Evening star., 1948-10-06
Russiu on TriuI

Russia on TrioI
With the nine-to-two vote by the Sc
curity Council to take jurisdiction of the
complaint against Russia in the Berlin
crisis, the Western Powers have won the
first round in their effort to bring this
dispute before the bar Of public opinion.
The vote, in effect, is a rejection of the
argument advanced by Andrei Vishinsky,
the Soviet representative, in support of his
thesis that the Security Council was not
competent to consider the Berlin matter.
Mr.. Vishinsky's argument moved along two
main lines.
First, he contended that the Berlin dis
pute is an integral part of the whole
German question, and that therefore,
under the Potsdam agreement, it should
be turned over to the Council of Foreign
Ministers for consideration. His argu-
ment on this point was rambling one,
but it boils down to the contention that
the major powers set up the Council of
Foreign Ministers to deal with Germany
and that they should abide by the intent
of that agreement DR.. Philip C. Jessup,
speaking for the United States, replied
that the complaint to the Security Council
did not involve the problem of Germany.
Rather, he said, the complaint was based
on the threat to peace arising out of the
Russian blockade of Berlin, with its implicit
threat of resort to force, and that it was
this question: and only this question, which
was being referred to the Security Council.
Presumably, the nine affirmative votes were
a token of majority agreement with this
view.
The second point raised by Mr. Vishinsky
was that the Security Council was debarred
from taking jurisdiction by Article LOT of
the u N. Charter The sense of Article
lot is that nothing in the Charter shall be
taken to invalidate or preclude action with
respect to former enemy state by gov
ernments having responsibility for such
action. Since the major victorious powers
have undertaken to handle the problem of
Germany, according to Mr.. Vishinsky, the
Security Council is barred by Article 107
from interfering. In further support of
this, he blandly asserted that there is no
blockade of Berlin and no threat to peace
there. The Western reply again was that
the complaint to the Security Council was
concerned, not with the problem of nego-
tiation OF German peace treaty, but with
the illegal and coercive" measures to
which Russia has resorted in Berlin "to
achieve political detectives to which 1t
is not entitled and which it could not
achieve by peaceful means" and that
therefore Article lot is not applicable.
This view also was sustained by nine of
the Security Councils eleven members, the
other dissenter being the representative of
the Soviet Ukraine.
1t would be mistake, however, to over
estimate the Importance of this first
round triumph An adverse ruling on the
jurisdictional issue, of course, would have
been a severe setback for the Western
Powers. Aside from this, however, their
jurisdictional victory is of limited i'm
portance. Mr.. Vishinsky has indicated
that the Soviet Union will boycott the
proceedings when the Council gets down
to actual consideration of the complaint
itself That, in effect, would be veto,
and would mean that the Council could
not act on the complaint. The matter
could next be referred to the General
Assembly, but that agency is also incapable
of taking any effective action against the
Russians. So the most that can be hoped
for from the U. N. is an opportunity to
present our case in the open and chance
to organize world opinion against the
Russians
In his statement to the Council, DR..
Jessup said the deadlock in Berlin con-
fronted the Western Powers with three
alternatives: One, they could have su-
pinely bowed to the Russian use of force;
or, two, they could in turn have resorted
to force to meet the Soviet force; or, three,
they could have recognized the fact stated
in Article "a of the Charter that the
Security Council has primary RESPONSE
bility for the maintenance of international
peace and security"
The third alternative was chosen and
is now being pursued. But what if the
Russians persist In their blockade of
Berlin after the limited remedies of this
alternative have been exhausted? In that
situation, will we be forced back upon
alternatives one and two, and if this is
so, which do we propose to choose?