UNITED NATIONS’ ORGANISATION

Ashburton Guardian, Volume 66, Issue 248, 1 August 1946, Page 4

UNITED NATIONS’ ORGANISATION

MR FRASER REPLIES TO DEBATE RUSSIA AND THE VETO (P.A.) WELLINGTON, July 81. Criticism of the United Nations > Organisation during the debate had been very modest, said tin Prime Minister (the Rt. Hon. P. •Fraser), replying in the House of Representatives this evening to last week’s debate on foreign affairs. .

Some members had expressed their concern over the veto, said Mr Fraser, but for all the dangers which resided in the veto it must still be remembered that without it some nations would not have participated in the establishment of UNO at San Francisco. Moreover, whatever the responsibility for the veto, the clause in the charter could not in fairness be attributed solely to Russia, but must be shared by the United States, which dominated the San Francisco conference. United States congressmen had declared that the charter would not be ratified if the veto clause was not written into it. Mr Fraser said that in face of the stern realisation of the world situation, who could show elation at the outcome of the London conference. He said he had been criticised for not taking a more optimistic view, but he could not pretend in London that everything was all right, and that the full spirit of the Charter was implemented. His faith, however, had not grown dim, and he hoped that his successor as the representative of New Zealand at further conferences would not be afraid to criticise or express his view, but at the same time not fail, to recognise what was the only hope for mankind. Big as the price was, and as much as he disliked the veto, he would sooner have a world organisation with the veto than no organisation at all.

* Duration of Veto

Mr Fraser said he did not think the veto would last 10 years, and if it did it would be a sorry outlook for the world. If the veto were used to its extreme limits it could stulify all reasonable discussions, and that would be disastrous. He was, however, more concerned about the present than with the past. We did not want to be chained! to history, and just because something was done in the past that did not mean we would have to do the same thing in the future. There had been resentful criticism of the attitude of Russia, continued Mr Fraser. There was a case from the Russian point of view for the move into Poland to establish the broadest possible buffer against the" German forces.

Mr W. S. Goosman (Opposition, Waikato): She hasn’t moved out. Mr Fraser said he was not there to defend or apologise for the actions of any other nation. Russia was not sacrosanct, and it would be a very bad thing if progressive thinking people were to seek to stifle critisism of any country. However, we had to understand Russia’s eagerness for security, after seeing so much of her country devastated. He thought Russia would do better to put her trust in the United Nations rather than seek to build a wall round herself, but even if we did not justify her actions we must try to understand the reason for them. That did not mean we surrendered anything of the democratic principles to which - New Zealand adhered 'as strongly as any nation. We must work as Iclosely as possible with our Mother Country and the other Dominions within the British Commonwealth, and even when we had occasion to oppose the actions of other nations we should seek to do so without engendering antagonisms and enmities which might jeopardise world peace.