Bases v. Trusteeship

Responsibility for maintaining the peace in the Pacific will rest largely with the U.S. The U.S. Army & Navy cannot undertake to maintain the peace without bases stretching far out into that vast ocean. At the same time, much of the world looks to the U.S. for leadership in the development of the "trusteeship" principle for colonial areas.

A few weeks ago U.S. thinking on this problem was paradoxical and confused. Thanks in large measure to President Truman, U.S. thinking was recently straightened out and U.S. policy gained in clear definition. After hearing the argument. President Truman quite simply decided that "strategic bases" are one thing and all other colonial or subject areas are something else. "International trusteeship" could not apply to actual military bases; it could apply to other areas. (Not many "natives" live in the areas actually needed for bases.)

This distinction was set forth in a brief memo and a confused problem was ended with President Truman's characteristically simple: "It is so ordered."*

Last week the Truman formula was presented to the San Francisco conference. As submitted to other interested powers, the U.S. proposals acknowledged the principle of international responsibility, but sacrificed no U.S. advantage or necessity. The proposals were hedged in several ways. All decisions on what areas are to come under trusteeship would be left until later. Only non-strategic territories--if any--would be subject to world supervision in the new General Assembly. Strategic areas would be handled by individual powers responsible to the Security Council, where the Big Powers could exercise their veto power at will. In the final analysis, they could handle their strategic charges as they saw fit.

British counterproposals agreed with the general objectives of the U.S. plan, but disagreed in one important feature. The British would place nominal responsibility for all trusteeships, strategic or otherwise, in the General Assembly. On the surface, this proposal seemed to have a higher content of principle than the U.S. proposals. Actually, both powers were in pretty much the same position. Both agreed on the principle of trusteeship, but neither proposed to make any real sacrifice for the principle.

* A phrase he picked up when, as Vice President, he was the Senate's presiding officer.

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