Evening star. [volume] (Washington, D.C.) 1854-1972, 1956-11-16
Defend U. N.

Although I do not question
his right, I do question the
wisdom Of Clarkson ]. Beall's
announcement that he has no
faith in the United Nations.
From his reasoning I wonder
how much faith he had in it in
the first place, or hope for it,
at least enough to give it a
chance in preference to war.
The problems he lists as still
unsolved in spite of the exist
ence of the U. N. were not
created by the U. NJ, but its ex-
istence has meant a slowing
up of Warlike forces and q
necessity of taking world opin-
ion into account before and
during shooting, although for
some it has given the oppor-
tunity for what Mr.. Beall calls
talk without action" Big
talk and little action have
been human failings for time
immemorial without the U. N.
Without the help of the u. N.
we engage in it ourselves and
many Americans like nothing
better than the luxury of
preaching noble sermons to the
world. calling upon everyone
else to change his ways while
we bask' in our virtue.
1t is big talk for Mr.. Beall
to imply that without the
U. N. the free nations, great
and small. would have had
more ability to 'achieve JUS
tice or to successfully aid those
for whom World War II was in
large part commenced and
brought through to victory"
1t is big talk, and nothing
more, unless Mr.. Beall can tell
US what his alternative is other
than q big war. We were not
ready to go to war to save
China and her 500 million-odd
people from being sacrificed to
communism, not because Of
the U. N. but because we did
not want to get begged down
in a war for which we were not
prepared and whose outcome
would have been questionable.
Gen. Eisenhower was originally
elected President not on the
promise of going to war over
China but on the promise of
stopping a war in Korea
which had already been
stopped months before but was
lowering over stalemated ne
gotiations.
Liberty and justice still
fare badly in the world in spite
Of the existence Of the u. N.
Our alternatives, however, are
war or isolation. What will
either Of these, /. in turn, ask
Mr.. Beall, do for liberty and
justice?
Sidney KOretz.
Dorothy Thompson, usually
matter Of fact and down to
earth, appears, in her column
Of November 5, to be confused
on the question of whether or
not the nations of the world
can establish a world rule Of
law or should continue to
middle along, as they always
have. each with its own blind,
selfish interests uppermost.
Miss Thompson appears to
favor a policy of standing
aside; Of "minding our own
business" playing the neutral
and noble bystander and then,
at the opportune 90 moment,
using that position to limit and
reconcile such conflicts as may
arise between others. Isn't that
what was tried without success
in World Wars / and II? That
policy may sometimes enable
the big fellows to keep peace
among the small fry nations
but the world now is demand
ing that peace be kept between
the big fellows.
The world yearns for endur-
ing peace as 1t never has be-
fore. because Of the possibility
OF achieving that goal through
the only feasible instrument it
may possibly have; i.e.. through
a United Nations authorized
and empowered to maintain
order between all nations. At
present, It can only exert moral
pressure because It is little
more than a forum--a sort Of
safety valve for the release Of
less than overwhelming pres
sures. II Is vitality necessary
that the big nations. as well as
the little ones. realize that in
ternational law and order Is as
imperative as internal law and
order. order, enforced under
Just law. has always worked
within nations. We must give
1t a chance to work between
nations.
Miss Thompson's column
may not mourn the death Of
an illusion. but the interna-
tionalists mourn the imminent
death Of the world. wiz the
human race at last begin 70
think and plan for what must
be1 G. w. Van Tilburg.