Future Success of United Nations Hinges on Conduct of U.S., Soviet

The Charter of the United Nations creates the mechanisms of a strong world organization, governed by five great powers in the Security Council--China, France, Great Britain, the Soviet Union, and the United States. The United States and Russia have evolved as the strongest forces in the organization. Their power is challenged by the uncommitted nations, but, essentially, these two leaders can direct the future of the U.N. by their actions alone.

If the East-West leaders refrain from dragging the Cold War into the United Nations the organization will survive the present crisis. If, however, they insist on waging their battle for world supremacy through the U.N., the world organization will be crippled and the myriad problems that lie outside of the East-West conflict will remain largely unsolved.

Faculty members generally support the conclusion that the United Nations is powerless to resolve the East-West conflict. However, Hans J. Morgenthau, visiting professor of Government, pointed out the ability of the organization to act effectively in areas at the margin of the conflict, as it did during the Mid-East crisis.

Stanley H. Hoffmann, associate professor of Government, said that U.N. troops might replace Western forces in Berlin, but otherwise he denied the U.N.'s ability to resolve the Cold War. Hoffmann called the Korean settlement "practically a miracle," and claimed that "one cannot institutionalize miracles."

Security Council Declines

The most significant structural change in the U.N. during the past 15 years has been the decline of the Security Council and the rise of the General Assembly as the policy making organ. Under the Charter, the Assembly can debate, investigate, and recommend, but cannot act.

According to Morgenthau, the Council has declined because the great powers have been unable to act in unison when their divergent interests were at stake. In addition, the main threat to peace and security emanates from these nations. Morgenthau explained that the actual transformation of the Assembly into the dominant agency of the U.N. was possible only because the U.S., until 1956, was able to round up the support of a two-thirds majority.

Russian Strength

With the influx of newly independent nations, U.S. ability to arouse support has declined, while Soviet strength has increased. Neither side controls two-thirds of the members at present. Only on a few issues, Morgenthau commented, has the Assembly proven itself capable of more than passing resolutions calling for investigations or reports by the Secretary General.

Out of this apparent inability to act conclusively on major issues, the Secretary General has emerged as the chief political agent of the U.N., Morgenthau declared. The recent attack of Khrushchev threatens the security of Dag Hammarskjold. However, the Secretary General was overwhelmingly supported in an Assembly vote and seems likely to withstand the Soviet barrage.

Perhaps the Security Council could be revitalized by increasing its membership. Louis B. Sohn, professor of Law, believes structural changes in the 11-member body are definitely necessary, but considers their implementation impossible, since it requires changing the Charter. He claimed that the Council should include at least 17 members and proposed removing the veto power of the Big Five.

One Faculty member, John N. Plank '45, instructor in Government, proposed that the United States seek alternatives to the U.N. He argued that "as a viable institution, the U.N. will have to be subordinated to regional organizations." Specifically, he suggested that a group composed of the entire Atlantic Community be formed and that the Organization of American States be strengthened. He pointed out that the OAS has charter provisions for setting up inter-American laws and regional institutions such as universities.

Plank believes the U.N. is handicapped by the Soviet attempt to "make as much trouble as possible and is almost moribund as an effective instrument of world politics."

Both Morgenthau and Roger D. Fisher '43, lecturer on Law, attack Plank on this issue. Morgenthau can see no alternative to the U.N.--"if the United States scuttles the organization, there will be nothing." Fisher believes there is no time to create an alternative structure