Faculty Members Differ On Ike's Atomic Agency

Faculty members differed last night in appraising President Eisenhower's speech before the United Nations yesterday. Louis L. Jaffe, professor of Law, called Eisenhower's suggestions "admirable," but said he had "little hope that they would prove practical."

Eisenhower had called for co-operation of the Soviet Union in establishing international atomic energy agency to develop peaceful potential of the atom. The President added that he was prepared to submit this plan to Congress, with every expectation of approval.

Jaffe said that "In view of the record of the United Nations, it is questionable that such a plan could be negotiated. As long as all the nations put self-interest foremost, the program could be deterred by political maneuvers."

Holcombe Dissents

Arthur N. Holcombe, professor of Government, disagreed with this view. "The President's proposals were sensible ones," Holcombe said, "There is a very good chance that the United Nations will adopt it." Holcombe thinks that the Russians would be afraid to stay out. "It will be too dangerous," he said, "to be isolated."

Agreeing with Jaffe, Robert G. McCloskey, assistant professor of Government, said that "unless Eisenhower has some way to persuade the Russians to undergo effective and extensive inspection of their atomic developments, his suggestions are not very valuable."

McCloskey recalled that many of the same proposals were made five years ago by Bernard Baruch, but that efforts to initiate international control have continually been squelched because the Soviet Union refused to allow inspection by foreigners.

Point Four Plan

Specifically, President Eisenhower's address covered four points. He advocated: "First--Encourage worldwide investigation into the most effective peacetime uses of fissionable material.

"Second--Begin to diminish the potential destructiveness of the world's atomic stockpiles.

"Third--Allow all peoples of all nations to see that, the great powers of the earth . . . are interested in human aspiration first and foremost rather than in building up the armaments of war.

"Fourth--Open up a new channel for peaceful discussion and initiate at least a new approach to the many difficult problems that must be solved . . . if the world is to shake off the inertia imposed by fear and make progress toward peace."