FRANCO AND THE U.N.

To the Editors of the CRIMSON:

In his letter published in the CRIMSON's The Mail, Jerry A. Coons believes that the United States' stand in refuting the Admission of Red China to the United Nations is based merely upon an observance and respect for the principles set forth in that organization's Charter. In reference to Red China Mr. Coons states, "The United States has been fighting a battle for the specific provisions of the U.N. Charter. This is not a rearguard action, but a forth-right action." In concluding, also referring to Red China, he says, "If we are to bring in immoral 'aggressor' nations to make the decisions in the U.N. what will happen to the high ideals that were expressed in the Charter?" I consider this point of view too significant to be left untouched.

Mr. Coons has overlooked the fact that the United States has pushed forward and supported the admission of Franco's Spain to the United Nations. Now it is not my intention to deal here with the assumptions of a necessity for U.S. bases in Spain and of the advantages or disadvantages for world peace and wellbeing of a "nothing-else-counts" rivalry between the powers of the U.S. and Russia. I merely wish to question the validity of Mr. Coons' arguments in defence of the motives of the U.S. in supporting certain new members' admission to the U.N.

It is necessary to realize that in no instance does Franco's regime prove to adhere to the specific provisions of the U.N. Charter any more than Red China's. In addition, against admission of Franco there are arguments that apply to no other government. One of these is that Franco was installed into power by the very governments the U.N. came into being to fight (Nazi Germany and Fascist Italy). The U.N. Charter was specifically made out to condemn Franco and the principles he stood for, and this policy was reasserted by a vote of the General Assembly on December 12, 1946 and again in the April-May session in 1949. Franco's dictatorial record is unique in the history of existing totalitarian regimes. In many respects not even Russia can compare with it, for Russia's was instituted by force from within, not by the decisive force of outside powers.

It is thus obvious that in the case of Franco the United States has not been "fighting a battle for the specific provisions of the U.N. Charter." .... This, of course, casts doubts upon the purity of the motives in the case of Red China's admission to the U.N. The "package deal" in turn shows itself to be just that--a deal; another game of power politics, not a balance of ideologies with qualitative measures, but of quantitative power considerations. Is not this an undermining of the U.N.'s ideological foundations? Gil Custrecasas '57