In the present climate of opinion it is customary to view the attitudes and actions of the USSR in the United Nations — as elsewhere — as dictated only by malice and evil.

Since the gravest issues of peace and war may hinge upon the assessment which is made of the Soviet attitude, it is essential to seek an understanding of the ideas and forces which have shaped it. We have, therefore, attempted in the first place to assess the Soviet position as Moscow may see it, in some instances deliberately giving the benefit of the doubt, where doubt plausibly enters in, to the Soviet side; but the elements of explanation which have inevitably intruded themselves reflect the western frame of reference. The word “may” is in italic since this is necessarily an essay in interpretation; Soviet pronouncements obviously cover only part of the story and have their strong propaganda implications and limitations.

The main purpose of this article is to try to make clear what in the present condition of the world we can legitimately expect the United Nations to do: a) as regards the maintenance; and b) if aggression should unfortunately recur, as regards the restoration of world peace. These are two very different matters; and it is possible to believe that the first is more important than the second. For the United Nations will certainly have achieved its major purpose if there is no third world war; whereas, if there is, the issue will only to a comparatively minor degree be decided by the United Nations. I know that, stated so bluntly, this thesis may not be accepted by everybody; but the general trend of any argument will be that prevention is better than cure, more particularly if the cure involves the indiscriminate plastering of large areas with atomic bombs and “other weapons of mass destruction”.

The conduct of the foreign relations of a state within the framework of a general international organization to maintain peace and security presents problems of a special character. Participation in such an organization implies the acceptance of commitments with respect to the purposes and objectives of policy and the methods to be pursued in the achievements of these ends. In addition, participation in anything more than name requires that consideration be shown for the points of view and special concerns of other participants and that an honest effort be made to achieve a consensus which embodies an accommodation of national interests and attitudes. The pursuit of such a course is likely to present a formidable challenge to a country which has been accustomed in the past to pursue a largely independent course in its foreign relations and which has not felt the necessity of cooperating closely with other countries in the furtherance of important national interests.

It is just over a year since General Eisenhower exchanged the academic robes he had donned so shortly before for the uniform with which his name and fame were more closely related. This time, despite the ”US” on his lapels, he became, as he has said, only ”one-twelfth” American. The eleven-twelfths he dedicated to the other nations of the North Atlantic Treaty Organization. To that body, and its goal of European cooperation for defense against aggression, he has devoted a full measure of his time and energy.

When M. Schuman first presented his celebrated Plan over two years ago, American views, official and public, were divided between an easy cynicism and a careless rapture. Optimism was stirred by the promise of a unity of European peoples, achieving strength, peace and prosperity through their mutual interests in producing coal and steel. Cynicism amused itself with a vision of a new bureaucracy, exercising new controls through the monster international cartel hidden beneath M. Schuman's diplomatic dress. All groups of opinion, materialistic and democratic in outlook, would have agreed that the Plan, however conceived and dedicated, could not long endure unless it touched the popular heart through raising the standard of living. Here, as elsewhere, Americans looked for Europe's salvation in the joy, excitement, strength and sense of human kinship that is supposed to come from successfully executed achievements in engineering.

That politics, and especially international politics, is the art of compromise is a cliché of ancient standing. This, however, does not deprive it of a certain value if we make it our task to examine the factors of ideology and interest which were responsible for the introduction of radical innovations into the structure of international organization. The story of the acceptance of the Mandate System is a case in point.

The International Health Conference, convened by the United Nations in New York in the summer of 1946, adopted a Constitution for a World Health Organization. It set up an Interim Commission of persons designated by eighteen named states to prepare for the First World Health Assembly and to carry on tasks inherited from previous international organizations. Unexpected delays in ratifications of the Constitution obliged the Interim Commission to operate for two years. WHO has thus been free to shape its destiny only from the time of the First World Health Assembly in the summer of 1948; it began its work formally as of September 1, 1948. The activities from 1946 to 1948 were largely determined by heritages from earner organizations; these, indeed, dominated the first program of WHO. The intervening three years have witnessed new trends, which some observers applaud and others view with doubt, if not alarm. It may be fruitful at this time to record some of these trends, to note the pressures which caused them and their implications for WHO's program and work-plan.

The state of China — a nation of possibly 460,000,000 people — has been a Member of the United Nations since the foundation of that organization in 1945. As a Member, China is legally entitled to representation in United Nations organs unless and until, pursuant to preventive or enforcement action taken by the Security Council, the exercise of the rights and privileges of membership may be suspended by the General Assembly upon recommendation of the Security Council. The representatives of China in United Nations organs from 1945 to the present have been accredited by the National Government of the Republic of China. By the end of 1949 control over the mainland of China and over perhaps 450,000,000 people had passed from the National Government to the (communist) “Central People's Government of the People's Republic of China,” the effective control of the National Government having been reduced largely to the island of Formosa.

Eight years ago the United States set out, at the request of American editors and press associations, to increase the amount of information available to its own and other peoples through international compacts. What began as a project for lowering barriers to the gathering and transmission of news soon developed into an effort to assure freedom of information and expression to all peoples in the belief that without such basic freedoms there can be no other enduring freedoms and very little progress towards the good life.

