WRANGLING AT UNO

Press, Volume LXXXII, Issue 24800, 14 February 1946, Page 5

WRANGLING AT UNO

Fraser, Manuilsky, And Gromyko

RESOLUTIONS ON LABOUR BODIES

(N.Z- Press Association -Copyright) LONDON, February 12. During a meeting of the Political and Security Committee of the United Nations Organisation to complete consideration of the question of trade unions’ collaboration with the Economic and Social Council, Mr Fraser (New Zealand) clashed time after time with the chairman, Mr Manuilsky (Ukraine), causing the stormiest scenes yet witnessed at any meeting of the United Nations Organisation. Mr Gromyko (Russia) also joined in.

On occasions all three were on their feet at the same time and all talking, with worried interpreters adding to the noise with attempted translations. The confusion occasionally was so great that it was difficult to follow the course of Mr Fraser's protests and the chairman’s rulings. To-day's meeting was the climax of a long series of meetings where the issue has been mainly whether a national organisation like the American Federation of Labour should have equal rights with an international organisation like the World Federation of Trade Unions.

The American delegation, with Senator Tom Connally as spearhead, has never rested, pushing the American Federation of Labour’s case. Finally there emerged from the sub-committee for to-day’s meeting an American draft resolution which had been overhauled and approved by a majority. The Russian and Belgian delegations tabled dissenting proposals aimed at omitting the American Federation of Labour from collaboration.

Mr Manuilsky with expressive hands held out, suggested that as the discussion had now closed the committee should proceed immediately to vote on the Russian, American, and ’ Belgian proposals in that order. Mr Philip Noel-Baker (Britain) immediately objected and urged that to conform to the general practice the American proposal, which had been through the sub-committee, should be taken first.

Mr Manuilsky disagreed on the ground that the Soviet proposal was made first, upon which Mr Noel-Baker pointed out that the original Russian proposal had been withdrawn after the matter had passed through another committee. Mr Manuilsky suggested that the matter be put to the vote, to which Mr Gromyko unsuccessfully objected. The vote resulted in a heavy majority for the American resolution to be put first. Mr Fraser Intervenes The first part of the American resolution caused no difficulty and the meeting adopted the preamble setting out the rights which it was proposed should be allotted. The rest of the resolution was divided into two paragraphs, the first of which grouped the W.F.T.U. and the International Co-operative Alliance. The second dealt with the A.F.L. Mr Gromyko caught Mr Manuilsky’s eye and proposed by amendment that his proposal should be substantiated for the two paragraphs. (This would have had the effect of eliminating the I.C.A. and the A.F.L. and limiting the W.F.T.U. to an advisory capacity.)

Mr Manuilskj had practically agreed to this when Mr Fraser intervened. He had been taking part from time to time in earlier disputes about procedure, but he now objected and moved to dissent from the chairman’s, ruling. He said that since the meeting had decided the order in which the three proposals should be taken, Mr Gromyko could not now move his proposal as an amendment of a resolution which the

meeting had decided to vote on first. Moreover, the voting having started on this resolution by agreement to the preamble, a substantive amendment could not and should not be accepted for the rest of the resolution.

Mr Manuilsky, still soft-voiced, smiling, end gesturing with his hands, overruled the objection and again proceeded to put Mr Gromyko’s amendment. Mr Fraser leaped to his feet, and with his eyes blazing and face reddening, said: "These tricks x won’t do. They are not the methods of this committee. I want a vote on your ruling. I said you did the wrong thing and I want the committee to say whether you did the right thing.”

“Why Make Such a Noise?” There followed an exchange between Mr Manuilsky and Mr Fraser. Mr Gromyko rose and submitted again that he was not making a fresh proposal, but merely amending. He once turned to Mr Fraser, and said: “Why make such a noise?” ( Mr Fraser again demanded a clear vote on the ruling. Mr Manuilsky explained that the matter was not so much of procedure as of convenience in order to end a protracted debate. Then followed one occasion when Mr Manuilsky,- Mr Fraser, and Mr Gromyko were all on their feet talking. . Mr Noel-Baker, when the hubbub subsided, supported Mr Fraser. He said that the committee must dispose of the whole resolution before taking the amendment. Mr Fraser Gains Point Mr Fraser suggested that the meeting should vote on: (1) the W.F.T.U.; (2) the 1.C.A.; and (3) the A.F.L. He said that if it did that he would throw his motion on the chairman’s ruling into the dustbin. He triumphed when the meeting decided, by a large major-ity,-on a show of hands, that amendments to the resolution should not be permitted and then adopted his suggestion for voting procedure. The Political and Security Committee decided to ask the Assembly to recommend to the Economic and Social Council that the Council should arrange as soon as possible to collaborate. first with the W.F.T.U.; second, with the 1.C.A.; and. third, with the A.F.L. and other national and regional non-governmental organisations. The committee voted separately on the three categories as follows:—for the first, by 27 votes to one, for the second by 24 votes to four. and for the third by 24 votes to nine. i Saudi Arabia was the only dissentient from admitting the W.F.T.U., but)

there were four abstentions. The Ukraine, Poland, and Byelorussa supported Russia in her opposition to the I.C.A. vote, from which there were 12 abstentions. France and Jugoslavia were among the five who joined the Soviet bloc on the A.F.L. vote, from which there were four abstentions.