VETO POWERS

Auckland Star, Volume LXXVI, Issue 117, 19 May 1945, Page 5

VETO POWERS

BIG FIVE NATIONS

N.Z. And Australia Lead Small States' Attacks

Rec. 1.30. SAN FRANCISCO, May 18.

Mr. Peter Fraser (New Zealand) and Dr. Evatt (Australia) led the small nations' attack against the veto powers of the Big Five in a lengthy meeting of the committee on Security Council procedure last night.

In response to questions by Mr. Fraser, Lord Cadogan defended the Yalta decision, requiring unanimity among the Big Five upon the use of force. However, Lord Cadogan pointed the way towards modification in the case of a preliminary peaceful settlement. He said the British view of the Yalta agreement "was that there would be no veto on having the council consider a threatening situation, whether or not the Big Five members were involved in the discussion. Furthermore, the results of the investigation could be made known by the Security Council, although the council could not formally brand a Great Power , as an aggressor.

Dr. Evatt advanced Australia's argument for the elimination of any kind of veto by any of the big Powers in the investigation and peaceful settlement of disputes.

Australian View Favoured The Associated Press says that there is a possibility that the Australian view may be adopted if Russia's agreement is obtained, but all the Russian decisions apparently are in abeyance at present, awaiting advice from Moscow.

The Associated Press points out that the small nations now realise that they have no hope of removing the Big Five veto on the use of force, and are therefore concentrating on removing the veto in the preliminary stages of peaceful settlement. Meanwhile it is learned that considerable support is being built up behind the Australian proposal that the United Nations pledge themselves to respect territorial integrity and political independence. The small nations favour a pledge as protection against possible aggression, also as a concrete approach to the definition of aggression.

May Conclude Early in June With some delegates and some newspapers predicting the completion of the United Nations Conference in the first week in June the tasks still before the conference seem to be resolving themselves with increasing clarity into three main problems.

The first is how far the five Great Powers are prepared to go in the direction of minimising the veto power by which each of them could block action, whether by peaceful means or warlike measures.

The second is how much farther the same powers can be persuaded to go in providing that all nations— and not only the 11 represented on the Security Council—which would be called upon to use force, would be able to take part in discussing beforehand situations in which force would be needed.

The third is how to establish principles, objectives and machinery for administration by trust of peoples of independent territories. Big Five Meeting Called Off The Associated Press states that the meeting of the Big Five delegates in San Francisco was suddenly called off amid indications that Russia is not yet prepared to state her policy regarding the incorporation of regional security arrangements into the world organisation. It is possible that, if a statement has not been received frcpm Moscow by to-morrow, the United States alone, instead of the Big Five, may sponsor a compromise amendment.

The committee on the General Assembly's political and security functions reached agreement on eight of nine main questions on its agenda. By 35 votes to 9it decided that the Assembly should be entitled to call the attention of the Security Council to situations which, in the Assembly's opinion, are likely to endanger the peace or are capable of doing so."

This decision is pleasing to the small nations, which are steadily seeking greater authority for the Assembly. Several Arab delegations have proposed that the permanent seat of the new world organisation be Jerusalem, the home of the Man of Peace. The proposal is reported to have been approved by the Palestine Arabs as well as all seven members of the pan-Arab bloc.

Polish Coalition Government The American Secretary of State, Mr E. R. Stettinius, issued a statement to the effect that there has been no question of any difference between the British and American viewpoint on the formation of a new Polish Coalition Government.

The Associated Press says Mr. Stettinius was commenting on published reports that the American position on the Polish dispute, as defined by President Roosevelt in letters to Mr. Churchill, differed from the British viewpoint. State Department officials at ban Francisco said that so far no reply had been received from Moscow to the British and American demands for a full explanation from the Soviet of the arrest of the 16 Polish leaders.