USE OF VETO POWER

Press, Volume LXXXII, Issue 25021, 1 November 1946, Page 7

USE OF VETO POWER

Makin Supports Critics . ATOMIC ENERGY CONTROL (N.Z. Press Association—Copyright) (Rec. 7 p.m.) NEW YORK, Oct. 30. Mr N. J. O. Makin (Australia) was the first speaker at to-day’s meeting of the United Nations General Assembly. He said it was important that the Assembly’s primary function as a forum for open discussion should 'be maintained and strengthened. Only if every delegate felt completely free to express his views could international problems be solved in the interests of the whole world. Peace could be won and maintained only if settlements were reached by democratic methods based on principle rather, than on mere expediency and national self-interest. , , Mr Makin, dealing with the veto, said the working of the Security Council justified some of the fears expressed at San Francisco. So far the theory of unanimity among the Great Powers had not worked in practice.

It was hoped that ih due course the Council’s permanent members would realise the necessity for amending the Charter’s voting provisions, and that the undertakings which the Great Powers gave that the veto right would not be abused would be honoured. He said the veto was used again and again by one permanent member to thwart the will of a clear majority of the Council, mostly in matters of procedure or other matters which were not vital to the security of the Great Powers, and which did not involve any great responsibility or risk by them. After seeing the veto rule at work and after hearing the Soviet Union’s unreasonable claims for blocking every proposed recommendation which the Council was asked to make, Australia felt impelled to ask for the inclusion of the subject on the Assembly’s agenda.

The Australian Government thought the United States plan for controlling atomic energy offered a sound working basis. The Soviet proposals, while insufficiently recognising the essential relationship between all the various parts of one great problem, could be fitted into the United States’ general plan. ■ Australia supported the United States’ view that there must be no veto to protect those violating atomic energy agreements. No veto system could possibly be permitted in the atomic energy agency, because that would mean the right to claim special immunity or exemption from the rules of conduct laid down by the atomic energy control system.

Trusteeship Council Answering Mr Molotov’s complaint about the delay in the establishment of the Trusteeship Council, Mr Makin said that it could not have been established earlier. Moreover, the Australian proposal for the establishment of an interim body had encountered Soviet opposition. Mr Makin added that the Assembly was told on the previous day that some countries had begun a campaign against the veto rights of the Great Powers, with a view to diverting attention from the real shortcomings of the United Nations and a warning was given that if the campaign were successful it would liquidate the United Nations. That serious charge was totally unjustified. Mr Tibucio Carias (Honduras) described Mr Molotov’s reference to Honduras as an outburst of Slav temper in the best steppe style. He added that it was a slap at all small nations. % Mr Thanassis Aghnides (Greece) criticised Russia’s hostile attitude to Greece, and said that both at the Paris Peace Conference and in the Security Council, -Russia’s attitude was harsh. He added that persistence in that attitude “fills my countrymen with amazement and disappointment. They are shocked at the unseemly haste m which a war ally is treated as an enemy, while favours are bestowed on unredeemed recalcitrant enemies.” He urged the Great Powers to use the veto with restraint., , . ■ Mr Francis Yllescas (Ecuador) told the Assembly that it was essential that the voting procedure should be revised in a logical, legitimate manner. He added that the little nations feared that the political interest of the Great Powers might, in future, gain supremacy over humanity’s interests.