Evening star., 1951-05-06
Arms and Red Chino

To put it mildly, it is extremely difficult to
understand why some countries whose troops
are fighting side by side with ours in the Korean
war-have indicated opposition to our American
proposal to have the United Nations General
Assembly recommend that an arms embargo be
clamped down on Red China.
Under the proposal, the Assembly would:
Q) Call upon all members not to send arms,
ammunition or war-potential materials to China;
(2) urge that steps be taken to guard against
circumvention or notification of the embargo
through loopholes that might enable the Chi
nese Communists to acquire the banned goods;
and CD set up a special committee to receive
periodic reports from the complying states and
to take other measures aimed at making the
program as effective as possible.
The only real question to be asked about this
plan is why it isn't already in effect. The over
whelming majority Of the U. N. has long since
branded Red China as an aggreSsor. More than
a dozen members are participating directly with
the United States in the heroic military action
against the common enemy in Korea Their
troops are being shot at and killed by the Chi
nese Communists Why then should there be
any hesitancy about imposing an arms embargo
on the latter?
Actually, despite dangerous leakages like.
Britains shockingly large rubber shipments to
China (shipments that came under belated con-
troll early last MONTH, most members of the
u N.-particularly those taking direct part in
the Korean war-have been blocking the flow of
strategic materials to the Chinese Communists
for some months past. Indeed, according to
authoritative estimates, Red China's imports of
those materials from the non-Soviet world have
been cut off to point where they now amount
to only five or ten per cent of their former
volume. Nevertheless, several of our Allies. in
cluding Britain, Australia and Canada, are re-
ported to be decidedly cool to the idea of having
the General Assembly take formal action on an
embargo
The. opposition to the proposal is based
apparently, on the feeling that it would have the
effect of intensifying Peiping's hostility and thus
decreasing the possibility of negotiated settle
ment. But the reasoning here seems very weak
What makes more sense is the view expressed
by Ernest Gross, Deputy United States Repre-
sentative in the U. N In his judgment, an
Assembly declared embargo. besides helping to
Systematize and tighten up present shipping
bans, would serve as further proof of the U MS
unity against aggression and might induce the
Chinese Communists to negotiate"
Be that as it may-and it may be wishful-
it is certainly hard to see as MIR. Gross has said
how "any member of the U. NJ who supports
U. NJ action in Korea could reasonably object
to determination by the U. N. that no U. ~
soldier should be the target of bullet manu.
factured in the free world"
This is a matter beyond argument, and it
involves more than cold logic or simple common
sense. 1t involves great moral obligation as
well-the obligation of the U. NJ to see to it that
the brave men fighting and dying against agrees
sion in Korea are not forced to face the added
jeopardy of having their homelands fail to i'm
pose the tightest possible arms embargo on Red
China :