SOVIET HEGEMONY

Ashburton Guardian, Volume 66, Issue 270, 27 August 1946, Page 3

SOVIET HEGEMONY

OBSERVERS’ VIEWS

NO USE BUNKING AT FACTS (Special from E. G. Webber —N.Z.P.A, Special Correspondent) (Rec. 11.15 a.m.) LONDON, Aug. 26. The Ukrainian complaint against Greece, the Russian demand for a share in the administration of the Dardanelles, and the virtual stalemate reached at the Paris conference are all seen here as developments in the Russiansponsored campaign to consolidate Soviet hegemony in SouthEastern Europe.

British newspaper 'comment no longer considers that the Paris meeting seriously as a peace conference, but as one newspaper puts it, “As a circus in which the most active delegates—chiefly the Russians and their satellites —can perform their feats of oratory while the real problems of Europe are to be foifnd in the sideshows.”

Four reasons are generally ascribed to Dimitry Manuilsky’s move to cite Greece before the Security Council. It is considered:—

(V) As a counter move to distract attention from Albania and her bickering with Greece. (2) As a means of delaying Greek claims for frontier rectification against Bulgaria and Albania. (3) As a means of answering American charges against Yugoslavia. (4) As a move to bring Greece within the Russian-dominated Balkan zone and eliminate British influence.

Thei'e is no disposition anywhere to accept Manuilsky’s claim that the Ukraine made this move without prompting. Russian pressure upon Turkey over the Straits is also interpreted as a further move in these manoeuvres.

So far as the Paris conference is concerned, it is discussed almost entirely as a sounding board for differences developing in Paris and elsewhere.

“The conference does not settle differences —it serves rather to expose them. It. does not heal wounds —it rips away the temporary bandages which conceal them,” says the “Daily Herald.”

“It is no use blinking at the facts. This conference is developing into a struggle by the Soviet Union to develop and extend its hegemony over the whole of South-eastern Europe. That is the reality behind every move and manoeuvre,” says the Paris, correspondent of the “News Chronicle.” “The division now simply, and clearly is among States ‘loyal’ to the Soviet, and those who decline to accept Soviet leadership.” Suggestions that effort may be made

to arrange a meeting between Generalissimo Stalin, Mr Attlee and President Truman in an effort to salvage the Paris conference are not regarded optimistically. Paris reports claim that Stalin will not leave Moscow for another conference, and that the conduct of Russian foreign policy is being left in the hands of Molotov and Vyshinsky. The retirement of Litvinoff, the last top-ranking Russian diplomat with an understanding of the Western point of view, is interpreted in some quarters as an indication that, there is not likely to be any change in Russian policy. It is, however, possible that another conference of the Big Four Foreign Ministers will be called in an effort to straighten out the rapidly developing differences and smooth the way for some real progress in Paris. Both Mr Bevin and Mr Byrnes are reported to be in favour of the idea, but no one can predict what Russian reactions are likely to be. Stormy Scene One' development which is reported to be causing the Russians concern is the French inclination to step in with Britain and America. The “Observer” reports that this has caused Molotov to remonstrate with M. Bidault in private, and it caused a stormy scene in the French Cabinet when the French Communist Minister, M. sillioux, criticised M. Bidault on the same score. The critical tone of the French moderate press to the Russians recently has noticeably increased. The correspondent of the “Observer” speaks of “the air of hopeless frustration” now surrounding the conference, and pre diets that nothing important will be done until the Foreign Ministers meet