The Mail

To the Editors of the Crimson:

In your editorial, "U.N. or You Ain't," in the issue of May 7, you state: "Wars and rumors of wars can be eliminated by nothing short of an international state with world wide citizenship..." You state further: "Gradually, as the nations acquire more and more trust in it, U. N. can wield ever increasing power."

It is difficult to reconcile these two statements. Of course there are fanatics in the movement for world government (as there are in every movement). But do not condemn the movement because of a few of its erring supporters. The movement for world government has as its immediate objective the "intelligent discussion and criticism" which you advocate, but unlike your editorial, it recognizes the U. N. for what it is, a political anachronism. Until its charter is amended it will remain merely a forum for the airing of disputes, a laudable institution indeed, but one which in the final analysis will never prevent war, whether five of fifty years from now.

Supporters of world government do not claim it to be a panacea for all the world's ills. They do claim it to be the only effective means for preventing war. World government in our time cannot be deemed impossible until it is attempted. It will be attempted when the peoples of the world demand it. The peoples of the world will demand it when they fully realize the terrible alternative which faces them. By the methods of publicity, debate, and discussion, word federalists now seek to hasten that realization.

The issue must never be confused. World government can prevent war. The present U. N. can not. Time is short. Clifford R. Hope '47.