In George Orwell's Animal Farm all that finally remains of the animals' plans for a brave new world, a farm without Farmer Jones, a farm to be run by and for the animals themselves, is the slogan “Four feet good; two feet bad.” As one reads the reports from Lake Success and Flushing Meadows one is tempted to say of the brave new world projected five years ago at San Francisco, the world of sovereign equality and greatpower unanimity, that all that is left is the slogan “United Nations good; power politics bad.” But here the analogy ends; for there is no agreement in the United Nations as to who is being good by supporting the spirit and the language of the Charter and who is being bad by playing power politics.

The spectre of bloc voting has haunted the United Nations since the Charter was first debated at San Francisco. Since then, the influence of certain groups of states in affecting the outcome of elections has occasioned considerable comment, and it has been suggested that the same groups have been inordinately powerful in deciding substantive issues. Some highly tentative conclusions as to the validity of these contentions may be drawn from a study of certain matters which have come before the Assembly during its first five sessions.

The Palestine question has been before the United Nations since April 1947. In the four years which have since elapsed, the General Assembly and the Security Council have created no fewer than ten subsidiary organs to deal with various aspects of the question. Three of the bodies are still actively in existence. The United Nations Conciliation Commission for Palestine, set up by the General Assembly in December 1948, was directed to assist the parties “to achieve a final settlement of all questions outstanding between them.” The United Nations Relief and Works Agency for Palestine Refugees in the Near East, established under a General Assembly resolution of December 1949, was intended to shift the emphasis of United Nations-sponsored activities on behalf of the refugees of the Palestine war from relief to rehabilitation. Finally, there is the Security Council's Truce Supervision Organization.

The Korean war will no doubt long be regarded as the crucial test of the ability of the United Nations to meet armed aggression with international force. In view of the complexity of the events connected with the war, it may be useful to attempt a tentative appraisal of the United Nations' role up to the point of truce negotiations

“The United Nations was a kind of bridge between past and present conflicts and a happy future. The hopes of the world rested on its successful operations. A tremendous responsibility lay on the Members of the United Nations because if no such bridge existed, it would be difficult to imagine what the state of the world wouldbe like”, said Prime Minister Nehru, recently neatly summing up the Indian attitude towards the United Nations.

The International Monetary Fund and the International Bank for Reconstruction and Development were established and have passed their infancy under a barrage of criticism. There were originally grave doubts as to the wisdom of creating the institutions at all. Four years of operations have been attended by a wide range of adverse comment, varying from attacks on the salary and allowance scale on the one hand, to accusations of perversion and misuse by the United States on the other. The main criticism has been, however, that the institutions were inadequate to meet the economic problems of the postwar world. Evidence for this may be found positively in the proposals for drastic revision of the articles and practice of both institutions put forward by an international group of experts in a United Nations report, and negatively by the recommendations of the Gray report, which calls for stabilization-fund loans to European countries to meet the problem once solved by the establishment of the Fund, and an expanded Point IV program, with additional funds for the Export-Import Bank, to assist the Bank in the discharge of its long-run task.

On June 14, 1946, the United Nations Atomic Energy Commission met in New York to negotiate a treaty for the international control of atomic energy. The General Assembly of the United Nations, with the affirmative vote of the Soviet Union and the Soviet satellites, had given the Commission instructions to “make specific proposals:

(a) for extending between all nations the exchange of basic scientific information for peaceful ends;

(b) for control of atomic energy to the extent necessary to ensure its use only for peaceful purposes;

(c) for the elimination from national armaments of atomic weapons and of all other major weapons adaptable to mass destruction;

(d) for effective safeguards by way of inspection and other means to protect complying states against the hazards of violations and evasions.”

During the last five years the United States has been an active participant in the work of the United Nations. During this period the most vital international issues have come before various organs of the United Nations, have been discussed, and in various ways have been acted upon. The question naturally arises what has been the impact of the United Nations on the foreign policy of the United States?

It would be idle speculation to try to guess what course Soviet policy might have adopted and pursued after World War II if no United Nations had been created. The purpose of this article will therefore be to try to answer some detailed questions centering around the main one of whether the creation of the United Nations, the USSR's participation in it and some of the actions of the organization influenced Soviet policy and, if so, where, how and to what extent.

The sixth regular session of the United Nations General Assembly was to convene at the Palais de Chaillot, Paris on Tuesday, November 6, 1951. The agenda included: the report of the Committee of Twelve, the problem of the independence of Korea, the report of the Collective Measures Committee, items on China, Palestine, the treatment of people of Indian origin in the Union of South Africa, the report of the Economic and Social Council, relief and rehabilitation, the draft international covenant on human rights, items concerning trust and non-self-governing territories, administrative and budgetary matters and legal affairs.

The United Nations Conference on the Conservation and Utilization of Resources was held in August and September 1949. More than seven hundred scientists, technicians and administrators from fifty countries came together at Lake Success. They had before them for discussion some five hundred and fifty papers applying science and technology to the problem of resource use. How–they asked–could waste of vital resources be prevented? Would critical shortages of essential materials lead inevitably to a lowering of the standard of life? By what methods could a wise use of natural resources make possible the support of the world's increasing population on a higher standard of living?

