The controversy about the seat of U.N.O. will probably have
ended in a definite decision one way or the other by the time this appears, but some of the propaganda has gone a little beyond the mark. An article in last Sunday's Observer by Mr. Erwin D. Canham, the editor of the Christian Science Monitor—a writer, incidentally, for whom I have great respect—put the American case very high indeed. If the seat of U.N.O., said Mr. Canham, is placed in Europe, " American public opinion will receive a rude shock, and indeed will feel that the welfare of the organisation has not been advanced." Well, that, of course, would be very distressing, but why should America be more shocked at the seat being in Europe than Europe at the seat being in America? And when it turns out—though the article contains no hint of it—that Mr. Canham is a member of a delegation that has come to London to urge the claims of Boston, Mass., as the seat of U.N.O. one can only say—well,
what can one say? * * * *
Previous page
