The United States' adament backing of Turkey for one of the vacant seats on the Security Council is unfortunate. It reflects what in essence is a paternalistic attitude towards the United Nations.

By rejecting the so called 'gentleman's agreement' of 1946--which apportions the seven rotating seats on the Council to the various areas--Latin America, Western Europe, Eastern Europe, the Middle East and the British Commonwealth--we have left ourselves open to the charge that we respect agreements only when they favor us. The U.S. statement claiming that the 1946 settlement applied only to that year is a mere technicality, for in effect it has been observed ever since in the choosing of new members to the Council.

The reason for U.S. intransigence to an eastern bloc country lies in the necessity for a majority of seven members of the council to pass an emergency issue on to the General Assembly in case of a Soviet veto. Apparently Washington feels that when such an issue arises it will be unable to carry along with it more than one of the two Latin American or two neutralist countries on the Council. Insisting on this stacked jury makes the whole Council a farce. Even many Scandinavian, Latin American and British Commonwealth nations, usually satellites of the U.S. when voting at the U.N., have rejected our stand this time.

Both sides, however, maintain enough votes to prevent the other from achieving the necessary two-thirds vote. The logical and most diplomatic action for the U.S. would be to switch its support to the compromise candidacy of Yugoslavia, an acceptable eastern European country. We should also support the motion of eight non-communist nations for the enlargement of the Security Council from eleven to eighteen members, thus preventing the recurrence of such a contest and reffecting the growth of the U.N. during the last fourteen years.