The surrender of Japan led to the problem of determining the kind of administration which should be set up for the occupied country. This problem led in turn to a conflict of view and of policy between the United States and the Soviet Union. The United States was willing, and intended, to consult the other Allied states in regard to the policies to be adopted during the occupation, but wished to have the controlling voice in the determination of these policies, and wished the implementation of these policies and the control of Japan to remain solely with General MacArthur who, as Supreme Commander for the Allied Powers, had already been authorized by the Allied Powers to take such steps as he deemed proper to effectuate the terms of surrender. The Soviet Union, while willing to recognize the leadership of the United States in the occupation of Japan, claimed the right of responsible participation in the control of Japan and in both formulating and implementing the policies for the occupation. During four months the United States and the Soviet Union carried on negotiations in regard to the administration to be established for occupied Japan. Both governments made substantial concessions. They finally reached an agreement, acceptable also to the United Kingdom and China, the two other major Powers chiefly concerned, which was expressed in the Terms of Reference of the Far Eastern Commission and of the Allied Council for Japan.

For the convenience of readers, we are listing here membership of United Nations organs for 1951. Dates in parentheses represent ends of the terms; the states serve through December 31 of the year listed.

The United Nations action against aggression in Korea was aided by a series of fortuitous circumstances which included the absence of the Soviet delegate from the Security Council in June 1950, the existence of a United Nations commission in Korea which was able to provide a timely and unimpeachable report of the facts, and the availability to United Nations forces of a base in Japan from which military operations could be, conveniently undertaken. For the purpose of assuring so far as possible that united resistance to further acts of aggression would not have to depend so largely on coincidence, the General Assembly, on November 3, 1950, gave its overwhelming approval to the “Uniting for Peace” resolution.

The uninstructed expert has in recent years lost ground to the governmental representative in international organization. One of the most striking indications of this trend is to be found in the decision of the Economic and Social Council of the United Nations to establish the principle that its commissions should be composed of persons representing, and instructed by, their governments.

This issue covers the work of the Security Council from its 549th meeting on July 26 to its 558th meeting on September 1, 1951. During July the President of the Council was the representative of the United Kingdom, Sir Gladwyn Jebb; during August, Warren R. Austin, representative of the United States; and during September, Ales Bebler, representative of Yugoslavia. The 554th meeting and the 557th meetings, devoted to discussion of the Council's report to the General Assembly, were held in private. During debate on the Palestine question the representatives of Israel, Egypt and Iraq were invited to participate without vote in Council proceedings

The fifth regular session of the General Assembly, meeting at Lake Success and Flushing Meadows from September 19 to December 15, 1950, elected Nasrollah Entezam (Iran), President of the Assembly, by a vote of 32; Sir Mohammed Zafrulla Khan (Pakistan) received 22 votes; Viliam Siroky (Czechoslovakia) received 4 and Stefan Wierblowski (Poland) 1. The seven vicepresidents of the Assembly were chosen on September 23 and were the chief delegates of Australia, China, France, United Kingdom, United States, USSR and Venezuela, and who, with the President, constituted the General Committee. At the same time, the following representatives were elected chairmen of the respective committees: Roberto Urdaneta Arbeláez (Colombia), Political and Security Committee; Gustavo Gutiérrez (Cuba), Economic and Financial Committee; G. J. van Heuven Goedhart (Netherlands), Social, Cultural and Humanitarian Committee; Prince Wan Waithayakon (Thailand), Trusteeship Committee; Jam Sahib (India), Administrative and Budgetary Committee; and Vladimir Outrata (Czechoslovakia), Legal Committee.

The thirteenth session of the Economic and Social Council met at Geneva from July 30 to September 21, 1951. President of the Council was again Hernán Santa Cruz of Chile while the vice-presidents were the representatives of Czechoslovakia (Nosek) and of Belgium (Eyskens). The Soviet Union followed its usual procedure and requested that the representative of communist China be given the seat of the representative of Nationalist China. This request was refused

Korea: On June 23, 1951, the Soviet representative, Jacob A. Malik, in a broadcast over the United Nations radio, declared that it was possible to “defend the cause of peace” and that “the most acute problem of the present day — the problem of the armed conflict in Korea could also be settled. This would require the readiness of the parties to enter on the path of a peaceful settlement of the Korean question. The Soviet peoples believe that as a first step discussions should be started between the belligerents for a cease-fire and an armistice providing for the mutual withdrawal of forces from the Thirty-eighth Parallel.” Mr. Malik believed that such a step could be taken “provided there is a sincere desire to put an end to the bloody fighting on Korea.”

The fifth regular session of the General Assembly continued during January, February and March 1951. The remaining items on its agenda were generally concerned with the situation in the far east, including the intervention of communist China in Korea, the complaint of the Soviet Union concerning aggression against China by the United States, and the question of Formosa.