Evening star. [volume] (Washington, D.C.) 1854-1972, 1955-12-18
Lesson in immortality

We can learn something, II we VIII,
from the case of Spain and the United
Nations.
Spain was admitted to the U. N.
last week without single dissenting vote.
And it is strange that so little attention
has been paid to this event. For the
effect was to wipe from the slate cynical
and immoral chapter in the U. N. story.
Back in 1916 the Security Council was
urged to denounce Spain as threat to
International peace and to take drastic
measures against the Franco regime. This
move was initiated by Poland and backed
by the Soviet Union. But the charge that
Spain was threatening the peace of the
world was so transparency phony that
the scheme fell through in the Security
Council. The matter was referred instead
to the General Assembly, and that body
passed resolution calling upon all U. N.
members to withdraw their ambassadors
from Madrid. This was an attempt, in
plain violation of the U. N. Charter, to
undermine the Franco government
The U. N. lived with this piece OF
political fakery for about four years.
During that interval our own policy was
W Uc doAAd1AiCO Va
We knew that the resolution was morally
wrong, we knew that it was Self-defeating
and we knew that it was playing into the
hands of the Communists and injuring
the real interests of the United States
and the United Nations 1t was not until
late 1850, however, that we finally screwed
up enough courage to announce that we
would vote to reScind the resolution, ana
1t finally was rescinded. Now, the same
Spain, the same Franco, are welcomed
into the u ~ without a single dissent.
This experience in immortality is in
teresting, and possibly of some signifi-
canoe, against the background of the
threats to expel Nationalist China from
the U. N. because it vetoed the member
ship application of Outer Mongolia. The
veto was just as right as the Soviet
attempt to force acceptance Of Outer
Mongolia was wrong. Whether China's
veto was inspired by moral reason, or
by some other reason, is beside the point.
It was the right thing to do. Is the U. N.
going to attempt to expel Nationalist
China because 1t had the courage to
stand up, in the face of great pressure,
for what was right? Are we going to
Join in such an undertaking, or stand by,
as we did in the case of Spain, wringing
our hands and saying that we can't
decide what to do? If so, nothing has
been learned from the lesson Of Spain.
Still another unhappy experiment In
immortality will lie ahead.
This is not to say that the status
of Nationalist China must remain for
ever unchanged. If the U. N. can well
come the Spain that it scorned nine years
ago, if the West can weep in anguish at
the Soviet rejection of a japan which
was utterly beyond the pale only decade.
ago, even a small intelligence would sug-
gest that nothing is fixed or certain. 1t
may be that another decade will find US
striving for an alliance with Red China
against Russia, or possibly with Russia
against Red China. But this does not
alter one essential fact. To attempt to
expel Nationalist China because some
one doesn't like Chang Kai-shek would
be just as morally wrong and just as
morally indefensible as the Inflated at
tempt to condemn Spain because some
people did not like Franco.