Untrustworthy?

Many Americans, while supporting the basic tenets of present U. S. foreign policy, find it difficult to place their country on the side of justice and fair play where the question of international trusteeships is concerned. These people include many who consistently attack Russia for her unilateral acts, but who, at the same time, wish to see their own country stand for principles universally applicable.

Months before the U. S. was officially at war, it went on record, through the signature of its chief executive and the overwhelming approval of its people, as seeking "no aggrandizement, territorial or otherwise." At almost every international gathering since then, American diplomats have steadfastly and admirably insisted on being the protectors of dependent peoples and non-self-governing areas, sometimes without much practical success. Especially since the institution of the Byrnes "patient but firm" policy toward Russia, rarely have the men of the various nations' foreign ministeries met without the U. S. representatives excoriating the Soviet Union for its actions of international bad faith and suspicion on this point. The American finger has been pointed at the Russians, often shaken under their noses for their treatment of the UN as another instrument of power politics and for their refusal to evacuate certain former enemy lands along her borders.

Thus, this nation finds itself in an embarrassing situation on the issue of UN trusteeships of non-self-governing areas, the details of which program incidentally was chiefly of American origin. Adamantly refusing to surrender to anyone the banner of all-out support of the UN and its principles, the U. S. at the same time hears its political leaders insist on the annexation, outright or by subterfuge, of the Pacific islands which were taken from the Japanese during and after the war. The latest of these utterances stems from a report on these islands by a House Naval Affairs subcommittee, in which statement not once did these Congressmen so much as allude to the trusteeship system, while even ignoring the United Nations as an interested body in its proposals. In population and area, these islands are indeed insignificant compared to the states now under the firm control of other major powers. But, if the main strength of America's position in the world is to rest on something more than military might, it can ill-afford to brush off remarks about the inconsistency of her stand in an annoyed mood of indignation.

It would not be as vexing to the more conscientious of America's foreign policy shapers did not the UN Charter specifically list as one of the three types of trusteeship territories: "Territorities which may be detached from enemy states as a result of the second World War." (Article 77). Another source of annoyance was the action of old-time imperialist nations, such as England, France and Belgium, along with Australia and New Zealand in giving to the authority of the Trusteeship Council former mandate territories (another group specifically mentioned in the Charter as potential trustee lands) with a total area of 710,000 square miles and a population of almost fifteen millions.

Certainly, lip service diplomacy on issues as clearly drawn as this does not serve to increase this country's popularity abroad nor does it remove telling ammunition from the arms of those who can use it most effectively against the United States in diplomatic struggles.