International Organization, no longer the exclusive preserve of dreamers and idealists, is now, for better or for worse, one of the palpable realities of world politics. Whether we choose to consider it our best hope or a snare and a delusion or something in between, we are compelled to reckon with its effects, one of which is the foreseeable cost of non-participation in it. Its characteristic features – public debate, parliamentary procedures and resolution, majorities and voting blocs – all have become instruments of undeniable and indeed often painful efficacy in international relations. A review conference for the purpose of evaluating the experience of the first ten years of Charter operations is scheduled for 1955. Meanwhile, institutional developments within the framework of the Charter occur constantly, and call for policy decisions based on a profound understanding of how this or that change is likely to affect the international scene. In this situation, the publication of the first comprehensive history of the League of Nations must be considered a significant event.

There is today a new kind of international agreement which, going beyond general provisions and vague expressions of goodwill, has proved to be of immediate, practical consequence. Cooperative radio agreements or, as they are sometimes called, “agreements for mutual assistance”, provide the legal and organizational framework for international relations among broadcasting services in sixteen European countries. At the same time, some of them constitute a basis for the collaboration and coordination of communist-controlled stations, and thus for spreading and strengthening Soviet propaganda; they effectively supplement military and economic ties of the Cominform group in the fields of information and mass communications. Their provisions reflect a new trend in international law, taking into account technical and cultural factors as well as legal considerations, political and economic interests. Although no less than thirty-two agreements have been concluded during the last five years – some also by broadcasting organizations in western Europe – they are little known outside the countries directly concerned.

United Nations Commission to Investigate Conditions for Free Elections in Germany: In May the United Nations commission submitted its report to the Assembly covering the period from February 11 to April 30, 1952. On February 11 the first meeting of the commission, composed of the representatives of Brazil, Iceland, Netherlands and Pakistan, was convened in Paris. Later from Geneva the commission requested the Chairman of the Allied High Commission for Germany and the Chairman of the Soviet Control Commission for Germany that meetings be arranged between the commission and the appropriate authorities. The Chairman of the Allied High Commission complied with the request; no answer was received from the Soviet commission. Nevertheless, the commission went to Germany where it stayed from March 16 to 23.

The seventh regular session of the United Nations General Assembly convened at the United Nations Headquarters in New York on Tuesday, October 14, 1952, to consider an agenda which included, in addition to administrative, legal and financial items, the reports of various organs and agencies of the United Nations, and the continuing problems of Korea, the limitation and reduction of armaments, economic development and the admission of new Members, certain new problems such as the questions of Morocco and Tunisia, minorities in the Union of South Africa and the complaint of violation by Arab states of their obligations under the Charter.

The General Assembly concluded its sixth session in Paris on February 5, 1952 having considered an agenda of more than seventy items. Major political questions before the Assembly included: disarmament and prohibition of the atomic bomb; collective measures; the establishment of a commission to investigate the possibility of German elections; termination of the United Nations Commission on the Balkans; and Palestine and related problems. The question of the independence of Korea was deferred pending the conclusion of armistice negotiations.

The fifth session of the General Assembly was officially adjourned at Paris on November 5, 1951 after a Soviet draft resolution to refer the question of Chinese representation to the sixth session had been rejected by a vote of 11 in favor to 20 opposed with 11 abstentions. On November 6, 1951 the sixth regular session of the Assembly opened and, following remarks by the President of France (Auriol), elected as its President Padillo Nervo of Mexico. Representatives of China, France, Iraq, Soviet Union, United Kingdom, United States and Yugoslavia were elected vice-presidents of the session and Prince Wan Waithay-akon (Thailand), Mrs. Ana Figueroa (Chile), Max Henríquez Ureña (Dominican Republic), T. A. Stone (Canada), Manfred Lachs (Poland) were elected chairmen of the Political and Security Committee, the Economic and Financial Committee, the Social, Humanitarian and Cultural Committee, the Trusteeship Committee, the Administrative and Budgetary Committee and the Legal Committee respectively. In addition, the session established an Ad Hoc Political Committee, to which it elected Selim Sarper (Turkey) as chairman, and a joint second and third committee.

This issue covers the work of the Security Council from its 559th meeting on October 1 to its 567th meeting on December 6, 1951. The President during October was the representative of Brazil (Muniz), during November the representative of China (Tsiang), and during December the representative of Ecuador (Albornoz). During discussion of the Anglo-Iranian and India-Pakistan questions, representatives of Iran and Pakistan, and a special representative for India and Pakistan (Graham), were invited to participate without vote in the proceedings.

This issue covers the work of the Security Council from its 573d meeting on February 6 to its 576th meeting on April 14, 1951. During February the President of the Council was the representative of Greece (Kyrou) and during April, the representative of Pakistan (Bokhari). No meetings were held during March during which the representative of the Netherlands (von Balluseck) was President.

This issue covers the work of the Security Council from its 569th meeting on December 19, 1951 to its 572nd meeting on January 31, 1952. During December the President of the Council was the representative of Ecuador (Quevedo) and during January, the representative of France (Chauvel). While the India-Pakistan question was being discussed the representative of India was present'at the meetings. In addition to its other work the Council officially terminated the Conventional Armaments Commission in view of the Assembly's sixth session decision to establish a Disarmament Commission.

This issue covers the work of the Security Council from its 577th meeting on June 18 to its 591st meeting on July 9, 1952. No meetings were held during May when the representative of Turkey (Derinsu) was scheduled to serve as President of the Council. In June, the representative of the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics (Malik) presided over the meetings of the Security Council and the representative of the United Kingdom (Jebb) was President of the Council during July.