International: Toward a New Beachhead

Capt. Harold E. Stassen, of Minnesota and the U.S. Navy, did more than raise the level of debate; he presented a specific framework within which the atom could be considered as a world problem.

He listed three possible alternatives, rejected two of them: i) a policy of all-out “secrecy and suppression” would make the U.S. Government authoritarian, restrict science and research, stimulate a disastrous race for atomic power; 2) open-handed sharing of all U.S. knowledge, and unbridled reliance on good faith, would be equally disastrous. Said Stassen: “All of history says that good faith alone is not sufficient for peaceful relationships between men.”

The third alternative, and Stassen’s choice: “. . . Placing the control of the atomic bomb definitely on the world level . . . one additional powerful reason for developing a new and higher level of Government to serve mankind.”

Stassen had three specific proposals: tj The United Nations Organization must create an international air force consisting of five bomber squadrons and ten fighter squadrons, equipped with 25 U.S. atomic bombs, to police the world. <J After the international air force was equipped, further manufacture of atomic bombs must be outlawed. CJ The UNO Security Council must create an atomic commission to supervise and inspect all atomic manufacture and experimentation, but not to suppress free research.

Omissions and a Hope. Stassen notably did not i) bring Russia into his atomic equation; 2) get specific about the faults which must be corrected before the atom can be entrusted to UNO’s care. What he did offer was aggressive good faith: “. . . We must do more than give lip service to the United Nations Organization.

We must seek constantly to give it vigor. . . . It is true, as I said long since, that it is only a ‘beachhead in the battle for peace. . . .’ But … it is a vital beachhead. … Its machinery and powers are limited. . . . But it is flexible. It can grow. … Do not sell the United Nations Organization short. Do not undermine what you have in an academic discussion of what you wish you had.”