The Wilmington morning star., 1947-08-30
UN No. 1 Problem
BY ANNE O'HARE MCCORMICK

BY ANNE O'HARE MCCORMICK
The other evening a group of people, most
ly experts in foreign affairs, were discussing
the darkening clouds on the world horizon
and asking one another which was the most
alarming. They mentioned Greece, China,
Palestine, the renewed pressure on Iran, the
British economic crisis, misgivings on the
Marshall plan. But when all the trouble spots
were pointed out, they agreed that the most
the weakening confidence in the United Ma
tons. 1T the U.N. worked. or even gave evil
'dence that it could be made to work. said
an anxious European, "an the other problems
would be soluble"
This is so generally recognized that the fu-
ture Of the United Nations has become the
No. l question in the minds Of worried people
all over the globe. The Illustration of the ma
jority of the Security Council after months
of wearing debate on the Greek issue has
led even the members to ask if the organi-
cation can survive unless some way is found
to break the deadlocks that reduce it to impo-
tence. It impelled Secr~etary-General Trygve
Lie to call a special session, to carry out the
recommendation Of the General Assembly, at
its December meeting. which urged ''the
early adoption of practices and procedures
consistent with the Charter to enable the
Security Council to fulfill its functions.
OlllCc tuC last koSC1lOAy 1A1CCI1uk ~ d z
come clearer than before that the Council
cannot fulfill it's functions under present con-
ditions. The use Of the veto has suddenly be-
come a burning issue, at Lake Success and
in the member states. But the discussion of
the subject in the Security Council is not ex-
created by the Charter itself. AS Sir Alex
ander Cadogan. the British delegate. remind
ed his colleagues, the abolition of the veto is
also subject to the veto. According to Article
1903, amendments to the Charter have to be
adopted by a two-thirds vote OF the Assembly
and ratified by two-thirds of the member ma
tons, "including all the members of the Sc
curity Council"
Not only is it doubtful if the U.N. could
drop the veto. 1t Is doubtful if any of the
Big Five, including the United States, would
consent to its abolition. Nevertheless, there
will be massive pressure to abolish it at the
coming Assembly. 1t will probably dominate
all other controversies In what promises to
be a crucial session.
The smaller powers fought the veto at San
Francisco and the course of events has justi-
fled their arguments and strengthened their
opposition. Thus, while the special seance of
the Security Council will accomplish little. it
is a necessary preliminary to the general de-
bate. What can be done, what obviously must
be done to restore the authority Of the or
ganization, is to limit the use Of the veto to
the purpose for which it was intended. 1t was
meant to be invoked as a last resort, in cir
cumstances which have not arisen and could
almost never arise. This was thoroughly un-
derstood at San Francisco; it was the self
denying ordinance the great powers imposed
On themselves and pledged to the lesser ma
tons. The veto has been exercised nineteen
in the Security Councils two years of
existence, seventeen times by Russia alone,
once by Russia and France together, once by
Frame a1Ono and ouory ~ nf thacA sNnoSp
can be characterized as an abuse rather than
the proper use Of the veto power.
The veto is a symbol of fear. We insisted
on it because we were afraid of the United
Nations. We recoiled from any possible check
on our own power and sovereignty. The ex-
perience of the past two years has at least
taught us that it is a double-edged weapon:
it can be used to thWart our policy as well
as to obstruct the international action which
alone can save us from having to act alone. |
That this lesson has proved fruitful is dem
onstrated by what is happening at the Inter-
American Conference in Petropolis. There the
American delegation has successfully opposed
the right of veto. as applied to hemisphere
action against an aggressor. Argentina, which
denounced the veto in the United Nations,
was the only power that supported it for the
Americas. For the other states the clinching
argument against it was the way it had
worked to block action in the Security Coun-
Gil.
Actually, Russia's frivolous and reckless
use of the veto to serve her own national in
terests and block international action has be-
Titled and debased a power meant to be re-
served for life-and-death decisions. The Soviet
Union has done SO much to kill respect for
the veto that the other big powers would
probably be glad to see it abolished. At the
present stage, however, they would hardly
take the responsibility of moving to amend
the Charter.
At present the effort must be concentrated
On putting limitations on it's use in the Sc
curity Council on one hand and increasing
the authority Of the Assembly on the other.
Clark Eichelberger reports that "a public
opinion in behalf of the United Nations is de-
veloping in many countries" This is inevi-
table as national policies fail or as people
turn to an international authority not only for
security from outside aggression but for the
protection OF their civil rights. Never in his
tory was a power above national power so
desperately desired by individual citizens.
Never was it so imperative to save and
strengthen the United Nations. Obviously its
life is in jeopardy while irresponsible vetoes
deprive the Security Council of the power to
act. New York Times.