Evening star., 1961-09-26
Some Light on Berlin


things in his eloquent address to the
United Nations General Assembly. 1t
seemed to us, however that his most
meaningful remarks were those directed
to "the crisis over Germany and Berlin"
1t is true, as the President said,
that any solution of the problem of
finding successor to Dag Hammar-
skiold which diminishes the authority
OF the U. N. Secretary General will also
diminish the authority "of the only
body where all nations, regardless of
power, are equal and sovereign" If one
believes (there are many who do not)
that the smallest, most primitive, state
should have voice equal to that of the
most advanced and strongest nation,
then this is persuasive point which
ought to carry weight with the So-called
neutrals.
1t is also true, as Mr.. Kennedy
stressed in his remarks on disarmament,
that the mere existence of weapons 10
million times more destructive than
anything the world has known before is
of itself an unsettling factor, and that
'in Spiralling arms race a nations
security may we'll be shrinking even as
its arms increase" Any prospect of dis
armament, however, lies in the future,
perhaps the distant future. This is a
subject which makes a good talking
point, but we do not think that either
Mr.. Kennedy or Mr. Khrushchev enter
tains any serious thought that it is
feasible at this time.
The problem which Immediately
confrontS the world is the avoidance of
Z war; if it can be avoided. And the
threat of war is ever-preSent both in
Berlin and in Southeast Asia. The
President did not dwell at length on the
latter. But his comments on Berlin
were pointed and relatively explicit.
Nettled, perhaps, by charges of
irresolution, Mr.. Kennedy stated once
again that the West is not going to
capitulate in Berlin. "The Western
powers" he said, have calmly resolved
to defend, by whatever means are forced
upon them, their obligations and their
access to the free citizens of West Berlin
and the self-determination of those
citizens" This is reiteration of a
commitment which ought to be taken
Seriously-in the Kremlin and by the
Presidents critics at home and abroad.
At the same time, doubtless with the
prospect of negotiations in mind, Mr..
Kennedy said that we are committed to
no rigid (Berlin) formula and that we
seek no perfect solution. With reference
to Mr.. Khrushchev's threat to sign
separate peace treaty with East Ger
many, the President also interjected
this observation: "The Western Allies
are not concerned with any paper
arrangements the Soviets wish to make
with regime of their own creation, on
territory occupied by their own troops
and governed by their own agents"
In this sentence, as we read it, he
was saying that the West can live with
a separate peace treaty-provided it
does not cut across the rights or prin-
ciples which we have committed our
selves to defend If this is the correct
Interpretation, and if the West is
committed to no rigid Berlin formula,
there should be room for useful nego
tiationS with the misunderstanding
Of course, that they would rather
negotiate than force the issue to the
point of war In any event, it is this
question of Berlin which most immi-
nently threatens the peace of the world,
which plainly lies most heavily on the
Presidents mind, and which prompted
him to say that "the events and deci-
. 1sions of the next 10 months may we'll
decide the fate of man for the next
10000 years"