How quickly and unfortunately the two words “Southeast Asia” have become common currency in American political discourse! I say unfortunately because I do not believe there is such a thing as Southeast Asia except for cartographic purposes. There are several small countries, either colonies or former colonies, situated in that area but they do not constitute an entity. So, too, the words “Southeast Asia” have become common currency in controversy over diplomatic and military strategy, and again I say unfortunately, because I do not think there is in the area a basis for any such strategy that can be at all effective.

As this is being written, representatives of the thirty-three nations that are signatories to the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade (GATT) have just met again in Geneva. Their deliberations, though usually given minor notice in the press, are important. About four-fifths of the world's international trade is carried on by the countries participating in GATT.

The signing of the North Atlantic Treaty on April 4, 1949, gave rise to a number of books and articles on the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO) the volume of which will probably continue for some time. The treaty and the organization that it created represent the clearest challenge to Soviet expansionism since the end of World War II. Through this action twelve nations of North America and western Europe resolved to consider an armed attack against one member an attack against them all, and to create sufficient stiength within the alliance to deter potential aggressors. But NATO's continuing interest to commentators stems from reasons other than its value as a weapon against the spread of communism. To some writers NATO appears to be a stimulant that would revive a moribund United Nations, to others it is the beginning of a new kind of alliance unprecedented in history, to still others, it is a symbol of America's rejection of isolationism. So vague are some of the treaty's articles and so rapid has been the evolution of the organization that almost any observer could derive whatever meaning he wishes out of NATO's development.

The governments of the Schuman Plan countries – Belgium, France, west Germany, Italy, Luxembourg and the Netherlands – are now examining plans for a European Political Community. The basis of the present discussions is a draft constitution which would consolidate the institutions of the Coal-Steel Community and the European Defense Community, once the latter is ratified, and would provide a framework within which further unification might take place. Its major innovations would be a provision – already approved in principle by the governments – for popular elections to a European Assembly, and a more controversial proposal looking toward gradual extension of the common market.

One of the marked features of international relations in recent years has been the growth of regional groupings and organizations. Included among the more notable regional arrangements formed since 1944 are the League of Arab States, the Organization for European Economic Cooperation, the Organization of American States, the North Atlantic Treaty Organization, and the European Coal and Steel Community. In addition to these and other existent arrangements are proposals for the creation of a European Defense Community and a European Political Community, the idea of a Pacific Pact resembling NATO, the concept of a Middle East Defense organization, and a possible linkage of Asian States.

Collective security is a term that has been applied to a variety of different arrangements. Originally and traditionally, it denoted the League of Nations type of security system. Lately, it has been used to describe the North Atlantic Treaty Organization with its inter-governmental machinery, as well as other regional or non-regional defense pacts

“The great purpose of the British Empire is the gradual spread of freedom among all His Majesty's subjects in whatever part of the world they live. That spread of freedom is a slow evolutionary process. In some countries it is more rapid than others.… It may take generations or even centuries for the peoples in some parts of the Colonial Empire to achieve self-government. But it is a major part of our policy, even among the most backward peoples of Africa, to teach them and to encourage them always to be able to stand a little more on their own two feet.”

The tenth session of the General Assembly will be faced with the question of convoking a general review conference under Article 109 (3) of the Charter. The conference, if convened, will work under numerous limitations, some of them of a procedural nature, others of a substantive nature. In addition to these objective factors affecting the work of a general conference the attitudes of governments cannot be ignored.

The attitude of the Soviet Union toward the United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization (UNESCO), among the specialized agencies of the United Nations, is particularly interesting because this organization is distinguished by the wide range of its activities and because the U.S.S.R. unexpectedly decided to join UNESCO after a virtual boycott of nine years. Certain technical aspects of UNESCO also give it an unusual position among international bodies. Like other organizations, it can accomplish little except with the approval of the member states. It is, however, less formal in its procedure than the United Nations, and its decisions are not subject to the veto.

The idea of weighted voting is not new. In 1849 Sir George Cornewall Lewis stated that “history affords instances in which opinions have been weighed instead of counted”, and the subsequent unfolding of a system which finds notable contemporary expression in the International Bank for Reconstruction and Development and the International Monetary Fund has seen various manifestations. While it would be extravagant to assert that weighted voting is a crucial issue of the present day, or even a hotly-contested one, its potentialities as a means toward more effective international procedure merit discussion.

The dispute between Britain and Iran relating to the nationalization and seizure of the Anglo-Iranian Oil Company concessions and refinery plants by the government of Premier Mossadegh aroused unusual interest when brought before the International Court of Justice by Britain in 1951. The Iranian Oil Nationalization Act, coming after long and bitter negotiations between the oil company and the Iranian Government over oil royalties and operational arrangements, carried with it important political and strategic considerations.

In divided Korea before the hostilities of June 1950, the thirty-eighth parallel marked a break in communications almost as sharp as the political separation. No direct diplomatic channels have existed between north and south since the second World War.

Korea: Neutral Nations Repatriation Commission: The Neutral Nations Repatriation Commission (NNRC), established under the terms of the Korean Armistice Agreement, submitted two reports to the eighth session of the General Assembly: an interim report covering NNRC's operations from September 10 to December 23, 1953, and a final report covering the period up to February 21, 1954. The United Nations Command (UNC) also submitted a report on the operation of NNRC.

