FURTHER DELAY

Ashburton Guardian, Volume 66, Issue 255, 9 August 1946, Page 4

FURTHER DELAY

MOLOTOV AGAIN question qf Voting PROCEDURE (N.Z. Press Association —Copyright.) (Rec. 12.55 p.m.) PARIS, August S. Mr Molotov, speaking at the seventh plenary session of the Paris Conference, announced that the Soviet delegation did not agree with the Rules Committee’s recommendation favouring a simple majority for recommendations from the conference to the Big Four,

Mr Molotov said: “The Soviet delegation cannot agree to the conference adopting any recommendation by a majority of one vote—that 11 delega tions should impose a proposal on the other 10—therefore the Soviet delegation considers the decision adopted by the Rules Committee erroneous, and insists on revision, by a commission: The voting procedure “at an international conference is a very important question. The conference is called on to express views on many serious issues, aiid it cannot be permitted that these questions shall be decided by a majority of one.” Mr Molotov supported the principle of unanimity, but admitted difficulty in achieving mutual understanding among 21 nations. “Small States are particularly' interested in this rule. The Great Powers frequently imposed their will, and had gone to the length of maintaining troops in their territories to bring pressure to bear on negotiations to dictate their will on small nations. Britain and America proposed the voting procedure to facilitate the adoption of recommendations they supported.” Mr Molotov’s surprise demand came* just as the plenary session was about to vote on the adoption of the proposal, says Reuter’s correspondent. The British delegation temporarily left the chamber for hurried consultation during the translation of Mr Molotov’s speech. Mr Molotov, referring to Dr. H. V. Evatt’s repudiation of the two-thirds majority said that what was most important to Dr. Evatt was to secure the most convenient method for the conference to adopt recommendations unacceptable to the Soviet. “This is the very reason Dr. Evatt is so busy in bis activities at this conference.”

Support of Paris Papers

Mr Molotov declared that support was given Dr. Evatt by certain Paris newspapers, which carried statements like; “Western Powers won the upper hand over the Soviet.” He said the Rules Committee made an egregious error. The Soviet- suggested that the committee’s proposal be rejected and the Foreign Ministers’ proposal accepted. Dr. Evatt expressed amazement that opposition was still maintained. The method of securing unanimity was just as important as unanimity. “You can get unanimity by dictation, but wo do not believe in it.” Declaring that he doubted whether Mr Molotov was - serious in asking delegates to reverse their decision, Dr. Evatt said: “I say this thing goes a littledeeper.” Of deeply serious import was the substitution of assertion for argument, and the introduction of confusion and filibustering and what amounted to intimidation. Mr Kardelj (Yugoslavia) announced that if‘the conference approved of the Rules Committee’s decision, Yugoslavia would continue to participate in the conference witl\ strong reservations. “The Rules Committee’s decision will enable a bloc of countries to impose their view on other countries.”

Mr A. V. Alexander (Britain) said Mr Molotov’s proposition would hardly bear examination. “It is briefly that we should reject the committee’s decision, which was carried by. 15 votes to 6. I am bound to confess that my view is that Mr Molotov’s speech, for what reason he knows best, was a - further delaying action to avoid getting to the real business of the conference.”

Mr Alexander, avowing pride in Britain’s wartime achievements, said: “We fought the fight, without which we would not be sitting here discussing peace.” , The session adjourned until tomorrow.