 Good evening! This is Frank Knight. How frequently we hear the phrase, this is the world's finest, and it's often very confusing. But there should never be any confusion regarding the quality of the different makes of watches. Competitions are open to any manufacturer who feels that his watches have a chance to win, and you can just look at the record. Now here is the Laun Jean record. At World's Fair's and International Expositions, among the fine watches of the world, Laun Jean alone has won 10 World's Fair Grand Prizes and 28 Gold Medal Awards. These Grand Prizes and Gold Medals were awarded by impartial juries of experts. And now take the matter of observatory accuracy competitions. The records show that year after year Laun Jean watches have been a consistent winner of first prizes and special honors from 1878 right up to this very day. Have all these competitions and public honors proved Laun Jean to be the world's finest? Laun Jean prefers to say the world's most honored. And if you wish to own or give the world's finest, your choice might very well be Laun Jean, the world's most honored watch. The Laun Jean Chronoscope each week looks for the truth in the important issues of the hour, and here to discuss these issues are our co-editors. Mr. William Bradford Huey, editor of the American Mercury and Mr. Henry Haslett, a political economist of respected judgment and contributing editor of Newsweek Magazine. Our distinguished guest for this evening is Ambassador Ernest A. Gross, your deputy United States representative to the United Nations. In this spontaneous and unrehearsed discussion, the opinions are necessarily those of the speakers. Mr. Gross, you are deputy to Ambassador Austin, I believe, at the UN. Yes, that's right. I'm the deputy chief of the United States mission to the UN. And you are, of course, a defender of the present State Department policy. As I understand them, I defend them, and I think that they're worthy of defense. You then believe, of course, that the State Department has a policy. I believe that the State Department has a policy. I believe that the Congress has a policy, and I think that on the whole, the two policies make one, and I think they're the same. Well, Mr. Ambassador, I'd like to get to the ceasefire negotiations. Now, these negotiations since the original Malik speech have been going on for something like six weeks and about 19 meetings. Do you think that the Chinese communists are stalling in order to gain time? I think that it's impossible to say whether they're stalling or not. I think that one of the things we must be prepared for and prepared for inside our minds and our consciences is that one of their primary purposes may be to stall and to bluff and to haggle and to wear out the free world to divide us and to confuse us. I think that we have to be prepared for that. Well then, aren't we in danger of losing morale of our fighting forces by continuing these negotiations ourselves if that's what they're doing? Well, I think that the test of strength between the communists and the free world involves the ability to last and to stick it out. And I think that we have to be ready for the kind of tactics which the communists have used on many occasions. Those of us who have been subjected to their stalling and haggling tactics remember well the many, very many hours and days and weeks that have been spent fruitlessly in the attempt to find a peace treaty for Austria. They pursued the same course in connection with the discussions in Paris of the Deputy Foreign Ministers. That's their tactic. Well, if these negotiations are broken off now, won't we be at a great disadvantage as a result of them and a lower morale of our men and possibly a great build up of the push there in Korea? I don't think that it would be quite appropriate to predict how they will turn out and I certainly would not want to speculate. General Richway and Admiral Joy have a terrific job and they're doing it in a terrific way. I think that the discussions will undoubtedly continue. I think that the thing we have to be most on our guard against is to prevent ourselves from being demoralized and disunited by a long continuation. But we'll stick it out. You made a very courageous speech the other day about the participation of our allies, urging further participation. Would you care to elaborate on that now? No, I think that our allies have made a contribution, a substantial contribution, but I think we must all be frank about it. I don't think that the contribution which have been made by all UN members is commensurate with their abilities and taking into account their commitments elsewhere. And I do not think the United Nations has reason to feel that a sufficient contribution has yet been made. We hope and expect that greater contributions will be made by those able to make them. Mr. Ambassador, I happen to be one of those Americans who doesn't find it too difficult to restrain my enthusiasm for the UN. And I know that a great many people in the country are a little bit disappointed and disillusioned over that contribution. Now, are you among those people? Are you disappointed that the contribution has been made by our reluctant allies? I think that we who deal with these matters constantly in the UN develop perhaps a broad perspective. We feel that we're entitled to the judgment that many of our allies have made contributions, which for them considering their commitments elsewhere are very substantial contributions, even though they don't compare numerically with ours. The fighting goes on, sir. Do you think that there's reason to expect that we'll get greater contributions from these allies? We hope to get greater contributions from our allies, whether