Evening star., 1950-10-31
u. ). Decision 10 VII
Any Substitute for Il
Is Called Justified
1t Could Mean Refuse
To Admit Red China
To U. NJ, Writer Says
By David Layyence

The United States Goverlent
may have Observation-Disclosures
haps purposely-made a d$ion
to use the veto for the firstime
in the Security Council 3 the
United Nations, which, albugh
on a different matter. couldean
an adamant refusal to admitom-
munist China as a pertinent
member of the council.
The United States has lonhesi-
tated to use the veto. Thpther
day, when the question per-
mitting other candidatesb re-
place Trygve Lie as U. Nsecre-
tary-general was up for pnsid-
Grafton, American Delegat War
rem Austin said frankly b the
press that. if necessary, + veto
would be used. This waSwidely
heralded as the first threspn the
part of the United Stateto use
the veto power.
But in the background this
decision something else qaes up
for consideration. The United
States had announced bbre the
outbreak of the Korean pr that,
If the other members of e coun-
Gil favored the admissiorf Com
munist China, there wod be no
use Of the veto and themerican
Government would abb by the
wishes Of the majority
Reds Played Dangero Role.
The Communists of Cna, how
ever, have played a danrous role
in the Korean affair. hey have
denounced the Unite6tates as
an aggressor and havethoed the
party line fof MoscowiThe Chl-
nese Communists, mopver, nave
been sending militia equipment
to aid the Korean Re{to DO bat
tie against the U. N.orces. 10
day word comes ths Chinese
regiment has been tentlneo as
part of the North Hean forces.
In the face of althese 1acts.
the United States an conteno
that the situation With respect
tn Communist Chihhas changed
since June Is, whf the Korean
war broke ont. andhat military
control of all Chin by one gov
ernnent is not thsole criterion.
Rather It can be gued that the
hostility of the mmunlst gov
eminent in Chin8o the u. N. is
in itself a majoreason why ao-
mission should oenleo.
Nor can the uted States now
sav that to usethe veto would
be a bad precedat. Up to now,
II has been poijed out that the
excessive use othe veto by the
Russians was Shclent cause 1or
restraint on th part of the free
nations in usir the veto.
Substajial Issue.
But the repns advanced by
the United SITES in announcing
q willingness b use the veto to
prevent the ection of someone
other than Tgve Lie as secre-
tary-general qcluded a statement
that, to do therwise, would be
to condone rssia's course in the
Korean affal
It is admitted by the Russians
that they oppose Trygve Lie only
because he summoned the U. N.
Security Cdncil into session last
June and flped to get the pro-
cedure int operation for U. N.
resistance 10 aggression. This is
o substanHl issue and one which
the Amerikn Government is right
In defininl but it is not more i'm
portant tan the admission OF a
governmdt which not only de-
nounced he U. N. as aggressors
but also brnished military assist
ance to]attempt to defeat the
efforts d the U. N. forces.
The vto was originally inserted
in the i N. Charter because of a
belief oI the part of both the late
PRESIDED Roosevelt and Marshal
Stain that each Of the major
powers would wish to protect
their sKereignty in the interna-
tional fganization and that mat
ters aecting their own vital in
terestswould not be submitted to
majorty vote.
Buthere never was any thought
that | nation which itself was
involfd directly or indirectly in
an aggression should be permitted
to us the veto or block the en-
forcment of a rule of law in the
worl. So, in appraising the fu-
tureit Is clear that a vote to keep
out II the U. N. Security Council
D n4ion hostile to the purposes of
the D. N. itself is a logical exercise
Of he veto power in a matter of
grelt substance.
tReproduction Rights Reserved.