Evening star., 1949-02-16
Senatorial QuibbIinq

Members of the Senate, If they so desire,
have right to quibble and split hairs.
1t is their privilege, If they wish, to point
to the words in the Constitution which
reserve to Congress the function OF de-
claring war. They can say, If they want
to, that never, never, never will they vote
for anything which would commit this
country, legally or morally, to 60 to war
if Russia should attack the nations of
Western Europe.
But the Senators must know that they
are talking through their hats. They must
know that, treaty or no treaty, commit
ment or no commitment we will be at war
for our national existence the moment the
Red Army begins to march. So far as this
is concerned, it makes little difference
whether the first blow is struck at Western
Europe or directly at us. The point is that
If the blow falls anywhere, If the Russians
ever resort to armed aggression, then
World War III will have begun. and we
will be in it as surely as night follows day.
In this respect the Senate debate as to
what commitment, If any, we would assume
under the terms of the proposed North
Atlantic Pact is utterly unrealiStic. 1t Is
a debate which attempts to ignore the
facts of modern life, debate which serves
no better purpose than to spin arguments
that will collapse of their own unreality
as soon as the first shot is fired. 1t Is also
debate which misses the main point, or
what ought to be the main point, of any
pact in which we may join.
If the suggested North Atlantic Pact has
any real virtue, it lies in its usefulness as
insurance against war. We know from
bitter experience that this country cannot
and will not try to stand aside in another
world war. But it is not so certain that
the potential aggreSsors know it. These
men have way of deceiving themselves.
1t is even less certain that the plain people
of Western Europe know 1t. Already as q
result of this debate, they have been bonn
barded with propaganda to the effect that
they cannot look to the United States for
military aid. They know that in the hrst
stages of another war, just as in the last,
they will be overrun by the enemy, and We
cannot expect much from them if they are
left in doubt as to our intentions.
1t is here that the proposed pact can
serve purpose. II the Senators will stop
quaking in their boots at the mere men
ton of moral commitment, If they will
resolve so far as legally possible to commit
this country in advance to what it inevi-
tably would have to do anyhow in event
of war, two things can be accomplished.
First, the prospective aggressors can be
unmistakably put on notice that this
country will not again make the error of
trying to sit out an attack on what Is left
of the free world. And second, our natural
allies will be given the encouragement that
they must have to take the risk of organ
izing for their own defense.
If we will do this, If we will assume the
maximum commitment to do what will
have to be done in any event, the proposed
security pact" can serve as a real deter
rent to war. If we will not do this then
we ought to stop talking about q security
pact. For any treaty which does not carry
at least moral commitment to fight
against aggression, and which is not
understood by all the world to carry such
commitment, will be nothing more than
another scrap of paper attesting the IT,
midity and short-sightedness of men who
ought to know better.