Evening star., 1951-01-25
Mr.. Nehru Takes His Stand

If the press dispatches have accurately re-
ported Prime Minister Nehrus speech at New
Delhi, it is hardly possible to avoid the conclusion
that he is resigned to- if not eager for peace
at-any- y-price settlement with the Chinese Com
munists.
Nowhere in this report is there hint or
suggestion that Mr.. Nehru condemns what the
Chinese Communists have done in Korea. On
the contrary, his criticism is reserved for the
United Nations. Changes in ASIA he said have
upset the balance of power, and because the
United Nations did not recognize this, "the diff
f1cultieS arose and continue to trouble u.s.
Whatever this may mean, one thing is clear.
The United Nations did recognize the fact of
aggression when the North Koreans attacked.
And the U. N, with the support of India, did act
to resist that aggression. The intervention Of
the Chinese, whether regards it move in
support Of the North Korean aggression or as
separate Chinese act of aggression, cannot alter
the basic facts And the outstanding fact among
these is that the armies of Red China are en-
gagged in open aggression in Korea, and are openly
waging war on the United Nations army there.
It Is strange indeed that a man who processes
devotion to peace and justice can see nothing
wrong in this, or If he does see wrong, cannot
bring himself to condemn it.
Mr. Nehru expressed the "fervent hope" to
the nations of Asia that they will stand by the
methods of peace, whatever happens" What does
this mean? Is Mr.. Nehru saying that no matter
what the U. N. may recommend, and no matter
what the Chinese Communists may do, the ma
tions of Asia should stand by the methods OF
peace" presumably meaning negotiations and
nothing more?
It looks very much as though Mr.. Nehru
has taken his stand in favor of abject appease-
ment of a criminal aggression. That, Of course,
is his privilege. But the United Nations should
beware of following Mr.. Nehru down that road,
for it has certain obligations in this matter.
The u. N sent an army into Korea in support
of principle. Thousands of young men in that
army have been killed, and thousands more have
been manned. If the u. N. wishes to survive, 1t
will think twice before entering into any deal
which would result in an abandonment of that
principle and betrayal of the young men who
have suffered and died in its name.
There is one thing more to be kept in mind.
The U. N cannot hope to draw strength from
men or governments who waver and turn aside
when the road grows hard and dangerous There
have always been such men and such govern
ments and they have always weakened when the
chips were down. If the U. N. wishes to survive
as constructive force, 1t must look for its sup
port and its strength to those whose resolution
and courage are of higher order These people,
in all countries, are watching to see what the
u. N does about this Chinese aggression. If the
final decision is to do nothing, or to accept some
form of settlement which bows to the aggressor,
the people who might have supported the U. N.
will then know that its usefulness has ended.
And if that happens one more attempt at COZ
ective security will have to be written off; once
again the nations that long for peace and Sc
curity will have failed in their purpose to resist
aggression-not because they were shown to be
unable to resist it but because they lacked the
courage to really try.