DESTRUCTION OF ALL TRACES OF NAZISM

Ashburton Guardian, Volume 66, Issue 249, 2 August 1946, Page 3

DESTRUCTION OF ALL TRACES OF NAZISM

ESSENTIAL IN PREVENTION OF FURTHER WAR

' Mr Molotov Outlines Soviet Policy

(N.Z. Press Association—Copyright.) PARIS, July 31

The Great Powers rightly decided to destroy all traces of Nazism in order to prevent a further war, declared Mr Molotov (Russia), addressing the plenary session of the Paris conference this afternoon. “It must be clear to us,” he added, that attacking countries which went tS war as Germany s allies should be held responsible for the crimes of their ruling circle. Mr Molotov said the Soviet Union was one of those cpuntries steadfastly fighting for the establishment of durable peace and the security of the nations, and that determined the Soviet s attitude in questions relating to the peace treaties with Germany’s former satellites.

“The Soviet is conscious of the fact that as a result of democratic reforms countries which were allied to Hitlerite Germany took, in the last stages of the war, a new path, and in certain cases rendered the Allies considerable assistance, .he said. It * is precisely for this reason that the Soviet Union acknowledges that these States should be compensated for the damage caused to them —not in full, but in part, in a definite restricted measure.

“The . Soviet Union, on the other hand, is opposed to all attempts to impose on Germany’s former satellites all sorts of outside interference in their economic life,” Mr Molotov continued. “The Soviet Union declines such demands on these countries, and such pressure on these people as incompatible with their state of sovereignty and national dignity. It is oh this basis that the peace treaties with these countries should be drawn up.” Mr Molotov added that the world now knew that Fascism and aggression went hand in hand. That explained why all the peace treaties submitted to the conference specially refer to the necessity of preventing a revival of Fascism, and to the necessity of consolidating democratic foundations in States which were former satellites of Germany.

“If, however, we have still to deal with the question of the Fascist regime in Spain, then the time must not be too distant when democratic countries will be able to help the Spanish people who groan under General Franco’s regime to put an end to this survival bred by Hitler and Mussolini, which is dangerous to the cause of peace.”

Fully agreeing that the big States should not impose their wills on small countries, Mr Molotov added: “On the other hand we cannot overlook the fact that the decisions of the Council of Foreign Ministers are at present assailed by all sorts of reactionary elements who are stuffed with absurd anti-Soviet prejudices, and who base their .calculations on frustrating cooperation among the Great Powers. The draft of the peace treaties submitted to- the conference will, deal a new blow to these gentlemen.”

Free Expression of Views

Mr Molotov emphasised that every representative had the opportunity to state his views freely and express agreement or disagreement with any part of the peace treaty. “The view of the States who were former satellites of Germany will also be heard,” he said. “The Soviet delegation has no doufit that to the voices of these States we shall also listen with due attention. Justice demands above all that we have regard in practice for the interests of countries which were attacked and suffered as the result of aggression. The Soviet Union intends to support all peoples who suffered from aggression in their just demands for punishment of the war criminals and indemnification foi damage caused to them.”

Debate On Voting Procedure Continued

Continuing the discussion • of the committee on procedure, Dr. Evatt opposed a two-thirds majority lule, declaring that it would mean that practically nothing of importance would go before the Foreign Ministers’ Council. It was essential that the conference get down to work and make recommendations. He argued with Baron Von Oosterhout (Holland) that the role assigned to the nations, othei than members of the Council of Foreign Ministers, w r as not commensurate with their efforts and sacrfices in the war. “Unless the recommendations go from this conference to the Foreign Minister’s Council, there will be nothing before the Foreign Ministers for their final decisions,” he claimed. “There is nothing whatever ill the Potsdam or Moscow Declarations about a two-thirds majority.”

He felt that after the declarations by the great leaders there would be greater participation by the middie Powers, and that they would play a part in making the peace. The United Nations had recognised their role, and six of the 11 members of the Security Council were drawn from those Powers.

