Retort

For those internationalists who expected that, with the establishment of the United Nations, sweet reasonableness would supplant power as the keystone of world diplomacy, Mr. Vishinsky's petulant outburst before the General Assembly must have been quit a shock. The provocation for all the sound and fury, Secretary Marshall's proposals for circumventing the Security Council and the veto in certain instances, were logically constructed to increase the effectiveness of U.N.'s authority; and the recommendations were backed by overwhelming support from world opinion as measured in the General Assembly.

But there should not be too much surprise at the vehemence of Russian reaction. Mr. Vishinsky was not primarily slurring either Secretary Marshall's logic or his good intentions. Rather he was voicing Russia's unwillingness to weaken her power position. Deplorable, perhaps, but rather inevitable. From 1917 to 1933, actually to 1941, Russia was a pariah nation. Except for her satellites, she stands alone among a U.N. membership that proffers at least verbal homage to the ideology of the western democracies. To Russia the veto power is an indispensable protection against U.N. actions which would be undesirable from the Russian point of view.

The United States and Great Britain are aware of their intentions to act only in the interest of world peace and security. But Russia may not share that awareness. And even if she did, there is no assurance that the long range interest of the world community is identical with the immediate interest of the U.S.S.R. Russia needs bad foreign relations. Russian workers could not cheerfully sacrifice the production of consumer goods to the upbuilding of heavy industry if it were not possible for their leaders to point to unsettled diplomatic conditions and the possibility of "capitalistic encirclement."

Tears of sympathy need not be shed for the plight of the misunderstood and isolated Russians. Fat has dealt them one of the strongest hands at the international poker table. If they choose to play with a blatant disregard for the best established principles of Dale Carnegic, they should not expect that the other participants will smilingly throw in their hands. At the same time, any talk of reorganizing the U.N. without Russian membership is decidedly unrealistic. The U.N. without Russia would meet the same disaster that befell the League of Nations without the United States. The important issues of the day are those involving conflict among the U.S., Britain, and Russia. While it may be too much to expect that the U.N. should resolve these conflicts, if must at least be able to live with them. Otherwise, Finishing Meadows will join Geneva as just another tourist attraction.

But, if there is no cause for joy over the way in which Russia received the Marshall proposal, there is certainly good reason for satisfaction in the fact that the proposals were made. For the second time in four months the United States has taken the initiative in offering a program for promoting peace and security. The two Marshall plans, made successively in the Harvard address and at Flushing Meadows, support the belief that finally the United States has assumed the mantle of leadership among peace loving nations, and that henceforth its great power and prestige will be actual rather than potential factors in the struggle for peace.