Evening star., 1948-02-25

nave pecH PldCcu upOu AIIipdSSduOI AuStlIl
address to the Security Council on the
Palestine issue are the best evidence of
the lack of clarity, If not the lack of
candor. in the statement itself.
Yet this is not a matter in which there
should be any ambiguity, or in which
words should be used to say one thing
when something else Is intended. There
Is good reason to believe the problem of
Palestine and the method of its solution
will directly affect the welfare and the
security of the United States. If that is
so, then it seems obvious that the Amer
ican people should not be led into any
course of action unless they fully under
stand what it is that they are doing and
what the consequences are apt to be.
1t is not easy to get this full under
standing from Mr.. Austin's statement.
When his remarks are read carefully,
however, their meaning and significance
seem clear
Mr.. Austin begins by saying that the
Security Council can and should act on
the first request made by the General
Assembly in connection with its recon-
mendation for partition of Palestine This
request was that the Council "take the
necessary measures as provided for in
the (partition) plan for its implementa-
tion'
The most important of these necessary
measures" calls upon the Council "to take
such action as the Security Council may
deem proper with respect to either the
Jewish or the Arab State il by April /,
1QdQ rHrnyiei0r, IF 0ov ant
cannot be selected for that state, or, If
selected, cannot carry out its functions"
If this language means anything it means
that the Security Council is asked to i'm
plement the partition plan. Mr.. Austin,
speaking for this Government, says, 1--WE
believe it Is clear that the Security Council
can undertake the aforementioned meas
ures," and he plainly indicates his belief
that this should be done.
**x*
Mr.. Austin next takes up the question
whether the disorders within Palestine
and the threats of armed resistance to
partition by other Arab states constitute
an actual or threatened breach of the
peace. 1t is not necessary to review his
arguments in this respect, for it is per-
fectly evident that both an actual and
threatened breach of the peace are present
in Palestine
If the Security Council finds this to be
the fact, Mr.. Austin declares, then it is
required by the U. N. Charter to act, and
the action which he clearly contemplates
Is the use of force to maintain peace in
Palestine. Furthermore, Mr.. Austin adds,
If the Security Council decides that armed
force is necessary, the United States
would be ready to consult under the
Charter with view to such action as may
be necessary to maintain international
peace"
In the next phase of the address Mr..
Austin attempts to make a distinction be-
tween the use of armed force to maintain
peace and the use of armed force to
enforce PARTITION The. Council, he. says,
has the power and the duty to DO the
first; 1t has no authority to undertake
the latter. "a uluow ~ooaa s4 .
This Is equivocation, for the distinction
fs'n meaningless. Under whatever guise
force is employed the intended result
would be the same-the implementation of
partition There should be no misunder-
standing about this, and 1t is regrettable
that Mr.. Austin was not more candid in
his discussion of the point. For If the
Arabs resist partition, as they say they
intend to do, and If the United Nations
sends an armed force to Palestine to
maintain peace, the result is going to be a
war between that armed force and the
Arabs. 1t might prove to be minor war
or a serious one, but in either event the
American people should not be led into
it unless they know what is being under
taken and are prepared to go through
with it.
In The Stars view, the most disturbing
aspect of this long step toward COM
to use American troops in Pales-
tine Is the failure of the administration
to bring out into the open all of the
factors and risks involved. Mr.. Austin
rests his case squarely and wholly on the
proposition that we must support the
United Nations in any decision made. This
is a very important consideration, for it
can hardly be doubted that refusal by
the United States to support a Security
Council decision in this matter would be
very heavy blow to the United Nations.
But there are other important considera-
tions involved, and there ought to be some
opportunity to bring them forward for
public consideration.
\ X n
One of these has to do with the oil of
the Middle East. A war with the Arabs
might close that source of supply. If
so, how vital is this oil to the recovery
of Western Europe under the Marshall
Plan? And how vital would it be to us
in event of war with Russia?
Any mention of oil in this connection Is
apt to be condemned as placing OF sordid
economic considerations ahead of con-
siderations of justice and humaneness.
But that is not the case. II this oil really
is vital to our security or to the security
of the Western World that is con-