 The Lawn Jean Chronoscope, a television journal of the important dishes of the hour, a presentation of the Lawn Jean Wittner Watch Company, maker of Lawn Jean, the world's most honored watch, and Wittner, distinguished companion to the world-honored Lawn Jean. Good evening. This is Frank Knight. May I introduce our co-editors for this edition of the Lawn Jean Chronoscope? Mr. William Bradford Huey, author and analyst, and Mr. Elliot Haynes, of United Nations World. Our distinguished guest for this evening is Sir Gladwin Jeb, United Kingdom delegate to the United Nations. Sir Gladwin, you'll recall that the issue of Korea was a vital one in our presidential election, and it remains perhaps the one issue that most Americans are concerned with. I wonder tonight, sir, if you could tell our viewers whether any constructive action toward peace seems possible now in the U.N. Well, Korea is not only a matter which Americans are deeply concerned with, but with which my countrymen are deeply concerned with, too. We've got, as you know, a powerful Commonwealth division fighting there. We've done an air and considerable air contingent and some ships and so on. And we think in view of our commitments all over the world, we're doing what we can, what we possibly can. Well, Gladwin, do the British believe that the United Nations can take full action in the Korean matter, which might help a settlement? Well, I think they can. What I think the United Nations has done already is to show that aggression doesn't pay. And that is a thing of profound significance, to show that aggression doesn't pay. Collectively, we have pushed these people back and got them beyond where they started from, and that is a great victory in itself. Well, yeah. Now we've got to try and stop the war if we can, but we can only stop it on honorable terms, and that's what the present business is about. How to get an armistice, that's the main thing. Would you say that the United Nations had proven that aggression doesn't pay? Yes, of course it has. Principally the Americans, but also us and the other nations who have joined with us in repelling the aggression, of course it has. Well, this present session of the United Nations, has anything been accomplished toward ending the Korean War? Well, the session is a continuation of the session which started last October. And there, as you know, it did do something in that direction because it examined the question of the armistice and how to get an armistice in honorable terms, and eventually the Indians proposed a solution of the prisoner of war question, the one outstanding question, which eventually, no less than 54 nations I think it was, thought was a good solution. Would you say, sir, that that clarification of the prisoner of war issue was probably the most constructive action that the UN has been able to take on the Korean issue? Well, apart from the fighting, yes, and apart from the fact that we contributed troops and all that, on the question of how to get an armistice, it did make a step forward. It registered the opinion of the vast majority of the world on what the principles for an armistice were, and it laid them down. And that was a very important and vital thing to do. Well, are you now, as far as the United Nations is concerned, is the next move strictly up to the Russians? Has the West exhausted every move that we could make? I thought the Russians technically it's the Chinese. Well, I mean, through the Communist bloc, yes. Well, you can call it a Communist bloc, but the Chinese may have views of their own. I don't know, perhaps they have. But I mean, if something is done, it will have to be on the part of the Chinese. You don't know, is there any action that you know of that the West could take that hasn't been taken? No, I think we've done what we can. It's now for the Chinese and the Russians, which I'll say we'd block if you'd like to call them that, to consider whether they will agree to an armistice in honorable terms. They still may. Sir Gladwin, do you believe that settlement of the Korean problem is necessary before any other political settlements could be possible in this Cold War, an easing of the Cold War? Well, in the Far East, certainly. I think most certainly that the first step is to get an armistice. Until we're an armistice who can't get ahead on any political settlement. Well, then you think that the new Russian premier's statements about desiring peace must be proved first and foremost in Korea and in a Korean armistice. In the Far East, I should say that's certainly true. Our people in this country, of course, have been interested in this personnel issue at the United Nations. The investigations more or less inspired by Senator McCarthy and the efforts of Mr. Lee to try to do something about it in the UN. Now, sir, are you critical in any way of the way the Secretary of General has handled this issue of communists among Americans who are in the UN? Well, we mustn't prejudice the debate on this matter, which is going to take place in the assembly. In short, I don't quite know when in the next fortnight or so, and there is going to be a debate on the whole subject. And I think that one thing that must make clear is that the investigations by the grand jury and the Senate Cubsub Committee were not intended to be any attack on the United Nations as such. They said so, and I think that's absolutely true. And there may have been possibly some Americans who may have been regarded as subversive in the United Nations. If there were, the thing is to get them out. Nobody would dispute that. If they're proved, in any way, proved to have been guilty of subversion against America, out they go. And Mr. Lee agrees with that and he's doing his best to do that and he has done it, if there are any. Do you think that the attacks, Sir Gladwin, the investigations, rather, of the Americans and the Secretariat have done damage to the UN's prestige in this country or elsewhere? Well, I just say that as a result of all this, there was a certain shaking of some people's faith in the United Nations. But I think wrongly, because after all, there are 3,000 members of the Secretariat and I don't know how many Americans, 2,000, something like that, which only about 19 or 18 ever came under suspicion at all. Well, Sir, has there been any comparable interest in Great Britain about its own personnel in the United Nations? What do you mean by that? Well, has there been any movement in Great Britain to examine the British personnel in the United Nations to see whether they were Communists or not, or subversive or not? Well, if there were any who were it could be proved to be in guilty of subversion, we should certainly take the view of how they should go out. Radwin, a number of the UN people that I've talked with have suggested that if the UN headquarters outside this country, the World Organization might function with less pressure on it and a little more