Hope in the U.N.

Title

Hope in the U.N.

Creator

Felixberto Serrano

Language

English

Source

Panorama X (10) October 1958

Rights

In Copyright - Educational Use Permitted

Fulltext

YET — BUT SOON, MAYBE — is this picture of an oil well run wild a familiar sight in the Phil ippines, with the oil prospecting fever running high. U. N. By FELIXBERTO SERRANO Secretary of Foreign Affairs Some twelve years ago the world rejoiced over the termination of a terrible war. With unbounded joy it celebrated the great event lit'tle knowing that the end of fascist rule marked the begin ning of disturbing dissensions among the victorious allies. The "reaties that ended the war were Written a year ago, this searching article about the world organization is timely even today treaties of peace between com batants, but did not work as treaties of friendship among the victors. Disagreement over the inter pretation and implementation of accords pertaining to the treatment of the vanquished enemy sowed the seed of dis cord which was to generate into a giant force splitting the world into groups with interests seem ingly irreconciliable. These dis agreements presented a picture which was a completed anti thesis of the scene in the Cri mea Conference at Yalta, at which the heads of three great powers—Franklin D. Roosevelt, Winston Churchill and Joseph Stalin—“resolved upon, the ear liest possible establishment with our allies of a general interna tional organization to maintain peace and security,” which or ganization they believed to be “essential both to prevent ag gression and to remove the poli tical, economic and social causes of war through the close and continuing collaboration of all peace-loving peoples.” In seeming mockery of the Atlantic Charter and the Yalta accords, nations were soon en gaged in struggles for power and influence which once more plunged the world into a series of delicate and dangerous poli tical crises, pushing it several times to the brink of war. The war in Korea, the blockade of Berlin, the war in Indo-China, the conflicts on Kashmir and Cyprus, the nationalization of the Suez Canal, the strikes in Poznan, the revolts In Hungary, the Turko-Syrian conflict—all these have contrived to under mine the faith of mankind in its own ability to maintain a lasting peace. They have served to draw attention to the ironr ical situation where disarma ment talks alternate with launchings of new weapons. They have set minds to won dering if peace is not just an interval between wars. It is in this atmosphere that the world today watches the developments in international affairs with a mixed feeling of fear and hope. Will the-dangers and the suspense of the past few years be just carried for ward to the next page of the ledger of international affairs? Or will the year 1958 produce something that will assuage the thirst for power and strength en the desire to live in a world free of suspicion and distrust? Will there be a concrete agree ment on disarmament with the necessary corollary of mutual inspection? Or will mankind, in a frenzy of hate and anger, October 1958 41 once more plunge into another global war, unmindful of the possibility of the complete des truction of civilization? For want of anything with which to foretell what the com- , ing year will bring in the way of relief from, or increase in, international tension, justifica tion for hopes or fears may be gauged by the way the nations conducted themselves, singly or collectively, in the different crises which they underwent during these post-war years. In the face of the different fearful situations that have been menacing various parts of the world, there is a source of consolation in the observation that in all their serious dis agreements and bitter contro versies the nations’ grim deter mination to win has in most cases been modified by a sober disposition for a peaceful set tlement of the conflicts. And it is comforting that such disposi tion for amicable settlement has been shown in response to measures taken by the United Nations. The war in the Indo-China states ended with the creation of an International Commission to supervise the application of the provisions of the Geneva Agreement on the cessation of hostilities. A cease-fire has been accept ed by Pakistan and India in their fight over Kashmir. Mr. Gunnar Jarring, the UN inves tigator, has reported that, “des pite the present deadlock, both parties are still desirous of find ing a solution to the problem.” Although the Suez Canal con troversy has not been finally settled, the great waterway has been reopened to international shipping. The policy of modera tion, which called for the res toration of peace first and the determination of rights after wards, played a decisive role in getting the warring sides to lay down arms before discussing the case on its merits. Responsibility for the tragedy in Hungary has been fixed and hopes for the righting of the wrongs inflicted upon the Hun garian people may be reason ably entertained. Viewed against the numerous explosive situations which could have thrown the world into another and undoubtedly most destructive war, the ac ceptance by the opposing par ties of mediation and at least temporary settlement of their disputes projects a ray of op timism about what might be ex pected of the year 1958. On the other hand, something more convincing than mere ac ceptance of temporary settle ment of disputes is needed to constitute an assurance of a lasting peace. There are several factors, contributory or alter native, which could bring about 42 Panorama the restoration of peaceful, normal relations among nations. About the most effective of these is a genuine desire for peace over the desire for po wer and for political, military or economic control over alien interests. This is necessarily complemented by a sincere will ingness on the part of each na tion to let the others live in freedom and to let them decide for themselves what way of life to pursue, what form of govern ment to have. More than an individual undertaking, this principle has been made a com mon resolve of all United Na tions members when they agreed “to take effective collec tive measures for the preven tion and removal of threats to the peace, and for the suppres sion of acts of aggression or other breaches of the peace.” The last war in Korea was at once a test and a manifesta tion of the effectiveness of col lective action. In that war the success of the sixteen nations in suppressing aggression am ply demonstrated what more the great majority of the states could do to stop aggression by one country against another. The thought of a combined force applied to stop aggression is a rein that holds back any would-be aggressor. Whether the coming year will bring something which will as sure us of a lasting peace or will throw the world into a third global war, no one can tell. However, it is to be pre sumed that, with the modern weapons o f destruction, n o country will commit anything that would be a direct cause of war. It seems safe to predict that if ever another conflagration should break out, it will not October 1958 43 be ignited by direct provocation but by an act of indiscretion of one country done in under estimation of the ability and readiness of the- others to take measures in retaliation. Peace, therefore, hinges on prudence and on mutual fear of atomic destruction. As long as such fear is harbored in the hearts of men, the world will be free from a global war. There may be an uneasy peace but there will be peace. * * * Valuptuaiy A rose warming a worm Shouts out a storm, warning A worm warming a rose Posits a poet’s raging And I, votary to these Holds, if you please That 1 rage at a rose That is warmed by a worm And storm at a worm That is warmth to a rose. —David B. Bunao 44 Panorama

pages

39-44

Media