STRONG CHARTER

Ashburton Guardian, Volume 65, Issue 194, 30 May 1945, Page 3

STRONG CHARTER

SAN FRANCISCO.

VIEWS OF MR STETTINIUS. DUMBARTON OAKS AS BASIS. (N.Z. Press Association— Copyright.) SAN FRANCISCO, May 28. Confidence that TJNCIO would succeed in writing a strong democratic charter * solidly based on the Dumbarton Oaks proposals, strong in power to prevent aggression and to develop economic and social conditions which will reduce the causes of war was expressed ‘ by Mr Edward Stettinius , (United States Secretary of, State) in a broadcast. Referring to the United States vote to admit Argentina, Mr Stettinius said this did not constitute a blanket endorsement of the Argentine s policies, for many of which, the United States has no sympathy. On the contrary, the United States expects Argentina to -carry out effectively all her commitments under the Mexico City Declaration. - ,

It is a matter of deep regret that the people of Poland who suffered so terribly and fought so bravely were not represented, but the Yalta Agreement respecting Poland has not yet been carried out. The negotiations for the reorganisation of the provisional Government have been disappointxng. The United States intends to exert all its influence in collaboration with Britain and Russia toward the fulfilment of tlie agreement.

Tlie primary objective of United States foreign policy is to continue and strengthen during the period ol peace that wartime solidarity which made the defeat of Germany-possible. This is as i true of our relations with Russia as with Britain, France and China. There have been differences between ns arid there will continue to he differences, but wartime collaboration lias demonstrated that differences can be adjusted. It is our purpose to seek constantly to broaden the scope of our agreement and to leacli a common understanding on matters where it does not yet exist. We have the right to expect the same spirit and the same approach on tlie part of our great allies. Place of France. Welcoming France’s place to “her rightful place in world affairs,” Mr Stettinius said that general agreement had been reached in the last fortnight on a number of other important points which, taken together with the changes previously agreed on, form the basis of proposals which are now being drafted into a charter. One significant change is that the Security Council would be given additional powers to settle disputes in the early stages and stop preparations for war long before"war actually begins. The relationship to the world organisation of regional security arrangements like that contemplated in the Act of Chapultepee for the Western Hemisphere has been clarified by another provision that the world organisation must have the right and power to prevent or suppress aggression anywhere at any time. This proposal strengthens the role of the regional organisations in the peaceful settlement of disputes. It re-empha-sises the inherent right of self-defence and extends that right to a group of nations whenever an armed attack against one of them can rightfully be regarded as an attack against all until they restore peace. > lit is our intention to continue collaboration to the fullest extent with the Allies to achieve: (1) The utter destruction of German militarism and Nazism; (2) An absolute assurance that Germany shall not ever he able again* to threaten her neighbours or disturb the peace of the world. Our policy toward Japan is directed to the same end. ' , , i > Yalta Criticised. 0 The Yalta proposals ..that“the five permanent members must agree on any enforcement action has been criticised and unjustifiably, because it is 'not a question of privilege, hut of using the present distribution of military. and industrial power in the world for the maintenance of peace. The Security Council is the world organisation’s enforcement agency. Hence it must be the. repository of its power to prevent aggression. The five permanent members of tlie Security Council must remain permanent because,' without their strength and their unanimous will to peace, the Council would he helpless to enforce a decision.

The question has been asked what happens if one of the five permanent members embarks on a course of aggression and refuses to recognise the machinery which the world organisation set up? How can an aggressor be restrained if his own country vote prevents the Council from invoking force against him in such an event? The answer is simple: Another world war has come, vote or no vote, and the world organisation has failed. But we should not be too deeply concerned with the kind of question Mr Roosevelt air ways characterised as “iffy.”

The five great nations came here with the other United Nations forforming. an organisation for peace, not to conspire for war. As a result of the American initiative the cliarter will provide for an effective trusteeship system.