, and pos
session of atomic weapons be
made "a serious crime'-that is
to say a punishable crime-not
only under international law but
under the national laws of every
ratifying state. Our own proposal,
though it goes much further and
more radically into the problem
of atomic energy, is nevertheless
in law identical with the Russian,
in that we too wish to make it a
punishable crime for any govern
ment or any private person to
make, use, or W an atomic
weapon.
In my previous article on this
subject l supposed that under our
plan the international authority
might be permitted to make, use,
and own atomic weapons and that
this constituted an important diff
ference between the American and
the Russian proposals. But | have
since been advised that the Amerl-
can plan, like the Russian, con-
templates the total outlaWry OF
o4o,oio ,-oor0nC CO uyo ora in nnnn-
plete agreement with the Russians
that the national and private traf-
fic in atomic weapons shall be out
lawed as a criminal offense.
1t was a grave weakness" IN our
proposals that we offered Mr..
Baruch's unc~onsidered remarks
about the veto instead of Offering
the project of system of law.
But the remedy is at hand.
Assuming Mr.. Gromyko's pro
posal had been thoroughly worked
out, that international and ma
tional laws had been enacted in
every industrial country, what
would be the situation if we dis
covered by one means and another
by international inspections or
by the secret agents that all coun-
tries will certainly employ where
the stakes are life and death-that
atomic weapons were being made
secretly in the interior of Siberia?
Could the Soviet government veto
an inquiry and a hearing OF a
charge that the world law and its
own Soviet law were being VIC
lated? If the law we're explicit. the
Soviet government could not, l
contend, veto the inquiry and hear
ing.
1t could obstruct. 1t could resist.
But that would not be the veto:
that would be rebellion and seces-
sion. The veto, we must realize, is
a legal right which Restraints the
majority only as long as they are
legally bound to respect this legal
right. But if Russia refused to let
the law of atomic energy be en-
forced, Russia would have placed
herself beyond the pale of the law.
She would have destroyed the
legal basis of her veto. and there
would be no further legal or moral
restraint or the other nations if
they thought it advisable to 60 to
war.
Yet our objective is not to find
ways of going to war. A great ad-
vantage in this approach to this
dlfflcult problem is that it keeps
open a way by which a great
power, which has perhaps begun
10 cheat and has been caught, can
without loss of face return to the
straight and narrow nath