thumbnail of Toward a new world; The United Nations & world conflict, part one
Hide -
If this transcript has significant errors that should be corrected, let us know, so we can add it to FIX IT+
The Institute on world affairs the Institute on world affairs held each year on the San Diego State campus brings together statesman scholars military leaders and businessmen from all over the world. The purpose of this institute is the understanding of the problems and challenges that face man gained through knowledge and discussion. This year's theme was toward a new world and here to introduce this session speaker is Professor Minos generalise director of the Institute. Dr. Luther ravenously rector of the international legal collections presently at Columbia University and his family Librarian of Congress. Amongst his many distinctions rates loads of Director-General of us go between fifty one thousand fifty three in one thousand nine hundred fifty eight. I don't think that I need to go into any detailed analysis of his background curriculum since he is so well known throughout the country.
He's well known beyond the country he's been decorated by the governments of many foreign countries Brazil France Japan. He received honorary degrees from any institution in this country and abroad. In other words the recognition has been quite universal and that we can take a sufficient introduction for our purposes it is of great honor therefore and privilege I present to you Dr. Luther Evans to speak on the United Nations and the world who sought. To. Let isn't and making my remarks tonight taking into account of the probable remarks of some of your speakers and some of your future speakers. So I'm going to slide some of my
areas of concern and I. Have not developed them as as I would otherwise. As in taking account of the fact I wish first. And this is going to surprise you not to the gal with the United Nations. But again with the world disorder because I think it is in the framework of examining the world's problems. That one is better able to evaluate the US in terms of its capacity. The limitations of its powers. The limitations of public opinion in support of it in the world and to see residue of unsolved
problems we face in relation to each of the topics that wish to take up. So I shall proceed with my main had eggs as disorders heading what the United Nations as our might do or could go are out of there oh and then what is left solved. So we'll have that sort of the structure of my. Remarks. I think it's quite clear. AS. As our boss here has just indicated. That they have a fundamental problem. He gave my orders by the way but they were too detailed. The main problem we face is that the world is disordered.
It isn't prepared to deal with disorder. So this is what I'm going to get apt. But I first want to tell you about the disorders of the mind disorder is that there is no general system for controlling conflict. Conflict can take place. It can get out of hand. It can cause world wars. You cannot call Nations to order and you cannot make them behave. And you don't have adequate machine Ray for solving the problems that they will have to be solved before they can respect.
The wishes of other nations. In the UAE we made some progress toward calling nations to order and solving their problems. When they were small nations. Are when the matters that they were not very large and important matters. But we are not able. To solve at the present time even with the use of the United Nations. Such questions as Israeli Arab conflict even when it is not warlike. Were not able to solve the NDA and Pakistan dispute over Kashmir where all we're able to do about Cyprus is keep the lid on it. And someday the lid is going to be blown off of it. We're not able to solve a lot of the world's problems. Even
among small. Although our ability to weather United Nations to stop a conflict of armed character. Is an advance of our capacity to solve the conflict itself. That is we are more able to stop wars. And. Try to get back to where we were before the war started. But then way Rask own our own wars and say OK we've solved that one when we haven't solved the Cole. All we've done is stop the fighting for the moment. But in some cases the fighting is about to erupt again so we can stop these things easier than we can solve the difficulty. As an example of this.
Before the Korean War broke out in 1950 the United Nations had passed resolutions asking for the unification of North and South Korea. Nobody paid any attention to our then the war broke out at the United Nations first decided in a vague sort of way to try to drive the North Koreans back. Across the line. And then later the United States persuaded them to allow us to go north of the law in. And clean up the situation. And when I went north of the line China K-man and brought us back to the. 38 parallel and made an armistice 13 years ago which is still just an armistice and people are still getting killed on both sides of the law and three Americans got killed. Ed we're not trying to solve the problem we can't solve it.
But the point has that we can stop these conflicts and get an armistice easier than we solve the basic issue in the case of the recent Israel Arab conflict. We haven't been even able to have this a status quo. And previous cases we've gotten the people back to where they were before the starting began in this case we're not even doing that. Israel is still occupying all of the territory that she took and they are fighting now. I'm not going into the pros and cons of this justification or the lack of justification of this I'm merely indicating what kind of a system we're living under these days. We have various forms of an effort to stop
conflicts. The sides have meant in an earlier stage we had one that is illustrated again by the Israeli Arabs. This is us we have United Nations forces patrolling certain segments of the Israeli front here. Nasser made an agreement of this saying that the troops could be on his character our way Israel would not agree to the troops being on Israel's territory. The raven was originally my master agreed to consult before he forced the withdrawal of troops. It was admitted by the lad that troops could not be there except with Egypt and this was an abrogation of sovereign A.
