REDUCTION OF ARMAMENTS

Press, Volume LXXXII, Issue 25022, 2 November 1946, Page 9

REDUCTION OF ARMAMENTS

UNO Committees To Report SPAIN ALSO ON AGENDA

(HZ Press Association—Copyright) (Hee 8 P- m -> NEW YORK, October 31. Mr Vyshinsky, at the United Nations Assembly’s general committee meet■nTagreed to the motion of Mr P. Koel-Baker (Britain) that the Russian resolution on armaments reduction be nlaced on the Assembly’s agenda with J recommendation that it be referred to the appropriate committees for a committee, after a long discuscion, took similar action on a request from Belgium, Denmark, Czechoslovakia, Norway, and Venezuela that the Spanish, question be placed'on the AsjEJbly’s agenda as a separate item. It k vas pointed out that there were six items on the provisional agenda dealing with this subject all of which itgre concerned with the same political issues and should be considered together. Mr Vyshinsky, reiterating the Russian criticisms, said: “The accursed Spanish question is dishonouring Europe.” He said that Russia welcomed a debate on it, but “we have had enough words and it is time for action.” Mr Juan Carlos Blanco (Uruguay) joined in the chorus protesting against {he Spanish regime. He said it was essential to abolish those Governments which had co-operated with the XIS Danube Navigation The Secretary-General of the United Nations (Mr Trygve Lie) announced that Russia. Jugoslavia, and Oechoslovakia had rejected the American proposal for an international conference on Danube navigation. Britain and Greece had approved the proposal. France had infonned the United Nations that she was interested in the suggestion, but would' participate in a conference only if Russia, Jugoslavia, and Czechoslovakia did so. The United States originally proposed the conference to the Social and Economic Council of UNO, which agreed to sponsor it

Ukraine Attacks Charter Revision The Ukraine’s Foreign Minister (Mr Manuilsky), winding up the debate in the Assembly, declared that “dark forces of evil” were trying to poison public opinion to provoke a new war. He said that those nations which urged revision of the Charter were striving to promote discord and conflict among the Great Powers. Mr Manuilsky scorned “the socalled freedom of speech.’’ He said: •“Propaganda is being carried on under the eyes of Governments, who helplessly shrug their shoulders and declare that they are unable to do anything against this evil because of freedom of speech and the press. This is strange, because freedom of speech and the press, interpreted in this manner, creates immunity for warmongers.” Mr Manuilsky accused the “AngloSaxon” majority of trying to create a monopoly in the Security Council. He particularly criticised Australia and Cuba for pressing for revision of the voting procedure. He said that their proposals “echo the propaganda of fhe advocates of a new war ’’

Was the voice of one Cuban equal to the voice of 100 Chinese? Mr Manuilsky added. He denied that the Ukraine and White Russian delegates took their orders from the Soviet He scid they acted in accordance with their own conscience and convictions. Mr Joseph Bech (Luxemburg). criticising Sir Carl Berendsen’s description linking the Charter with the veto

as “a shot-gun wedding,” said it was rather a marriage of convenience. Such marriages often proved happier than the sentimental union which took no realities into account, he said.

British‘Reply to Albania Mr P. Noel-Baker (Britain) said that Albania’s complaints that British warships in Albanian waters had threatened international peace were not substantiated. [Albania alleged in two Notes to the United Nations that four British warships oh October 22 entered Albanian waters round Saranta, Kakomes, and Borsi, Without Albanian permission, thereby threatening international relations.]

Mr Noel-Boker commented: “I wonder how long it would have been before Albania was liberated from Fascist rule if the British forces whom Albania now treats as hostile had not stood alone against the Axis. I should nave thought, putting all other consderations aside, that Albania would nave been most eager to welcome in *ny way any member of the British armed forces, instead of talking about Provocative incursions and violations ® territorial waters. I note that the Albanian Govem- » most careful not to suggest mat there should be any impartial “tornational inquiry into its unsubstantiated allegations. This does not {®Phse me, but I confess that it oaves me wondering why.”