To the Editors of the CRIMSON:
I was interested in the editorial position the CRIMSON took in regard to admission of Communist China to the U.N. Since I hold views somewhat different from those expressed in the editorial, I should like to answer some of the basic points in the editorial which I consider erroneous.
First of all, the article states that the "U.S. Government has been fighting a rearguard action against universality as applied to Red China," and further that the founders of the U.N. took it (universality of membership) as a basic assumption back in 1945.
Chapter II, Article 4 of the United Nations Charter states that "Membership in the United Nations is open to all peace-loving states which accept the obligations of the Charter and, in the judgment of the Organization, are able and willing to carry out these obligations." The U.N. has branded Red China as an "aggressor." This would seem to be a value judgment on the part of the U.N. that Red China is not a "peace-loving" state. The fact that the Charter would limit membership to "peace-loving states" is a direct repudiation of the principle of universality that your editorial stated was a basic assumption.
The United States has been fighting a battle for the specific provisions of the U.N. Charter. This is not a rearguard action, but a forthright action. Until the Charter is amended it is the duty of the United States to stand by the principles of the original treaty. We can see that universality was not the basic assumption of the founders of the U.N. if we accept the Charter as an authoritative source. If we can't accept the Charter as an expression of the desires of the founders, whose word can we accept? The word of Alger Hiss, who has been convicted of lying under oath?
If we are to bring in immoral "aggressor" nations to make the decisions in the U.N. what will happen to the high ideals that were expressed in the Charter? Jerry A. Coons '59