Evening star., 1951-01-22
The House to the u. N.


The House of Representatives has taken an
unusual and highly significant step in calling
upon the United Nations to stop dilly -dallying
and brand Red China as an aggressor in Korea.
In effect although the Senate is not expected to
act similarly, this throws powerful congressional
weight behind the proposal now being pressed by
our American delegation in the world organiza-
ton. OF course the U. Ms wavering non-Com-
muniSt members - particularly the Arab-ASian
bloc, which still seems eager for a Munich-like
appeasement deal-may not be Influenced by the
development, but they would be well advised not
to underestimate its Importance as measure Of
public opinion in this country.
For the House resolution-adopted by vir
tually unanimous voice vote-undoubtedly re-
fleets the sentiment of the overwhelming majority
of the American people. That sentiment draws
its fire and strength from two basic facts. The
first fact-a fact that naturally strs this Nations
emotions most deeply-is that the great bulk of
the U. MS forces in Korea is made up of young
men who have left the farms and cities of the
United States to fight and die for high purposes
in far-away corner of the globe. And the
second fact is this: That the Chinese Commu-
nists, by crminally intervening in the situation,
have grievously intensified the fighting and
dying and have demonstrated especially in their
contemptuous rejection of repeated cease-fire
proposals-that they are firmly committed to
black policy of aggression and open warfare
against the United Nations.
In such circumstances, how can one justify
failure to brand Red China as an aggressor? If
SO members of the u N. voted-as they did-to
put that label on the North Korean Communists
after the latter struck southwark across the 38th
Parallel last June, why should not the same label
now be put on Peiping? The North Korean armed
forces had been all but destroyed their crime had
been thoroughly punished and brought to prac-
tical end, when the Mao Tse-tung regime in
tervened in November to prevent the establish
ment of peace and the rule of law On what basis,
therefore, can any country argue that that regime
is not guilty of aggression? If it is not guilty,
then why were the Kremlins North Korean
puppets ever adjudged guilty? And why were
free men sent over there to shed their blood for
high purposes? Has it all been in vain? Have the
high purposes ceased being high, have they be-
come less real, have they been nullified or wiped
out, simply because the original criminal has
been replaced by bigger criminal with greater
power to mock and upend those purposes?
These are of the questions that the
American people asking themselves.
They are what account for the House resolution.
The real significance of that resolution Is that
it challenges the United Nations to act in keeping
with the main body of public opinion in this
sense proposition that no amount of diplomatic
subtlety or Machiavellian maneuvering can
obscure the fagrant fact that the Chinese Com
munistS are aggressors in Korea that they are
killing men who have been sent into battle to
uphold the rule of law in the world, and that
they ought therefore to be labeled for what they
really are. To say that this is not so, or to be
afraid to say It, to talk around it as if it were
doubtful, does as much violence to what we
regard as reality as to argue that the earth may
not be round or that two plus two do not neces-
sary make four
In short, the waverers and the faint of heart
in the United Nations should look very carefully
at the House resolution and realize that it speaks
for the American people-an aroused people, a
people accustomed to calling spade spade, a
people who want forthrightness in this situation
and who will certainly be hard put to retain their
faith in the U. N. If 1t fails to stand firm against
Red China The honor and integrity of the
world organization are at stake here. It cannot
yield to fear or unprincipled expediency without
risking the danger of an inglorious disntegra-
ton.