We think that there are at least three separate questions involved, and certainly both sides in the warming war have confused the issue by not distinguishing these.

First, there is the justification for the act of war in the first place. We have been told that the aggression started in North Korea: the Russians, not unnaturally, deny this. We then state that their stories are complete fabrications, they accuse us of the same thing—and no one can get to the bottom of things. There appears to have been no indication in anything we have read as to how it really started. But we can state quite definitely that it doesn't matter: what does count is that there is a dispute about which the opponents have not been ready to adopt the correct procedure: they have had recourse to war. And this we must condemn, or the U.N. Charter doesn't count. The resorting to war is wrong. If, of course. Lie's suggestion that all states claiming membership should be admitted had been acted on, then North Korea would have been a member state and clearly bound by the Charter. This would have clarified the position.