For the United Nations to have troops on Egyptian soil and the thing that Nasser did when he ordered the UN to take the troops out was. Agreement to consult. That's the only agreement he broke when he made you thought some people think that if you thought had been taking the troops out there wouldn't been in a war. I think that they they muddiest kind of hogwash you could have them because if the troops hadn't been taken out they would have just been shot on the spot. Are physically removed by NASA's troops and he wouldn't stop the toll So let's be cautious about pride. Find scapegoats in the presence of rice. There are other cases where the UN has had a presence as how martial used to call that
exists today in Cyprus and there have been there have been other cases of it. The U.N. is also related to the breakdown of a guard a little bit different kind of a situation than any I've talked about so far in connection with the Congo and the Congo had a liberated town that had 20 college graduates and hence couldn't govern itself. Some of my friends say that what is wrong the cause of 500 or more that had been God the seminar and training for the priesthood. But the United clue debit Numeration of college grads. Maybe that's because these place where they got it right to govern the Tsar couldn't be put in charge of government so I don't know but I talked to a cognitive priest about this year's ago and he was absolutely furious at the United
Nations for not counting him as one of the college graduates of the Congo. Wow eddy right the government broke down. And we had a new kind of danger threatening one that we hadn't seen before and exactly this for there are many examples of it if you go back in the diplomatic history of a vacuum and government authority not a vacuum and sovereignty but a vacuum and active affective government we have other cases of this in the path. That tempting governments to come in and from the outside. The great powers and other people to try to to take advantage of the situation maybe and self-protection regardless of the motive. Anyhow going in and taking charge of the situation.
And in this case there was it was a very real fear that unless the UN what end of the situation the Congo the Soviet Union was going to go and establish its predominance in that area. And I have no doubt that the boys in the Kremlin thought that the United States might do it. As a matter of fact the Congo upfield Eisenhower to do it. And Eisenhower thought that this was the right to do it and told the Congolese to go to the United Nations. Well I actually did go to the United Nations and the United Nations forces and reestablish order and eventually as you know. The. LATTER. King of the Tang I'm using that and I'm sad.
He tried to have a tag with a great deal can set of American senators including Southern senators who don't always don't always favor black people they favor him in the Congo much more than they do in the south. And the U.N. in this case was able to reestablish not only law and order in the Congo but to defeat the cession movement not only in the tagger but in another province or to be. If I am I sort of summarize on the U.N. and peacekeeping. It is. Capable of making some genuine contribution to this whole problem of international disorder.
It has helped to keep the peace and a great many cases I think or the situation I might have that much more bloody. It has helped to cool off tension in many cases. It has helped clean up after five and help to keep the lid on but it hasn't. In most cases doubt with the fundamentals it hasn't been able to settle some of these important questions. It was a goal. Our this was just a little bit outside of the structure that includes the man was able to stop the war between India and Pakistan because the United States and Russia both agreed
on the objective and when they both agreed then they problem was who would throw the forward pass and way past it to the Russians to give it to the Russians to do when they threw their forward pass a task and got the engines in Pakistan is there and they agreed to stop the war. But then the UN didn't pick it up and try to help settle it. Maybe it couldn't but if a cat. Then I'm pointing to this as one of the weaknesses in our international governmental structure. Now some people claim that the United Nations had something to do with settling the peace in the in the in the case of Cuba a Cuban Missile Crisis. I don't believe that. I think the missile crisis between the United States and the Soviet Union was settled by direct negotiations between Kennedy and
Khrushchev. And I think the United Nations had practically nothing to do with it. In other words when the United States and Russia are in conflict the United Nations is prac the eruv not entirely. And let me give you I want to be fair here. Now let me give you a case where it isn't entirely irrelevant. We haven't yet done much about disarmament. The limitation of. The actual destruction and lowering of the level of arms we haven't banned the bomb. We have made some progress on nuclear testing. We are working now in connection with trying to prevent nuclear proliferation that is letting us stop right away on who has the
Bobs and not let any of the other blokes have them. A lot of these negotiations have been taking place outside the US and a lot of been taking place and so I think that even they. Pass bad agreement. Which Kennedy and Khrushchev made had some. Was was in some measure a result of their talking with one another about disarmament with AM the United Nations structure although the test ban itself was made outside of the United Nations structure and I think the people who are studying the limitation of armaments. And the whole disarmament problem. Believe that we've been making genuine progress solving this problem. We've been making progress down to the point where some people are actually beginning to
feel that there is a glimmer of hope that we will eventually do something serious about it. There are a few little points and here are their big points that make it difficult. I suppose the main point is really that we and the Russians don't trust one another and that expresses itself. And this is why the United States we want to believe anything you say on paper. You got to allow inspection by an international agency. And the Russians way way don't believe the motive the AVR inspection is the limitation of
armaments. Homely. Way but lave you wanted to spec this so you can spy on us. And take advantage of us. And the arms right. If that could be solved somehow I really believe we might get some genuine scaling down of world armament. Not technology is helping us. Technology is bringing us closer and closer into the point. We may never reach it. I don't know but it's bringing us closer to the point that an inspection may not become necessary. What we fear is underground testing of new weapons. And to die.
