Secretary of State John Foster Dulles once said that neutrality is immoral--either they are with us or against us. Today 26 African nations, 19 Asian countries, and 19 Latin American states are voting members of the General Assembly. The potential power of these uncommitted nations has emerged vividly during the past weeks. Now the United States must wage a continuous battle not only to win votes for the Western bloc, but merely to keep these states neutral.

Although the rise of uncommitted countries has resulted in the decline of United States power in the U.N., University observers feel that the presence of neutrals has made the organization a better forum for world opinion. The lopsidedness that once prevailed has vanished, and now the Assembly can consider issues more objectively in the light of a broader, unbiased world view.

Many of the neutrals are small, under-developed countries that carry little weight outside the General Assembly. For these states the United Nations is the only route to world recognition. They are proud of their membership in the U.N. and generally act "with co-operative good spirit," Louis B. Sohn, professor of Law, declared. John N. Plank '45, instructor in Government, echoed this sentiment, commenting that "for nations with so little world responsibility outside the U.N., many of the new small countries have followed the precedents of India and Ceylon, and shown extremely good judgment in their conduct."

The recent and futile effort of five leading neutrals--India, Indonesia, Ghana, the United Arab Republic, and Yugoslavia--to force a meeting between President Eisenhower and Premier Khrushchev has led to suggestions that the neutralists may form a bloc strong enough to wrangle with the 25-nation Western block and the 10-nation Communist bloc. However, University professors considered this unlikely because of the diverse interests of the large group of neutrals.

Sohn pointed out that the new nations are only united in regard to three goals: ridding the world of colonialism, securing aid from both East and West for economic development; and settling the disarmament issue as fast as possible. In other areas, Sohn predicted, these states will be unable to form a bloc in spite of proposals for a united group by President Nkrumah of Ghana.

Plank agreed with Sohn, pointing out that the unocmmitted nations will "do their utmost" to keep East-West conflicts out of the General Assembly in order to work on the "mammoth array of problems which they face."

The West's bid to win neutralist support is bindered by the often-repeated indictment of the United States and its allies as colonialists. Castro's barrage against the "Yankees" could seriously weakes U.S. control over votes of the 19 Latin American nations. Plank believes Castro may have "considerable success in establishing an alliance between the Latin American nations--once a stronghold of U.S. support--and the Afro-Asian group."

Although the traditional governing forces in South America are "scared silly" by Castro, Plank indicated that the Cuban leader may succeed in convincing the non-governmental Latins that their cause, Cuba's cause, and the cause of emerging underdeveloped nations are one.

According to Benjamin H. Brown, executive secretary of the Center for International Affairs, the United States is presently neglecting its NATO allies in an all out effort to cultivate the new nations and assure them that America does not share the colonial attitudes of France, Britain, and Belgium. This is an extremely dangerous predicament for the U.S., Brown explained, because America cannot afford to antagonise her allies at this time.

Both plank and Stanley H. Hoffman, associate professor of Government, considered the U.S. extremely vulnerable to accusations of economic colonialism. Hoffman doubts that the new states will see any significant difference between French political colonialism and American commercial colonialism.

(Tomorrow: The Future of the U.N.