CONFERENCE IN MOSCOW

Press, Volume LXXXIII, Issue 25147, 31 March 1947, Page 7

CONFERENCE IN MOSCOW

Ministers Continue To Differ “DIVISIONS AS WIDE AS EVER” (N.Z. Press Association—Copyright) (Rec. 9 p.m.) ' LONDON, March 29. “Both on the treatment of Germany and on the Austrian settlement, the divisions among the four foreign Ministers are still as wide as ever,” says the Moscow correspondent of “The Times.” “On all fundamental matters which will determine whether there can be a unified plan for Germany the differences are extreme.

“It has also become clearer than ever after last night’s meeting that there is no unity of view on Austria, and for the first time it appears doubtful whether the Austrian treaty can be concluded at this conference.”

It is authoritatively stated that the Council of Foreign Ministers failed to agree on the question of German assets in Austria after considering tne draft proposals made on Thursday, and referred the problem back to the deputies.

It is also authoritativley reported that the United States plans to counter Mr Molotov’s demand for four-Power control of the Ruhr with a demand for international control of Silesian indus--try, at present administered by the Poles. The United States will raise this new issue when the Council’s agenda presents a favourable opportunity, probably next week. Council’s Decisions

The Foreign Ministers’ Council, after an hour’s session, decided to appoint a special committee to discuss the co-ordinating committee’s report. The special committee, consisting of Lieutenant-General Sir Brian Robertson (Britain), Mr Edward Mason (United States), Mr Herve Alphand (France), and Mr Sokolovsky (Russia), is to have its report ready by April 3. The Ministers agreed to attempt a complete discussion by April 2 on the three main points reserved from the special committee’s agenda: the treatment of Germany as an economic unit, including the level of industry and the resumption of reparations; demilitarisation; and the form and scope of a German provisional government. The co-ordinating committee’s summary of the positions taken by the Big Four was delivered to the Foreign Ministers’ Council yesterday. The British United Press correspondent in Moscow says that one of the most important Russian statements is that of Mr Vyshinsky to the committee. “The Russian delegation,” he said, “regards economic principles as organically connected with reparations. The Russian delegation in studying the individual proposals of the various delegations found many points which would provide a genqpal solution, but Russia relies upon encountering reciprocity over reparations. . “Neither Britain nor the United States has yet agreed on the principle of reparations from current production. Russia, in the co-ordinating committee’s report, asks only that the council study the possibility of taking reparations in services and other ways. Payments Already Taken The correspondent adds that the report discloses another difficulty in regarations. Early in the conference Mr evin asked each Power to reveal what had oeen taken out of Germany as reparations. Britain and the United States have done so, but no Russian figure has been issued publicly. An earlier message said that the coordinating committee recorded in a report on Mr Vyshinsky’s statement on reparations, that Russia continued to insist on £2,500,000,000 reparations from Germany as fulfilment of the Yalta Agreement, which provided for the use of current production for reparations payments. Russia proposed that the Allies finish the removal of equipment from Germany by July 1, 1948, said Mr Vyshinsky and stipulated that Germany’s reparations commitments must be fulfilled within 20 years. When Germany’s provisional political organisation was discussed, Mr Vyshinsky entered into a lively dispute with General Clay and General Robertson. He claimed that the American, British, and French proposals for federalisation would lead to the dismemberment of Germany and foster the spirit of revenge.