International: From Where to Where?

Everybody said that San Francisco made progress. But how much and what kind of progress, from where to where? Was the charter just Dumbarton Oaks festooned with a Spanish moss of phrases? Or did it bring the world nearer to genuine world government?

Only 25% of the San Francisco charter was picked up from the Big Powers’ original Dumbarton Oaks draft. That 25% was still the backbone of the charter and of the new United Nations organization. But-the changes were many and important. Mostly they came in stating the purposes and principles of the organization and in the “curative” functions designed to deal with the underlying causes of war. In these provisions, the charter represented real progress toward real internationalism.

Which Is the Scenery? Big Power dominance was still intact. People primarily concerned with this fact looked upon such subsidiaries as the Economic and Social Council and such provisions as the statement of purposes and principles as mere window-dressing. But they were more than that.

By building up the curative aspects of the charter, the United Nations in time might be able to alter a world environment which, unaltered, would not permit any world organization to function effectively. Said one of the U.S. delegation’s hopeful consultants:

“Obviously the enforcement machinery won’t work in the cases where it will be needed most—disputes between the great powers. The Security Council, the joint military staffs, are just so much scenery. The real guts of this charter are in the parts which attempt to set up constructive goals toward which all the powers can strive together. The Security Council is defective because in it power is too concentrated. The General Assembly is defective because El Salvador and Liberia are unrealistically given as many votes as the U.S. and Great Britain. These defects won’t be remedied unless the world changes enough to make major improvements possible. And the world won’t change unless the curative provisions of the present charter are used to bring about the change.”

“We, the Peoples.” Dumbarton Oaks had no preamble at all, scarcely a mention of right or justice. The new charter has a preamble which is loaded with principled phrases (see above). Perhaps cynics who scorned the affirmations of faith in tolerance, freedom, equality, hu man dignity and better standards of life forgot that whole economic and social programs had been based upon an equally vague phrase in the U.S. Constitution: “to promote the general welfare.” The section on purposes and principles, greatly strengthened, declares one of the organization’s purposes to be the promotion of human rights and fundamental freedoms for all, “without distinction as to race, sex, language or religion.” But this section contains a serious res ervation: except where an actual breach of international peace has occurred or is imminent, the United Nations may not intervene in matters “essentially within the domestic jurisdiction” of a member nation.

At the Roots. The charter recognizes that “conditions of stability and well-being are . . . necessary for peaceful and friendly relations among nations” and takes a measure of responsibility for creating such conditions.

To carry out this program the General Assembly will control the Economic and Social Council, the Trusteeship Council and certain specialized agencies established by intergovernmental agreement.

The Economic and Social Council is empowered to call international conferences and draft conventions for submission to the Assembly. It may consult directly on a regular basis with non-governmental agencies such as business and labor groups.

The Trusteeship Council for dependent territories is guided by a statement of principles recognizing the paramount interests of the governed. The administering power is pledged to develop self-govern ment (but not necessarily independence) in trust territories. These guarantees are only theoretical — the Council as yet has no territories to protect — but the beginning is promising.

The Future & Ben Franklin. The charter provides for future change. At the end of ten years simple majorities of the Assembly and of the Security Council may call another conference to review and amend. But all of the Big Powers must accept the amendments. If the Big Powers are still as big and still in the same state of mind, amendment will be as difficult in 1955 as in 1945.

None of the changes at San Francisco materially alter Big Power control of the all-powerful Security Council, or make the new organization any less impotent to deal with disagreements among the Big Powers. At base, the charter is still a Big Power alliance. But there is this vital and heartening difference: the lesser powers now are parties to the alliance, and in minor respects may even press their views upon the controlling partners. And they have at hand machinery to build up their role and importance in the new United Nations.

Many a San Francisco delegate and observer, obsessed during the conference by the Big Power conflicts (see below), was pleasantly surprised when the job was done and the charter could be read as a whole. Some of them (notably Arthur Vandenberg—see U.S. AT WAR) felt like saying, as Ben Franklin did, after the U.S. Constitution was drafted in 1787: “I confess I do not entirely approve of this constitution at present. … I consent . . . because I expect no better and because I am not sure it is not the best. . . . It astonishes me, Sir, to find this system approaching so near to perfection as it does.”