the fighting continues or not. We think this effort in Korea is a collective action and should have a very broad contribution from the world over. Mr. Ambassador, we came in when we went into this, we were going in ostensibly on behalf of the United Nations, and we have so far furnished about 90% of the troops of the non-Korean forces. That is right, so that while this is called a collective action, collective security, and in the name of the United Nations, it really comes down more or less to our carrying the load, doesn't it? In terms of the manpower that's been put in, of course, as you know, 16 nations have made contributions of manpower, and some other, I think, 35 or 40 have made contributions of material. Now, as I said before, we think there's plenty of room for additional contribution, and I think that none of us can be satisfied until I'm talking about the United Nations generally, until there has been a broader contribution from many more countries than have contributed up to this point. But I think that it would be unfair to say that this has not been, and is not now, a collective effort. It is, and I think that one of the things that perhaps undoubtedly has brought the communists into negotiation is not merely the military position, but the realization that there has been a collective effort underway. Mr. Ambassador, to get away from the Korean problem and to get down to these disillusionments, we may have suffered over the United Nations. One of the things that people are critical about is that the United Nations seems to be almost wholly concerned now with arraying force against our enemies. Now, have you let down your more idealistic supporters in doing that? I think not, Mr. Huey. I think that it would be fair to say that the United Nations is actively concerned with the great many problems which affect moral and moral unity and well-being. We have large economic programs. We have solidly supported the human rights work, and we are busily at work now and disputes within the free world itself. But do you have a dynamic policy? Are you opposing our enemy with anything that's dynamic? Well, I think so far as the Soviet Union is concerned, I believe that it's in your question, if I understand it, as to whether we are being lulled into a sort of a negative feeling that all we have to do is to contain or hold our potential enemy, the enemy that's back of the fighting in Korea now. I do not think that the United Nations is a negative thing. I think that the Charter of the United Nations is in a real sense a Charter of liberation and not a mere Charter of containment, if I may use that expression. Well, what specifically are we doing in that direction? Well, in the first place, where there are very many people as there are now in the slave world in the Soviet-dominated portion of the world and within Communist China, great many people whose human aspirations are being suppressed, whose national aspirations are being suppressed, are great explosive forces build up. The Charter, I think, is one of the instruments and one of the things that represents for them a possible point of liberation that expresses their ideas, it expresses their aspirations. And I think by our support of the Charter, we are supporting the things they want. Well, I think we, I'm afraid we only have time for one more question or so. I noticed that you the other day in your speech supported land reform abroad. Now, that has seemed to many of us dubious because land reform has been one of the slogans of the Communists and it has meant an undermining of the principle of private property. So I'm wondering what that mean would mean in actual application. Well, we mean by land reform, of course, I think we mean not expropriating land, taking it from the hands of the peasants and sweeping it into the arms of the state. We mean reforms which really give to the farmers and the farmers families the means of subsistence. I'm sorry, Mr. Ambassador, I believe that's all the time we have. Thank you so much, sir, for being with us this evening. The editorial board for this edition of the launch in Chronoscope was Mr. William Bradford Huey and Mr. Henry Haslett. Our guest was Ambassador Ernest A. Gross, Deputy United States Representative to the United Nations. The factory whistle is a souvenir of years gone by when the distinction of owning a fine watch was restricted to very few people. Today you go to work or turn on your television according to your own individual watch. Now, if you own a lawn gene watch, you know how smoothly these fine dependable timepieces permit you to organize your day-to-day activities. We who make lawn gene watches know how special engineering standards permit us to determine in advance that every lawn gene watch is an outstanding lawn gene watch. We speak from solid experience when we say that a lawn gene watch will keep good time for a long, long time. Lawn Gene, the world's most honored watch, the only watch in history to win ten World's Fair Grand Prizes, twenty-eight gold medal awards, and highest honors for accuracy in fields of precise timing. Sold and serviced by more than 4,000 leading jewelers from coast to coast, who proudly display the emblem, Agency for Lawn Gene Wet Nor Watches. Next week at this same time, over the CBS television network, the Lawn Gene Wet Nor Watch Company will again present the Lawn Gene Chronoscope. A television journal of the vital issues of the hour. This is Frank Knight speaking for Lawn Gene, the world's most honored watch, and Wet Nor. Distinguished companion to the world honored Lawn Gene, both products of the Lawn Gene Wet Nor Watch Company. Since 1866, maker of watches of the highest character. This is the CBS television network.