“I think some precedure analogous to that could have been chosen,” Dr Evatt added, “instead of that which has been chosen. I hope some procedure will be found by which the deliberations of the conference will not be rendered futile by requirement of special majorities.”

Majority Rule Defended

Mr Molotov, defending the twothirds majority rule, said: “I am hope-ful-that I will express the views of members of the Council of Foreign Ministers when I say that we take a serious view of the voting procedure at this conference, and in the conference’s commissions more weight attaches to decisions taken by a qualified majority than by a simple majority.” Mr Molotov recalled that the Versailles Peace Treaty and the San Francisco conferences followed the two-thirds voting procedure. “Is there any reason to believe that a decision reached by a 11-10 vote is any better than a decision reached by a 14-7 vote?” he asked.

Dr. H. V. Evatt (Australia), said Australia desired to* make the conference a reality, not a mere formality, and do everything possible to ensure a peace based on the principles of justice and right and attained by democratic methods. Australian opinion was never in doubt that the right of making the peace belonged to all the nations who were partners in achieving victory. Enough had been said to justify the certain conclusion that each of the 21 nations had equal rank and voice at the conference.

Voices of Co-belligerents

Much depended on whether the sponsoring Powers would follow the example of San Francisco and be prepared toyhear the co-belligerents, not as suppliants, advocates and consultants, but as partners who had proved their worth in the struggle against their enemies. They should remember certain fundamental principles, first, to adhere to the undertakings of the Atlantic Charter and . ensure that its principles, were applied as fully as possibly: second, to ensure that recommendations and decisions were based on a thorough examination of all relevant facts; third, not to impose such unjustifiable burdens and humiliations on the five countries as to prevent the growth of genuinely democratic forces or foster a resurgence of Fascism, and fourth, to attain a just and durable over-all peace structure, and not merely to settle one by one a series of particular isolated claims of individual nations against their neighbours. While appreciating the work put into the draft treaties, Dr. Evatt said it was an obligation as well as a right for the nations who did not share in the preparation of the drafts to analyse them in the light of sound general principles and make constructive criticisms and specific recommendations. Australia, favoured, where necessary, the appointment of a special fact-finding committee to prepare a report on the material which the conference commissions required for the frontier provisions of the treaties. Australia thought that the future administration of tlie Italian colonies should rest not with the Foreign Ministers’ Council, but with all countries, such as Australia, which through her losses and sacrifices in liberating the territories had earned a vital interest in their disposal. It seemed that, there might be another difficulty in giving the Security Council discretionary powers in relation to Trieste, when any Council decision could be blocked by the use of the veto.

After quoting the view of the Paris newspaper “Populaire” that a simple

majority would be disadvantageous to the Soviet, Mr Molotov said a twothirds majority would “be bad for the Anglo-Saxons, and their clients.” He said he. did not know what considerations guided Dr Evatt, when he suggested a simple majority, or what groups of countries and delegations he had in mind. His proposal would in advance set off the majority against the minority. There were certain calculations behind it bound up in attempts to form majorities and minorities which would not be in keeping with the interests of the conferGIIC6. • The conference should concern itself not in permitting a play on votes, hut in assuring authority of procedure and authority of views, Mr Molotov continued. There should not be an attempt to set 12 countries against seven. The committee should be concerned how the countries could best promote the establishment of peace, and therefore it was bound carefully to consider the decisions of the Council of .Foreign Ministers regarding procedure, so that the organisation of the conference could be improved. A two-thirds majority rule would enhance the conference’s prestige and enable its views properly to influence the drafting of the peace treaties.

Mr Constantine Tsaldaris (Greece) agreed with the Dutch views, and moved an amendment: “That all representatives should be authorised to bring up any question they felt was connected with the framing of lasting peace.” He said the discussion should not be limited to questions embodied in the draft treaties from the Council of Foreign Ministers. The committee adjourned .