By JOSEPH CLARK HAT had’ happened to make Lippman demand that the U.S. renege on its agreement in the UN to “eliminate atomic and all other weapons of mass ‘destruction from national arma- ments” ?. For one thing, what happened was that the Soviet delegate, Andrei Gromyko, haq outlined— black on white—the wide area ef agreement on the plan for international control of atomic energy. And he made it plainer than ever that the day to day opera- tions of an international atomic agency would not be subject to’ veto, Control and inspection of at- People who long for peace and security against the danger of : atomic war and the burdens of an armaments race now have a greater opportunity than evel before. i The United Nations have agreed on the general regula- tion and reduction of arma ments, including destruction of atomic weapons and all other weapons of mass destruction. Ang there is agreement on the principle of international cOP- trol of atomic energy—with. full contro] and inspection and with no danger that its operators will be stymied by the so-called veto. Now, those who never wanted — an agreement are starting tO ae H | AS the United States given up the idea of international control of atomic energy? Is it ready to abandon its own plan for such control? Such questions may sound fantastic, but recent events point to a strange change in the administration’s atti- tude toward its own atomic energy plan. One might almost say the ‘menace’ of agreement and peace has risen like a frank- Stein monster to plague those whose only interest in the atomic plan was to use it for agressive, atomic diplomacy. eres The first signs of a ‘change of line’ became evident when Senator Warren Austin took his place as U.S. delegate to the Security Council. Here’s what happened. One day, just about a week before Austin came on the scene, omic energy could be organized by majority vote. And then _to lay the veto bugaboo low, Gromyko added that he agreed if there was a serious violation and production of atomic of the atomic agreement, the ; bombs. UN members would be able tu — = te Seem 7 ) ey demand at the ; resort to self-defense under the tem: of disarmament. ana’ 4ecuhea UN charter. , filibuster. Their arguments ca? be boiled down to just tw® points: : @ They refuse to agree on the destruction of atomic stockpiles re Bernard Baruch, former U.S. repre impassioned demand for quick action on its plan. He would brook no delay—he even opposed a three-day post- ponement of action of the report of the Atomic Energy Commis- sion. Speed, speed, and more speed was his demand. Then, just a few days later on the whole business of dis- armament and atomic controls. He wanted not a few days, but about a month. : To explain his request Austin ° “said he and the new secretary of state had to become aca- quainted with the issue. Besides, he added, in one of the most mysterious remarks ever made in the UN, there reasons for delay which he could not divulge. were other The mystery has cleared up quite’ a bit since then. Walter Lippman recently blurted it out in the New York Herald Trib- une: “We shall be missing the point if we think that the Soviet gov- ernment’s main concern is to prevent ‘inspection’ or to pre- _ Serve the veto. Its main con- cern is to bring about ‘the de- struction of stocks of manufac- tured atomic weapaons and of — _ FRIDAY, MARCH 21, 1947 « VENTS of the last 2 few days, as President unfinished atomic weapons’ and to achieve an agreement ‘pro- hibiting the manufacture, pos- session and use of atomic weapons’.” Lippman went on to say that nce RRB Sentative on the Atomic Energy Commission, made an _under no conditions and the im- plication was, not even under conditions where the Baruch plan itself is adopted, should the U.S. give up possession of atom- ic weapons. — The ‘specter’\ of peace raising its head. was And no sooner was this wide area of agreement made clear ~ ia Fas than a still greater phasis ap- peared in U.S. policy on taking it slow. ae : ‘ ity against war be removed from the UN Security Council — in which the Big Five unanin — ity clause is a foundation stone — Now is the time when diplo- mats must be judged, not by words but by deeds, Peace and security is on the horizon — — provided we fight for it. A - ' A guide to good reading —_ Truman _ prepares to ‘touch a match to Bevin’s cleverly laid powder-train through Greece to the Bal- kans and the Dardanelles, should jar the people of this continent hard. It should jar them out of their comfortable optimism that world peace is just a matter of time and adjust- ment- between America and Rus- sia into a sharper realization that they have a fight on their hands —the fight for peace. That is the title of a new pam- phlet by Henry: A. Wallace (Rey- nall and Hitchcock, 25¢c) which when he took his well-timed and contains his letter to Truman, his speeches and _ statements militant stand against the war- mongers last fall. It is not dif- ficult to “assess his contribution to the cause of world peace at that time. Canadian—people dorpped their everyday pre-occupation and stopped to listen. The question formed in every mind: “Are we drifting to war ?” Wallace’s pamphlet is a call for a peace mobilization. It is superbly edited and illustrated to bring its warning of danger hiome to every reader and it is a posi- is based on the situation of last fall, the dangers it points to have not changed—they have intensi- fied. Its wide circulation is a task to which every progressive should apply himself. @ . SOCIAL novel that probes the murky currents of anti-Semi- tism with the sharp white light of a unique literary device is The American—and Gentleman’s Agreement, by Laura Z. Hobson, (Simon and Schuster, $3). Handed a writing asignment on anti-Semitism, the journalist hero, ‘seeking an angle to get the dope he needs, hits on the idea of passing himself as a Jew and getting it from the in- side looking out. His experi- ences in themselves and their im- pact on his thinking and his relations with his family and the girl he loves gives the au- thor scope for a penetrating dra- matic treatment of the theme. In his Jewish identification he achieves “an uncompromising! honesty. His thoughts and ac- tions in situation after situation, are the only permissible ones for a person not guilty of anti-Semi- tism, yet many readers will pon< der whether they in the same situations, would measure up. Many will squirm as they read. - liberal-minded gentiles who would indignantly resent any suggestion that they are stained with the ‘taint’ of anti Semitism will be forced under the probe of this book to asseS9 ' their own contribution to th end attrition of discriminatio? — the Jewish people are subjected — to in our society —HAL MILLER — RECOMMENDED BOOKS- Betrayal In The Philippines bY Hernando Abaya — A. A. Wyn? — $3.25. ue Son Of The People: An Auto- biography, by Maurice Thorez — International Publishers — $2.50. Out Of Your Pocket by Darel McConkey — Pamphlet Press — $1.00, i Peace Key by John Weather — wax — Bryant Foundation — Many $1.35, : PACIFIC TRIBUNE—PAGE 12