The Pittsburgh Press (January 18, 1946)
Stokes: ‘Strategic areas’
By Thomas L. Stokes
WASHINGTON – It is perhaps not wise to sharpshoot too hastily at the United Nations Organization which, in many ways, has started auspiciously in London.
It is natural that the nations would want to feel their way carefully in this new venture, and they should to a degree.
But there are two matters involving United States leadership about which questions already are being raised here. Our leadership is most important because of the known influence of our example. We can do much to make or break this co-operative international endeavor. Our responsibility is great.
One of these matters is the handling of Pacific bases.
The other is the caliber of Americans nominated for possible election to the new international court of justice.
The first, basically, would seem to involve whether we are to prolong imperialism by our own example, or whether we are to strike out boldly on a new path of co-operation.
It comes about this way. We took, at great sacrifice in American lives, some islands in the Pacific. They are regarded as valuable as potential future bases.
Some in the Army and Navy, supported by a sizable group in the Senate, want us to annex outright such of these islands as we need for future bases, to do with them as we choose.
That view is understandable, both from the cost to win them and from a national defense standpoint. It is in keeping with past traditions of warfare and conquest. But it smacks of plain imperialism.
There are two alternatives so far as such “strategic areas” captured from the enemy are concerned. One is for a United Nations Organization trusteeship, a joint trusteeship. The other is for a trusteeship by the United States upon designation by the UNO Security Council.
President Truman has indicated he favors a UNO trusteeship for some of the islands that we do not need in our defense system, with those that we do need going under our trusteeship.
This compromise seems a wise one if we are to exemplify at the outset our trust in the UNO as a going concern, and are not to embark on a course of annexation which would weaken our hands in dealing with similar problems of other nations.
The group of senators who are balking profess to fear that unless we annex outright the islands we need as bases, then some one or other of the Big Five on the Security Council might use the veto to prevent our fortifying them as we saw fit.
But if we are going to trust UNO, and that is the only way it can work, it would seem that we’d better start right here on this first issue raised. This problem surely can be worked out on a co-operative basis.
Once we start on an imperialistic course, off we go, with everybody else doing the same.
Of a different sort, and yet related, is the problem of the international court of justice and its personnel. If UNO is to succeed, it must build up a foundation and framework of law through this court.
Therefore, whatever talent the United States contributes should be capable of marking out new courses, bold and imaginative. Three men have been nominated from the United States for the 15-judge court. They are being criticized here as not of the caliber needed.
They are: Green H. Hackworth, legal adviser to the State Department, who is regarded skeptically because he has been long in the career mould of the State Department; Judge Manley O. Hudson, who was a member of the old International Court of Justice, and Dr. Charles G. Fenwick, law professor at Bryn Mawr, regarded by some as too much of a library lawyer.
Election requires a majority both of the 57-nation assembly and the 11-nation Security Council.
Can’t we have some other nominees for the court who would possess the needed qualities to a greater degree?
This question is being asked here.