TREATY WITH GERMANY

Press, Volume LXXXIII, Issue 25092, 25 January 1947, Page 7

TREATY WITH GERMANY

Australian View Heard “INTERIM” PLAN PROPOSED (N.Z. Press Association—Copyright) (Rec. 7 p.m.) LONDON, Jan. 23. In spite of the instruction of the cnairman (Mr Gusev, Russia) that he must confine himself to matters of substance, Australia’s representative Colonel G. R. Hodgson, nr a three hours’ address this afternoon, succeeded in delivering Australia’s views on procedure for the German settlement m a manner which won the outspoken commendation of the Foreign Ministers’ deputies, including Mr Gusev.

Mr Robert Murphy (United States) declared: It is the clearest exposition of general principles that we have heard and it has revealed an entirely new attitude.”

Colonel Hodgson argued that instead of working on a peace treaty for Germany all the active belligerents should be engaged on drawing up an interim agreement which would settle all current political, economic, and frontier problems. The permanent features of the settlement should then be carried forward into the peace treaty, to be signed by a German Government when there was one in existence.

“The agreement should be, in fact, an enlargement of the Potsdam agreement, but it will have what Potsdam lacked—the sanction of all the belligerents,” said Colonel Hodgson. The Germans were unfit for self-govern-ment and there should be no German Government for years. Nothing would be worse for the peace than to hasten the formation of a government. The Foreign Ministers at their Moscow meeting should authorise the drafting of an interim agreement, and the active belligerents should be invited to attend and discuss the directives. They should set up fact-finding and other committees and they should be actively associated right through to the discussion of the final text and the signing. Australia did not want a repetition of the Versailles or the Paris treaty.

Instruction “Side-stepped” Colonel Hodgson earlier side-stepped Mr Gusev’s instruction to confine himself to his views on matters of substance by saying that he proposed to discuss how those views should be heard. He added that Australia had made great sacrifices in both wars and it was his duty to see that she was never called on to do so again. He reserved the right for the Australian representative to appear before the deputies again to detail fully his views on all aspects of the German settlement.

Mr Gusev agreed to hear the Australian representative at a later stage. He regretted Colonel Hodgson’s criticism of the Paris Conference and added that Australia apparently thought it wrong for the Foreign Ministers to reach unanimity before the conference, but this was an essential prerequisite.

Sir William Strang (Britain), intervening, said that the fact that the Foreign Ministers themselves had changed their procedure showed that they had themselves seen they were wrong. He warmly supported Australia’s views and hoped that they would be given effect to.

Mr Murphy said that his country would like an immediate association in London of all active belligerents in the treaty-making. “The United States does not want the work of peace-treaty making to be based on the theory that some countries have the right to work out the peace treaties themselves,” he said. “We desire full and active co-operation with countries like Australia, which has played such an effective part in the war.” Mr De Murville (France) expressed warm appreciation of Australia’s views, which he said were closely in accord with those of France. Mr Gusev also thanked Colonel Hodgson for his clear exposition of Australia’s case.

Following an expression of dissatisfaction last week by the Canadian Minister of External Affairs (Mr Louis St. Laurent) at the proposed degree of Canada’s participation in drafting the German and Austrian peace treaties, the Canadian Press learns that Canada will probably decline to appear before the Foreign Ministers’ deputies in London unless she is permitted to do more than submit a written statement on the peace settlement. POLISH DEMANDS \ ON AUSTRIA RESPONSIBILITY IN WAR ASSERTED (Rec. 7 p.m.) LONDON, Jan. 23. The Foreign Ministers’ deputies decided to refer to the Foreign Ministers the question of w’hat nations should be named in the preamble to the Austrian treaty. The deputies this morning heard Poland’s delegate, Mr Stefan Wieoloski, express his views on the treaty. He declared that it should be clearly recognised that on Austria rested the responsibility of participating in the war on the side of Hitlerite Germany. All steps should be taken to prevent propaganda in favour of an anschluss and all Nazis should be removed from important posts. Poland demanded restitution of, or compensation for, property belonging to Poles in Austria and for property removed from Poland to Austria, also compensation for Polish forced labour in Austria.

TREATY WITH FRANCE BRITAIN ANXIOUS TO BEGIN TALKS (Rec. 7 p.m.) LONDON, January 23. Mr Attlee told the House of Commons to-day that the British Government was anxious to begin negotiations for the treaty of alliance, which he had discussed with Mr Leon Blum, “as soon as the new French Government was ready.” A questioner asked whether Mr Attlee would give an assurance that the proposed new alliance was not intended to supplant the British-Russian treaty. Mr Attlee said that the more treaties they could get within the ambit of the United Nations, the better for the world’s peace. The French and the British both had treaties with Russia. Economic conversations with France were already proceeding. SHIPS CHARTERED BY BRITAIN RETURN TO AMERICA DEMANDED

(Rec. 10.45 p.m.) WASHINGTON, Jan. 23.

The chairman of the House of Representatives Merchant Marine Committee (Mr Fred Bradley, Republican) introduced in committee a resolution demanding the immediate return of more than 200 United States merchant ships chartered to Britain during the Mr Bradley claimed that the ships were now being used in competition with American merchant ships. The ships were chartered under an agreement on November 24, 1944, betiveen the United States War Shipping Administration and the British Ministry of War Transport Ibe committee decided to investigate the condition of American merchantmen built during the war and since laid up.