International: DUMBARTON OAKS AND SAN FRANCISCO

This week, as a supplement to its May issue, FORTUNE pub lishes an analysis of Dumbarton Oaks by a group of TIME, LIFE and FORTUNE editors. The gist:

An American Preface. The American people are in favor of , joining a world organization to keep the peace. So are we.

The American people are also in favor of maintaining, for many years, a naval and military establishment at least as powerful as that of any other nation. Only if these two propositions are put together is it possible to talk sensibly and honestly about the Dumbarton Oaks proposals.

One of the things we learn from putting the two propositions together is that the American people do not rely on the world organization alone to keep the peace in the foreseeable future.

Neither do the American people choose to maintain their own peace (let alone the peace of the world) by force of arms alone.

But these two propositions—the will to have a world organization and the will to have the mightiest armament—are not enough. Something is missing. That something is an American foreign policy—a clear articulation of foreign policy within the Government of the U.S. and between the Government of the U.S. and the people.

Granted a clear development of U.S. foreign policy, then both our position in the world organization and our armed might may be used harmoniously toward common or parallel ends.

The cardinal aspect of American policy toward the world should be a policy favoring political freedom—of men and of nations.

The threat to freedom is worldwide and neverending. Therefore, as a practical matter, if it is proposed to keep the U.S. at peace, it is necessary to have a world environment which will be friendly and not hostile to the existence and development of American freedom. This means that the U.S. should cooperate courageously and generously with other peoples who seek in varying conditions freedom under law.

Assumption of Power. In the light of these principles, what do the Dumbarton Oaks proposals add up to?

Not a world organization. A good part of the world is not invited to join, at least at first.

Not a superstate. The organization will lack all the essential attributes of sovereignty. It professes to be "based on the principle of the sovereign equality of all peace-loving states." Not all its members are as "peace-loving" as non-members Sweden and Switzerland; the "equality"of the members is far from perfect; but nobody can deny that their "sovereignty," especially that of the big nations, is rigorously observed.

Finally, it is not really a plan for collective security. The Dumbarton Oaks proposals are a carefully, though not very bravely, calculated attempt to avoid, or at least postpone, the next war. They are an effort to perpetuate the power balance that will exist as a result of this war. The maintenance of the Big Three coalition is their basic assumption and aim.

The authors of the Dumbarton Oaks proposals accepted the existing distribution of power in the world, and then sought in that necessity the virtue of peace.