Technology does not allow us to say for sure whether or not a ground explosion of high volumes are earthquakes or not. The technology isn't adequate. Maybe it will become adequate and maybe this would allow us to have. Disarmament without inspection. I'm not recommending that we have this army without inspection. I'm merely trying to identify the problem for you. But obviously the United Nations solved the problem by a majority vote on lay the Russians and the Americans can do it. If they reach a point where this problem of confidence is solved. Either by they all got caught or THAT'S OUR make it unnecessary. Maybe the most peaceful thing to do is put yourself in a position where you don't have to trust people. That too you know enough about what they're doing that you don't have to rely entirely
on them. Now. They do more than most trust one another. Of course if you take it abroad. And this leads me to describe to you. A kind of disorder in the world which it seems to me is frequently overlooked but which seems to me to be absolutely basic to solving. The problem of peace in the world. I don't see very much conflict of emptiness between the United States and the other Western powers. On the one side and the Soviet Union on the other. That couldn't be reconciled
such as trading more with one another. Exchanging more people and culture with one another. If it weren't for one fact and that fact is. That we have a conflict over what kind of a world we want this world to be. It is a conflict of national interest direct play but only indirect play. It isn't a conflict to protect one's own borders. It isn't a conflict to protect one's own liberty to two really want one to. Have the kind of economic system that have the kind of religion or no religion that one wants. They were not really in conflict. All There's a lot of talk and propaganda but the conflict is not
because the conflict was for the triumph of one system or the other system and the rest of the world. We want democracy liberty freedom. To Trav and the rest of the world. We wouldn't mind if it was mixed bad weather little bad and a good dose of imperialism. And good Quantic a mic stand. Dictatorships bought way don't want it to be coming. And the commonness wanted to they comment they want to destroy capitalism. They think democracy is hogwash. They think individual liberty is no God in our conception. They do have a certain kind of liberty and common as Qantas but it's it's quite a bit
different from ours. Their labor to confess and the right of bright children to go to college free of charge. A kind of liberty away don't play that here. They believe women have equal rights the kind of stuff that we don't care. Except at a limit and why. They want real separation of church and state thing we're fighting over here and as I divided it up why do I want to do they have a solution they just abolish the church. They have several different conceptions of liberty that we do. Have. But it's not all one sided. And since I don't accept the Boxer say. They believe that it's all right to change governments of these different countries
by subversion and by violence or even by our midways and if they all all they haven't done very much of armed invasion this are propagandists exaggerate. But now here we are at the heart of some of the world's major disorders. Is this conflict between our side and their side. On. How far can one nation guile and terminating the governmental system of another government. Now the country which is backward which doesn't live up to its professed standards. Of democracy and liberty in all of this kind of business and Vietnam is a good illustration of a country on our side that doesn't live up to anything good as far as I can see and it social system our and its system of government. Wow. There may be no way to cure this except communism I don't know how. Let's let's give him the benefit of the doubt for a
moment. How do the boys in a Kremlin face this kind of a such a right. How do all revolutionaries face a problem where the social structure and their view is archaic and as rotten is unprogressive. Is exploited most of the people of a cat. They're not progressing they're not getting sonce they're not getting education they're not getting technology. They're pretty French Revolution and their social structure. How do you change them. I'm stating this in Moscow our terms and their rights are if you go in there and help them out let alone revolution subversion. A little propaganda that is a lot of false promises. And eventually you change the system as you put it under
communist domination. Not necessarily out of the domination of Moscow. That kind of petering out these days and we have no longer a communist monolithic society but the very verse of communistic or a group of states. But here is one of the basic things that the UN has very little to do with the whole purposes to smooth all over all of these conflicts. And to say well to the people to the North Koreans the dharmas and they deaden them till we send our armies into the south for its own army in South Korea.
Toward a new world
The United Nations & world conflict, part one
Producing Organization
San Diego State University
Contributing Organization
University of Maryland (College Park, Maryland)
If you have more information about this item than what is given here, or if you have concerns about this record, we want to know! Contact us, indicating the AAPB ID (cpb-aacip/500-2j687326).
Episode Description
This program features the first part of a lecture by Dr. Luther Evans, Columbia University and former Librarian of Congress.
Series Description
Lectures recorded at San Diego State College's 25th Annual Institute on World Affairs. The Institute brings together world leaders to discuss issues in politics, culture, science, and more.
Global Affairs
Public Affairs
Media type
Embed Code
Copy and paste this HTML to include AAPB content on your blog or webpage.
Producing Organization: San Diego State University
Speaker: Evans, Luther Harris, 1902-1981
Speaker: Generales, Minos D.
AAPB Contributor Holdings
University of Maryland
Identifier: 68-9-10 (National Association of Educational Broadcasters)
Format: 1/4 inch audio tape
Duration: 00:30:06
If you have a copy of this asset and would like us to add it to our catalog, please contact us.
Chicago: “Toward a new world; The United Nations & world conflict, part one,” 1968-02-02, University of Maryland, American Archive of Public Broadcasting (GBH and the Library of Congress), Boston, MA and Washington, DC, accessed November 30, 2023,
MLA: “Toward a new world; The United Nations & world conflict, part one.” 1968-02-02. University of Maryland, American Archive of Public Broadcasting (GBH and the Library of Congress), Boston, MA and Washington, DC. Web. November 30, 2023. <>.
APA: Toward a new world; The United Nations & world conflict, part one. Boston, MA: University of Maryland, American Archive of Public Broadcasting (GBH and the Library of Congress), Boston, MA and Washington, DC. Retrieved from