Evening star., 1951-05-11
No Appeosement'

General Marshalps testimony before Senator
Russelrs committee has been described as giving
unequivocal assurance that there will be no set
tlement in Korea which rewards the aggressor.
It seems to The Star, however, that the Generals
initial statement is far from being unequivocal
on this point.
What he actually said was this 1.-THE position
which the United States has taken in the United
Nations in connection with such (Korean) ne
gotiations is that this Government will not
oppose discussion of these questions. In such
discussions, however, am confident that the
United States will continue to adhere to its pres
ent position, namely, that it will oppose any set
tlement Of the Korean conflict which would
reward the aggreSSor in any manner whatever,
and 1t will oppose the attempt of any nation or
regime to shoot its way into the United Nations"
That Is not an unequivocal statement. It
merely says that the United States will oppose"
a settlement which would reward the aggressor
and that 1t will oppose" any attempt by the
Chinese Communists to shoot their way into the
U. N. It does not say-and the distinction could
be important-that this Government will reject
or refuse to accept either of these things
General Marshall said yesterday that he thinks
we should veto Red China's admission to the
u N. if necessary. He did not say whether the
administration shares this view0
Last January's U. N truce proposals serve as
an illustration. General Marshall told the COM
mittee that the established policy of the United
States was to deny Formosa to Communist China
and to oppose their admission to the U. N. There
has been no deviation from that policy whatso-
ever" he testified.
But, to degree at least, there has been
deviation With other things, the January truce
proposals called for a cease-f1re Then, under
Point 5. it was provided that as soon as agree
ment is reached on a cease-fre, the General
Assembly should set up committee consisting
OF representatives Of Britain, the United States
the Soviet Union and the Chinese Communists
to try to achieve settlement in conformity with
existing international obligations and the u NJ
Charter. of Far Eastern problems, specifically
Formosa and admission of Red China to the U. N.
Under instruction from this Government, our
delegate in the U. N. voted for this proposals.
proposal which obligated us, unless we were
acting in bad faith to try to settle the questions
of Formosa and u NJ membership for the Chinese
Communists.
It may well be that we were gambling on the
expectation that the Chinese would reject the
truce proposals. which they did. But If they had
been accepted, If, after cease-1re, we had sat
down with the British, the Russians, and the
Chinese Communists to discuss those questions
we would have found ourselves minority of one
and we certainly would have been guilty OF bad
faith if we had then said that the Reds could not
have Formosa and could not come into the U. N
The chances are that we would have said nothing
of the sort, but rather that, after formally op-
posing those demands, would have been obliged
to yield to them.
So it is not entirely accurate for General
Marshall to say that we have never deviated from
our position And it is not entirely reassuring
when he says that we now will oppose giving
Formosa to the Communists and letting them
enter the U. N. He could have used unequivocal
language had he wanted to take an unequivocal
stand