Pyrrhic Victory

By crying "wolf" at every roll-call, the United States is weakening the confidence of its allies at the United Nations. After two months of deadlock over the essentially unimportant question of filling a non-permanent Security Council seat, the U.S. is still backing the Philippines against Yugoslavia--the candidate of both the Soviet bloc and much of Asia and Western Europe. This policy of trying to twist each minor decision into a tactical triumph over Russia may show immediate results, but in the long run the U.S. is losing a much more strategic victory--the continuing respect of its U.N. allies.

In 1946 the United States agreed that Eastern Europe should hold one of the six non-permanent seats in order to provide a geographical balance on the Security Council. During the next six years, accordingly, Poland, the Ukraine, and Yugoslavia each held seats. And in 1951, although the U.S. broke with Russia and successfully pushed through Greece, this country still stood by the geographical understanding. Two years ago, however, the U.S. strayed from Eastern Europe to support Turkey. Its present candidate, the Philippines, may be in the East of Europe, but only by a long stretch of the imagination.

Actually, the U.S. now holds that its 1946 agreement was valid for that year only. Even though many Western European countries disagree, their real objection has been the uncompromising and adamant nature of the U.S. stand. As one delegate complained, "There was so much arm-twisting you could hear screams from behind every potted palm."

Instead of defending its position openly, the U.S. has attempted to coerce support for the Philippines. After the ninth ballot, on October 19, Ambassador Henry Cabot Lodge, Jr., moved to postpone the Security Council election and procede to elections for the Economic and Social Council. His tactic was obvious and Russia objected. Yugoslavia was also a candidate for ECOSOC, and according to an unwritten rule, if elected, it could not then serve on the Security Council. Despite objections, however, the Assembly voted, and Yugoslavia was elected with U.S. support. But lined up against the United States were Britain and the Commonwealth countries, the three Scandinavian states, the Benelux countries, as well as Israel, India, and Burma.

This unwritten rule, however, has been disregarded, and Yugoslavia is still a Security Council candidate. After 29 ballots, the deadlock continues, no compromise candidate has appeared and the Assembly's President is gravely concerned. The Assembly is scheduled to adjourn next week, and the terms of the present non-permanent Council members expire December 31. If one seat remains unfilled, "serious juridical obstacles" might arise. At the next voting, the President will probably call for continuous balloting until the required two-thirds majority supports one candidate.

The United States should never have allowed this impasse in the first place. Even if Yugoslavia were elected, the U.S. would not lose its virtual control of the Security Council, despite an occasional Yugoslav-Russian compact. Two voters are no more effective than one. If the U.S. bludgeons its allies into electing the Philippines, however, it will score only a Pyrrhic victory. In order to save face, the U.S. delegation could abstain from voting, itself, but it should put its tacit yet influential support behind Yugoslavia.