No matter how strongly Khrushchev presses his demands in New York, the question at the United Nations is no longer a simple one of East vs. West. It has become increasingly clear that the vital issue is whether the burgeoning neutralist nations will take sides in the Cold War, or by opposing, seek to end it.

The United States stands to gain from the strengthening of the neutralist bloc. The leaders of the diverse group are men who have been traditionally wary of Soviet intentions: Nehru, Nasser, and even Tito. Though not the strong anti-Communists that the State Department would like to see in positions of world leadership, these men are far from likely to play into Soviet hands.

Furthermore, the neutralist surge offers a bright hope for the tumultuous social revolutions occurring in underdeveloped nations throughout the world. No longer will they be forced along Communist channels for lack of a democratic alternative.

There is a certain amount of danger, however, that the Government will not recognize the new realities now emerging in Africa and Asia. For example, there seems to be a lingering suspicion in Washington that not being anti-Communist somehow amounts to the same thing as being pro-Communist. This attitude is apparently shared by Secretary of State Herter, who commented Saturday that a speech by Ghanan President Kwame Nkrumah had "marked him as very definitely leaning toward the Soviet bloc." Similar doubts as to the true leanings of Indonesian President Sukarno have developed. And finally, one gets the impression that the State Department views the molding of the neutralist nations into a political entity with far more apprehension than hope.

Fear and near-sightedness may well drive the great powers to divide the neutrals into two sets of allies. But an expanded Cold War is only a more volatile one. The real hope at the United Nations is that the two enemy camps will give way to a more stable, three nook'd world.