Libya’s Future

Press, Volume LXXXII, Issue 24866, 4 May 1946, Page 6

Libya’s Future

In the Paris talks on the future of the Italian colonies, the United States and France have, according to the extensive account given on Wednesday by Reuter’s correspondent, again favoured the solutions they proposed when the problem was considered by the Council of Foreign Ministers last September. M. Bidault asks that all Italy's colonies, except the Dodecanese Islands, become wards of the United Nations. Mr Byrnes, too, would turn the colonies over to United Nations trusteeship, but differs in that he rejects Italy, or any other single Power, as an administering authority. In the case of Libya, for instance, the Americans propose that during the trusteeship period the Trusteeship Council should appoint an official with full executive power, assisted by an advisory committee of seven representing the United Kingdom, the Soviet Union, France, Italy, and the United States, with a European and an Arab resident of Libya chosen by the five Governments. In September, Britain supported the American plan, as Mr Bevin told the House of Commons, because it “ was a wide and far- “ seeing proposal which would avoid “ friction between the Great Powers “ and give a chance for a great “experiment in international co- “ operation ”. But though Mr Molotov is reported, in effect, to have abandoned in Paris the claim to some form of Russian mandate over Libya’s western province of Tripolitania, Mr Bevin is said to have turned from the American plan to a British one which would give Tripolitania and Cyrenaica, as a single State, immediate independence. Mr Molotov’s move is not altogether surprising. The “Specta- “ tor ”, for instance, questioned whether the September claim was seriously advanced. It had been put in “a little perfunctorily"; and, if the claim were not pressed or not conceded. Russia would stand in on a scheme of international administration rather than stand aside and see individual trustees appointed. Certainly, by Reuter’s account, the claim has not been pressed, and the new Soviet proposal needs little trimming to fit the American plan. Mr Bevin’s ibout-turn, however, is totally unheralded, and unexplained by Reuter’s correspondent. It is hard to believe that he suggests one when, quoting Mr Bevin’s reference to Britain’s pledge against returning Cyrenaica to Italy, he observes that Britain has recently received a strong appeal from the people of Libya not to go back on it. Trusteeship, in the forms that Britain. America, and Russia favoured in September, would honour it. Only the French proposal would run counter to it A plausible explanation might however, be seen against the background of the Palestine problem. In September, Britain’s

new Government had found no policy for Palestine to replace the 1939 policy of Arab appeasement; and it was not until mid-November that the British Government, surrendering to Zionist pressure from America, announced the establishment of the Anglo-American committee of inquiry. The committee’s report, released this week, declares in favour of a new policy that would give to the Jews and take away from the Arabs. But the Arab in Palestine is the Arab throughout the Middle East; and Arab friendship is vital to Britain’s interests throughout the wider region. The Arab League demands Palestine for the Arabs. It demands, also, independence for the Arabs of Libya. Britain can grant neither demand. But the gesture in Paris, if it is no more than that, is still worth making.