ably. Well, that's a great question. That was debated in 1945, 46, before the decision to come here was taken. And I don't know, you can argue both ways on that in a sense, but I think one great advantage of having it here, if I may say so, frankly, is that it has brought home to the American people what the realities of the world situation are, which they might not have appreciated. Otherwise, in a way, this whole business of the United Nations is a sort of microcosm of reality. It's what actually happens in the world and you can see it here. Maybe it may not like it, but... Brings home Russian intransitions. Yes, indeed, yes, and it's a very important thing. And we can use this as a forum for our propaganda too. One of the things that everyone is looking for, I'm sure you'll agree, is we're looking to see if there's any change in the Russians after Stalin's death. Now, sir, as a man who has had a long experience working with the Russians, have you noted any change in any of the Russian diplomats after Stalin's death or since Stalin's death? Well, it's too early to say. I think you can't tell, and maybe I hope so, but I don't know, let's trust you, and maybe I don't know. It's true, isn't it, that the personal reactions of the Russian delegates to you and vice versa have very little meaning in the political sphere. Oh, I do think we must keep up personal relationships. I mean, treat them as human beings, certainly. It's not true. There's been some criticism in this country, so glad of what we call the economic interest in the United Nations. Many Americans feel that the United Nations was created essentially as a political body. And we note that the United Nations wants us to spend more and more money on economic interest. Do you feel, sir, that the economic interests of the UN are being overly emphasized? No, I wouldn't say so. I think that the amount spent on technical assistance is very small in relation to anything else at the moment. I think it's perfectly right and proper that you should spend something in the United Nations on technical assistance in order to get to facilitate, I think, the inevitable process of the industrialization of the non-industrialized areas of the world. It's going to happen. The question is, how can it happen best? You think that it's proper for the United Nations as an agency to encourage industrialization in the rest of the world? Encourage it, but to facilitate it and to make it come about in the best possible way. Yes, I do, and I think I do a great work in that way. There have been some movements in the UN to have the United Nations itself invest in productive facilities in various underdeveloped countries. What is the British attitude on that? How do you mean invest? Well, the International Finance Corporation actually placed funds under UN auspices abroad. Well, I think that's desirable. I was all in favor of it. But all this is fairly small. So then, just the beginning, I think it certainly does tend to counteract the appeal of communism, which might otherwise be very great in the non-industrialized areas. You say it's small, and therefore the various nations individually have to be mainly responsible for helping underdeveloped countries arrive in the UN. Well, yes, of course, but the United Nations can coordinate this, and it is doing that, right? Our viewers understand, so glad, when that under our Point 4 program, our government is spending money to aid the industrialization of the underdeveloped nations. Now, is there a counterpart to that effort in Britain? Is your government also spending money too? And, undoubtedly, it is under the Colombo plan, quite a lot too, as much as we can afford them, quite a deal. But all that is being coordinated. Our plan and your Point 4 is being coordinated under the Technical Assistance Board. And do you regard that you think that most of those efforts should be coordinated through the UN? I do. I think it's the best way to do it. Well, as a final question, sir, glad, when in our country there has been a growing feeling of defeatism about the UN. And you have been with it from the beginning. And I wonder how you feel, personally, sir, about the future of the UN. Are you hopeful about it? Yes, sir, of course I'm hopeful in a sense. I wasn't, I'm not so hopeful as I was in 1945-46. I did think then that there would be an essential base for the United Nations. It was, which would be, would have been rather, the agreement on peace treaties for Germany and Japan agreed with the other side, who like to call them that, with the Russians. And on that basis, you could have built up much more a great clear than you have been able to do. That is true. Even in the absence of that, I'm convinced myself that the United Nations does fulfill a very great function. It provides a forum where there's great questions in the east and the west can at least be discussed. And with a little bit of goodwill, perhaps on the other side, further agreements may be possible gradually. And I'm sure that if we are going to avoid a Third World War, which God helped us, I hope we shall, that it is the only way is to maintain the United Nations well-being. Well, thank you very much for being with us this evening, sir. The opinions that you've heard our speakers express tonight have been entirely their own. The editorial board for this edition of the launch in Chronoscope was Mr. William Bradford Huey and Mr. Elliot Haines. Our distinguished guest was Sir Gladwin Jeb, United Kingdom Delegate to the United Nations. The traditional presentation gift to symbolize achievement, honor, or respect is a fine watch. And the fine watch of highest preference is Laundjean, the world's most honored watch. Now, among the finest watches in all the world, only Laundjean watches have won 10 World Fair Grand Prizes, 28 gold medals, and highest honors for accuracy from the leading government observatories. The Laundjean watches now at your authorized Laundjean Witner Jura Agency represent 87 years of fine watchmaking experience. They're unmatched for superiority of construction, for beauty of appearance, for prestige and reputation. And yet do you know that you may buy and own or buy and proudly give a Laundjean watch for as little as $71.50. Laundjean, the world's most honored watch. The world's most honored gift. Premier product of the Laundjean Witner Watch Company. Since 1866, maker of watches of the highest character. We invite you to join us for the Laundjean Chronoscope, a television journal of the important issues of the hour, broadcast on behalf of Laundjean, the world's most honored watch, and Witner, distinguished companion for the world honored Laundjean. This is Frank Knight reminding you that Laundjean and Witner watches are sold and serviced from coast to coast by more than 4,000 leading jewelers. Who proudly display this emblem, agency for Laundjean Witner watches. This Sunday, another great Jack Benny show on the CBS television network.