THE POWERS’ VETO.

Ashburton Guardian, Volume 65, Issue 205, 12 June 1945, Page 3

THE POWERS’ VETO.

DELEGATE CONTRADICTED. MR FRASER’S INTERJECTION SAN FRANCISCO, June 10. At a full meeting of the committee on voting procedure, the British delegate to the United Nations Conference on International Organisation (Professor C. K. Webster) pointed out that, what was being offered by the Big Five represented a marked advance on the Covenant of the League of Nations, which had required unanimity before the League could take any action. Professor Webster referred to the interpretation by Sir Alexander Cadogan to the effect that any investigation of a dispute could be undertaken by the council without restriction by the veto. Professor Webster admitted that the joint Statement of the Powers interpreting the veto was narrower, but said that Sir Alexander Cadogan had been taken by surprise by the questions asked by Mr Fraser (New Zealand), Sir Alexander Cadogan bad answered hurriedly, without consideration.

Mr Fraser interjected: “Quite incorrect. A transcript of Sir Alexander Cadogan’s remarks was closely checked and issued to all members of the committee. Sir Alexander Cadogan s views were clearly the United Kingdom’s considered opinion.” Mr Fraser turned to Professor Webster and added: “Don’t try to slid© out on that by making misstatements. What you are doing is not honest.” Called to order, Mr Fraser withdrew this statement, but maintained that Sir Alexander Cadogan’s remarks were deliberately made and most carefully revised. In a brief statement, Mr Fraser recalled the circumstances of the meeting three weeks ago, at which Sir Alexander Cadogan’s statement had been made. In consenting to give an explanation of how the veto would apply, Sir Alexander Cadogan had safeguarded himself by asking for an opportunity to revise the text of his reply, and in this precaution he had been upheld by Mr Fraser and the committee as a whole. Sir Alexander Cadogan accordingly had been sent a verbatim report of his own remarks, and given ample opportunity to revise and clarify them before they were adopted as a document interpreting the voting formula.