The past two editorials have considered the role of the United States in the Indochinese war and the possibilities of a negotiated peace. Yet no commentary on the war is complete without discussing what the other states of Southeast Asia can do to prevent the capitulation of the entire area to Communism.

The world of 1954 is di-polar, with two opposing super states. Smaller powers can no longer afford to stand alone, for they are comparatively defenseless. Nor can they contribute to a balance of power or serve as a "third force." Instead, they must seek safety in numbers. The results of this drive for security are regional organizations such as NATO and the Organization of American States. But no such arrangement exists in Asia.

Today, Southeast Asia is riding the crest of a wave of nationalism. The years since the second World War have seen the shattering of colonial bonds and the emergence of half a dozen sovereign states. Balanced between the Soviet countries and the West, these Asian powers fear for their national lives. Experiences of the past make them sharply opposed to imperialism; yet, though none are pro-Communist, not all are directly opposed to Communism.

During the past three days, while East met West at Geneva, five Eastern states have been meeting together at Colombo, Ceylon, in an attempt to find common ground on which all Southeast Asia can stand. Although the prime ministers of India, Pakistan, Burma, Ceylon, and Indonesia agreed to a resolution branding aggression and colonialism as threats to peace, India and Indonesia would not agree to a similar condemnation of Communism.

Though the deadlock over this resolution has slowed the conference, it has not eliminated the possibility of a Southeast Asian regional security organization similar to NATO. Since India no longer outlaws the Communist party, presumably because Mr. Nehru wishes desperately to keep peace with Red China, this does not mean that he would not oppose aggression by the Communists. Thus, a regional security organization could be based on a mutual defense treaty, not one specifically condemning Communism.

No Direct U.S. Participation

Initially, such an agency would include the five nations now meeting, plus Vict-Nam if a settlement is made in Indo-China. The other Common-wealth nations in this region, Australia and New Zealand, have also expressed a strong interest in a mutual security arrangement. In addition, a place might eventually be found for Japan and the Philippines. So constituted, such an organization would be an effective third force in Asia. Much additional strength would come from treaties of aid and mutual defense with the United States. It is important, however, that neither the U.S. nor the Chinese Nationalists be included. Inclusion of either could trigger a war with Communist China, for the pact would be termed one of imperialism, not self-defense.

Though a regional security treaty would be a major long-range factor in safeguarding Southeast Asia for democracy, it could have little effect on the present situation in Indo-China. This is because there has been no external aggression, but only local rebellion. For the same reason, U.N. intervention at this time is impossible.

But if any kind of settlement is negotiated, the organization would be a firm deterrent to further attacks. If Indo-China were divided by some arbitrary line, any truce violations by the Communists could be branded as aggression and treated by collective action. On the other hand, if a whole free state of Indo-China were established, the pact would effectively aid in fighting possible aggression from China.

Economic Gains

A regional pact would have cultural and economic advantages equal to its military significance. If a free state were established in Indo-China, it would be easy prey to economic catastrophe during the first years following its separation from France. The stabilizing effect of close co-operation with the other nations of Southeast Asia would stave off domestic Communism.

At this point, the future of any mutual security pact lies in the hands of India's Nehru. Although Communist China has said that such a pact would bring war, it is only necessary to point out that Russia made the same threats during the early days of NATO. Already guaranteed the close support of the United States, an Asian organization would be an effective coercive force against both China and Russia. The West has stated that Communism in Asia will be contained. But without the support of the free nations of the Far East, such a defense would be costly beyond measure. In regions composed of many small nations, Communism spreads by a gradual process of crumbling, not by decisive victories. Its progress can be stopped only if the small states are united.