WORLD SECURITY

Press, Volume LXXXI, Issue 24545, 19 April 1945, Page 5

WORLD SECURITY

DEBATE OPENED IN COMMONS

British Hopes For San Francisco

(8.0. W.) RUGBY, April 17. The Deputy-Prime Minister (Mr C. R. Attlee) opened the debate in the House of Commons on the San Francisco Conference. He said they would try to make a universal, flexible, enduring world organisation. They were faced with a great opportunity in which they must not fail. Unless they could build up an organisation for the maintenance of peace there was. little hope for the future of humanity. Unless they combined with other nations the alternative was the continued menace of war, m all probability a devastating war which would destroy much of civilisation.

They must be on their guard lest, in seeking the ideal, they lost what was possible, said Mr Attlee. They were seeking to create an organisation to prevent war. That was the main objective. ‘The peace they sought must be based on acceptance of the principles of justice and the rights of nations and the rights of individuals 1 to live their own lives freely. They sought to build a world society to preserve peace, and also a world worthy of the sacrifice of those who had fallen in the war—a world society inspired by the possibility of the four freedoms laid down, by Mr Roosevelt. Mr Attlee said he was not asking the

House to approve every detail of the Dumbarton Oaks proposals, but to regard them as a ground plan on which to work. The proposals were based on the principle that power and responsibility must be commensurate. To some extent this was not given sufficient expression i>y the League of Nations. The responsibility for maintaining peace and security was fairly and securely laid on a council. Only in that way could they prevent a further great conflict.

They must avoid on the one hand arbitrary action by the Great Powers, based on no principle at all, and on the other hand an over-ejabocation of procedure which prevented action being taken at all or in time. It might be said that these were all words and promises which might not be carried out; but they must rely on the strength of the promises the Powers made to one another. The great thing was that they should come together with other States at their deliberations. It was no use talking about collective security unless the nations had a common . purpose and were prepared to work together. Mr Attlee argued that the Dumbarton Oaks proposals were in advance of what the nations had had in the past. They were relying on the Great Powers agreeing to settle even the greatest dispute within the framework of the international organisation. If they would not do that no formula would save the world. He did not say the proposals were the last word, but he believed that when the States got together they would build up confidence.

If they could get a sense of security in the world, justice and social and economic welfare would follow, Mr Attlee said. The chance of preserving peace would be immeasurably enhanced if they could get full employment, a steadily Hsing standard of living, and full security in the world. They could not get. that without international co-operation. They had seen how narrow nationalism poisoned the international atmosphere.

It was necessary to have a small operating body that could meet frequently and implement the decisions of the Assembly, and that was the reason for the Social and Economic Council, which'might well prove one of the most important parts of the whole organisation.

Referring to the part to be played by the Dominions, Mr Attlee said he was glad General Smuts would be at the San Francisco conference, as his expert advice, experience, and wisdom would be of great use. \ In conclusion, he said it had appeared at one time as if Britain would go down, but they had not gone down, and the qualities which had enabled them to defeat tyranny should enable them to win the peace and extend prosperity to the peoples of the world, provided they had the right organisation to carry out the necessary work.

DISCUSSION IN LORDS

GREAT POWERS’ VETO OPPOSED

MAINTENANCE OF BIG ARMED FORCES

(N.Z. Press Association—Copyright)

LONDON. April 17. “I hope nobody will be under the illusion, alter the San Francisco. Conference, that all our troubles will ,be over and permanent peace automatically ensured,” said Lord -Cranborne in the House of Lords, concluding the debate on the conference. Lord Cranborne added that the Dumbarton Oaks proposals involved tremendous obligations and very real sacrifices for all nations, big and small. The sacrifices for the Great Powers would be immense, for on their broad shoulders would be the responsibility for the maintenance of peace. It meant that the Great Powers would have to maintain great armies, navies, and air forces, and be ready without hesitation to use them in any part of the world at the will of the proposed Security Council or In fulfilment of regional agreements. : . . Lord Cranborne was replying to criticisms of the proposed world organisation, especially of the veto allowed to the Great Pbwers in voting on the Security Council. Viscount Samuel said: "Speaking on behalf of the Liberals, we view with grave concern the proposal that one Great Power can veto any action of the council, even if the Great Power itself is accused of aggression. This is a retrograde step because the Powers remaining with the Security Council will be less than those in the League of Nations.” The Earl of Perth, also criticising the voting procedure, said that Russia and America were immune from sanctions, but asked whether the same could be said for France, China, or Britain. No nation was above the law, but the proposed power of veto would put the Great Powers beyond the reach of law, which was immoral and legally wrong. From this* proposal might grow a system of satellite. states, because a small Power planning aggression could approach a Great Power secretly and ask for its protection and its veto on the council.

Lord Cranborne, replying, said; "The recent talks between the Empire delegates were full and frank. They did not commit any government, but enabled us to understand one another’s points of view. It was remarkable what a broad measure of agreement was expressed at the talks.” The Dumbarton Oaks proposals were going to inflict a heavy burden, particularly on Britain. The British were not going to be rich immediately after the war, and although they had many admirable objects in the field of social improvement to,which they desired to devote the national income, they would have to divert a considerable portion of it to the needs of international defence.

Lord Cranborne, alluding to the veto controversy, said that if the Grea’. Powers abused the proposals, the veto proposal would fail and the world organisation would break down. Considerable sacrifices were being asked of the smaller nations, who were being required automatically to give effect to the Security Council’s decisions without consultation. The adherence of the smaller nations was as Important as that of the Great Powers. He did not believe they would succeed in the main objects of preventing wars from breaking out unless the smaller nations were willing to accept their obligations.

COMMONS DEBATE CANCELLED

POLAND AND GENERAL WAR SITUATION

“ events Might make IT INOPPORTUNE”

LONDON, April 17. Mr Churchill, in the House of Commons, announced the cancellation of the debate on Poland and the general war situation which was scheduled for Thursday. He said that recent events, with possible future repercussions, might make such a debate inopportune. “I think it might lie awkwardly in the general movement of events." he added.

According to the Moscow correspondent of the Associated Press the Soviet Government has renewed its demand for the Polish Provisional Government’s participation in the San Francisco Conference.

LEND-LEASE ACT SIGNED

“WILL BE CARRIED ON UNTIL VICTORY”

(Rec. 5.6 p.m.) WASHINGTON. April 17. After signing the Lend-lease Extension Act President Truman said: "It is a mighty instrument for victory and one of 'the growing monuments to President Roosevelt’s boldness, imagination, and statesmanship. Lend-lease will be carried on until the unconditional surrender or complete defeat of Germany and Japan.'