DUMBARTON OAKS AND SAN FRANCISCO

This week, as a supplement to its May issue, FORTUNE pub lishes an analysis of Dumbarton Oaks by a group of TIME, LIFE and FORTUNE editors. The gist:

An American Preface. The American people are in favor of , joining a world organization to keep the peace. So are we.

The American people are also in favor of maintaining, for many years, a naval and military establishment at least as powerful as that of any other nation. Only if these two propositions are put together is it possible to talk sensibly and honestly about the Dumbarton Oaks proposals.

One of the things we learn from putting the two propositions together is that the American people do not rely on the world organization alone to keep the peace in the foreseeable future.

Neither do the American people choose to maintain their own peace (let alone the peace of the world) by force of arms alone.

But these two propositions--the will to have a world organization and the will to have the mightiest armament--are not enough. Something is missing. That something is an American foreign policy--a clear articulation of foreign policy within the Government of the U.S. and between the Government of the U.S. and the people.

Granted a clear development of U.S. foreign policy, then both our position in the world organization and our armed might may be used harmoniously toward common or parallel ends.

The cardinal aspect of American policy toward the world should be a policy favoring political freedom--of men and of nations.

The threat to freedom is worldwide and neverending. Therefore, as a practical matter, if it is proposed to keep the U.S. at peace, it is necessary to have a world environment which will be friendly and not hostile to the existence and development of American freedom. This means that the U.S. should cooperate courageously and generously with other peoples who seek in varying conditions freedom under law.

Assumption of Power. In the light of these principles, what do the Dumbarton Oaks proposals add up to?

Not a world organization. A good part of the world is not invited to join, at least at first.

Not a superstate. The organization will lack all the essential attributes of sovereignty. It professes to be "based on the principle of the sovereign equality of all peace-loving states." Not all its members are as "peace-loving" as non-members Sweden and Switzerland; the "equality"of the members is far from perfect; but nobody can deny that their "sovereignty," especially that of the big nations, is rigorously observed.

Finally, it is not really a plan for collective security. The Dumbarton Oaks proposals are a carefully, though not very bravely, calculated attempt to avoid, or at least postpone, the next war. They are an effort to perpetuate the power balance that will exist as a result of this war. The maintenance of the Big Three coalition is their basic assumption and aim.

The authors of the Dumbarton Oaks proposals accepted the existing distribution of power in the world, and then sought in that necessity the virtue of peace.

Three Merits. The plan has three considerable merits. The first is that any great power--and particularly the U.S.--can join it without sacrificing any important freedom of action or jeopardizing such security as it may create for itself. A second merit of Dumbarton Oaks is that it sets up machinery of continuous international consultation. The third merit is that the Assembly and (to a lesser extent) the world court are provided with great opportunities, though little power. Through the cumulative force of wise recommendations and the backing of public opinion, the organization and its agencies may gradually influence national policies and, over a long period, lay the groundwork for a genuine world community.

Flaws & Changes. But the proposals have many serious flaws, and they all add up to this: the plan's reliance on Big-Power agreement is so desperate that no peaceful alternative is envisioned.

The time to begin making "improvements" is right now--at San Francisco. If at San Francisco improvements are made in the Dumbarton Oaks proposals, that will be evidence that progress toward a just and durable peace can be made under Big Three domination.

The charter of the organization should genuinely recognize the principles of justice and law. Such recognition is now almost entirely absent. We specifically endorse Senator Vandenberg's proposal that the charter should have as one of its leading purposes "to establish justice and to promote respect for human rights and fundamental freedoms." In order to give immediate significance to the rule of law, a definition of "aggression" should be incorporated in the charter of the organization.

If every one knows what constitutes aggression, the Security Council cannot simply shut its eyes to an inconvenient case. A good example is the Act of Chapultepec, adopted by the American nations on March 3, 1945, which said among other things that "invasion by armed forces of one state into the territory of another, trespassing boundaries established by treaty . . . shall constitute an act of aggression." The Assembly's broad powers to recommend peaceful change in "political, economic and social fields" should be strengthened and specifically exempted from Big-Power veto. The Assembly should have the unrestricted right to recommend revision of any unjust provision in war-imposed settlements or peace treaties. The General Assembly's powers should be increased: The Assembly should have the right to make recommendations on any matter relating to peace and security if the Security Council has not acted on the question, say, within three months. The Assembly should have the right to admit new members by a two-thirds vote of its members together with a two-thirds vote of the Security Council including three of the five permanent members (all five must concur now). The Assembly should have the power to propose amendments to the charter by a two-thirds vote, and the amendments should become effective when ratified by a majority of the members including three of the five (instead of all) permanent members of the Security Council. Any member unwilling to be bound by a new amendment should be given the right to resign upon two years' notice. The San Francisco Conference should give serious consideration to the principle of "weighted representation" of nations in the Assembly. The Assembly would achieve greater effectiveness and influence if the great powers were more adequately represented there. The Security Council's role should "be sharply modified. Defective as the proposals are on this subject, they represent an attempt to institutionalize the use of force. But the charter should broaden the obligation of the Security Council to investigate all disputes that threaten world peace. Specifically, the right of any one of the Big Five--if not a party--to prevent the Security Council from even investigating a controversy should be abolished. The Council should be authorized to investigate a controversy and recommend a settlement by a vote of seven of the eleven members, including any three of the Big Five.

The present right, at least in theory, of any state to block investigation of any dispute on the ground that it is a "domestic" question should be drastically qualified. At the least, the charter should make it clear that the world court determines what is a "domestic issue."

The Place of Regions. Already the three leading powers in Europe--Soviet Russia, Britain and France--have attempted to protect their future by bilateral alliances. We would like to see the charter encourage a different approach to the security problem, namely, through the creation of a series of pooled-power centers in various parts of the world--joint bases and United Nations forces, consisting of units of the Big Three and other powers, which would act as a stabilizing factor. An Anglo-American agreement might well continue the combined military staffs and pool British and American bases in every part of the world, for 20 years, say, after the war.

Under the Dumbarton Oaks proposals one big power, even if the aggressor, can veto the operation of the security system created in the Act of Chapultepec, the Franco-Russian alliance, or any other such arrangement. In our opinion, the Security Council should have only advisory power in this, regard.

The charter should contain a convincing declaration of principles with regard to colonial and non-self-governing peoples.

Bill of Rights. The charter should also include a strongly worded but generalized "international bill of rights," recognizing that a given country's treatment of its nationals is no longer the business solely of that country. Practically, no country would be willing to surrender sovereignty of its nationals to the world organization. But, ten years from now, the signatories might review their minimal bill of rights, their world, their organization. They may find that, working together, they have made enough progress as sovereign nations to undertake still further commitments, as member of an international community.

This file is automatically generated by a robot program, so reader's discretion is required.