Fourth United Nations Technical Assistance Conference: On November 12 and 13, 1953, the Fourth United Nations Technical Assistance Conference was held at United Nations headquarters, with Ernest G. Chauvet (Haiti) serving as president. In a welcoming address Secretary-General Dag Hammarskjold stated that since the inception of the expanded program of technical assistance, 3,000 experts had given their services to almost 100 countries and 4,000 fellows had been given training. Not only were 70 governments contributing to the special account, but many countries which did not contribute to this account provided experts or acted as hosts to fellows, he reported.

Korea: Geneva Conference, April–June, 1954: At the Berlin meeting of the foreign ministers of the United States, France, United Kingdom and Soviet Union in January–February 1954, it was decided to hold a conference to seek a peaceful settlement of the Korean question and to restore peace in Indochina. The states participating in the discussions of a settlement for Korea were to be the United States, France, United Kingdom, Union of Soviet Socialist Republics, Republic of Korea, People's Democratic Republic of Korea, thirteen other countries which had participated in the Korean hostilities under United Nations command, and the Chinese People's Republic. At the insistence of Mr. Dulles (United States), a provision was added to the effect that the extension to any state of an invitation to the conference would not imply diplomatic recognition of that state in any case where it had not already been accorded.

For the convenience of readers, we are listing here membership of United Nations organs for 1954. Dates in parantheses represent ends of terms; the states serve through December 31 of the year listed.

The first part of the eighth regular session of the General Assembly met in the General Assembly building at United Nations headquarters from September 15 to December 9, 1953, and considered an agenda of 76 items. After adopting by 44 votes to 10 with 2 abstentions a United States draft resolution to postpone for the duration of the eighth session in the current year consideration of all proposals to exclude representatives of the government of the Republic of China and to seat representatives of the Central People's Government of the People's Republic of China, the Assembly elected Mrs. Vijaya Lakshmi Pandit (India) president of the eighth session over Prince Wan Waithayakon (Thailand) by a vote of 37 to 22. Dr. Miguel R. Urquia was elected chairman of the Ad Hoc Political Committee; the following were elected chairmen of the main committees: Political and Security Committee, Fernand van Langenhove (Belgium); Economic and Financial Committee, Leo Mates (Yugoslavia); Social, Humanitarian and Cultural Committee, G. F. Davidson (Canada); Trusteeship Committee, Dr. Santiago Pérez Pérez (Venezuela); Administrative and Budgetary Committee, Awni Khalidy (Iraq); and Legal Committee, Juliusz Katz-Suchy (Poland).

Discussion of the complaint by Israel against Egypt concerning Egyptian restrictions on the passage of ships trading with Israel through the Suez Canal and Egyptian interference with shipping proceeding to the Israel port of Elath on the Gulf of Aqaba, which was begun on February 5, 1954, continued during the period under review. A second item on the agenda of the Council was the complaint by Egypt against Israel of violation of the Egyptian-Israel General Armistice Agreement at the demilitarized zone of El-Auja. Continuing the explanation of Egypt's position, Mahmoud Azmi (Egypt) on March 12 presented at length historical, psychological, legal and political considerations to support his argument that the Council should recover its resolution of September 1, 1951, in which it called on Egypt to terminate restrictions on the passage of international commercial shipping and goods through the Suez Canal and find some other means of dealing with the situation. After alleging that 114 persons had been killed in territory under Egyptian control and 60 persons injured since 1951 as a result of Israel violations of the Armistice Agreement, Mr. Azmi held that the procedure followed by Egyptian authorities did not constitute a military blockade but was one regarded in international law as appropriate for exercise of the right of visit and search; cited several judicial opinions in support of his argument that an armistice did not end a state of war and that a state of war did not end until a peace treaty had been ratified; quoted Article 51 of the Charter to prove that United Nations Members had the inherent right of self-defense; argued that the Suez Canal Convention signed at Constantinople in 1888 provided Egypt with the right to take all useful measures in the canal to ensure the defense of the country and public order; and declared that, concerning the Israel complaint of measures taken by Egypt at the entrance to the Gulf of Aqaba, international law affirmed that gulfs, including international gulfs, were subject to the jurisdiction and sovereignty of the coastal states and were accorded the same treatment as national and territorial waters.

This issue covers the work of the Security Council from the 646th meeting on December 11, 1953, to the 660th meeting on February 24, 1954.

The question of the threat to Thailand was discussed by the Security Council at its 673d and 674th meetings. After again explaining the reasons for his government's belief that the condition of tension in the general region in which Thailand was located would, if continued, endanger the maintenance of international peace and security, the Thai representative, Pote Sarasin, again requested that the Peace Observation Commission establish a sub-commission of from three to five members to dispatch observers to Thailand and to visit Thailand itself if it were deemed necessary. The Thai draft differed from earlier Thai proposals, however, in that the original mandate of the sub-commission applie only to the territory of Thailand; if the sub-commission felt that it could not adequately accomplish its mission without observation or visit in states contiguous to Thailand, the Peace Observation Commission or the Security Council could issue the necessary instructions. Representatives of New Zealand, Turkey, Brazil, China, the United Kingdom, the United States, Denmark, Colombia and France spoke in support of the Thai draft. They denied, as had been alleged by the Soviet representative (Tsarapkin) at an earlier meeting, that Council consideration or action on this question would be detrimental to the success of the negotiations between the Foreign Ministers of the United States, United Kingdom, France, Chinese People's Republic, Soviet Union and other states in Geneva. While agreeing that it would be impropitious for the Council to consider directly the situation in Indochina as long as it was being discussed in Geneva, they argued that the question raised by Thailand was quite separate and that the Council had a duty to comply with the Thai request.