JAPANESE PEACE CONFERENCE

Press, Volume LXXXIII, Issue 25245, 25 July 1947, Page 7

JAPANESE PEACE CONFERENCE

U.S. Action Thought Precipitate SOVIET REPLY TO INVITATION

(NJZ. Press Association—Copyright) (Rec. 8 p.m.) WASHINGTON, July 23. According to the Moscow radio, Russia has replied to the United States invitation to atfend the conference to prepare a peace treaty with Japan by saying that she cannot agree that the question of calling a conference should be decided unilaterally by the United States. Russia complains that the United States began preparations for a peace conference without consulting Russia, China, or Britain. Russia considers it essential that the question of calling a conference should first be examined by the Council of Foreign Ministers, who should undertake the preliminary work of drafting the Japanese treaty. The Russian reply refers to the Cairo and Yalta agreements in support of the argument that the Foreign Ministers’ Council must be used for the preparation of peace treaties. Russia suggests that the Chinese, British and Russian Ambassadors in Washington should discuss with the United States a suitable date for convening the council to discuss the Japanese treaty. The United States Secretary of State (General Marshall), addressing a press conference to-day, said that the United States had not yet received Moscow’s rejection of the invitation to an 11nation conference on the Japanese peace treaty. Pending the receipt of it and the views of all the other countries concerned, he declined to comment. American Reactions A high official American source denied the reported Soviet allegation that the American proposal was contrary to the Potsdam agreement. He said that the Potsdam pact was not related to the Pacific settlement.

An authoritative source indicated to-night that the United States v will hold out firmly for a Japanese peace treaty drafted by an U-nation conference, rather than by the Big Four, as demanded by Russia in the Moscow radip announcement. The State Department is determined to use all possible expedition in getting the Japanese peace treaty drafted and signed, because the United States hopes to end the major phase of the military occupation of Japan within two years. It is expected that the writing and final ratification of the treaty would require as long as that, even if a start were made immediately. The “New York Times,” in a leading article, says: “The Soviet rejection of the American invitation to a preliminary conference is* in line with the policy of total obstruction of all peace efforts which the Russian Government has pursued since the end of the war. The Japanese treaty should be proceeded with without Russia, if necessary. This procedure is entirely practicable, first because Russia cannot use her armed strength to sabotage the peace effort as she is doing in Europe, and second, because, whatever may be the situation in respect to Europe, the Japanese peace negotiations are in no way tied to the procedures of the international bodies created for the European peace treaties. This is so in spite of the Russian attempt to invoke the decisions of the Cairo, Yalta, and Potsdam conferences and the Moscow agreement of December, 1945, most of which she has violated.”

RETURN OF ISLANDS SOUGHT

JAPANESE REQUEST TO SUPREME COMMAND TOKYO. July 23. A resolution asking the Supreme Command to return the Russian-occu-pied islands near the eastern-most tip «of Hokkaido to Japan was unanimously adopted by the Hokkaido Provincial Assembly. The Kyodo News Service says the Hokkaido Provincial Assembly was acting “in the face of increasing popular sentiment” when it placed the matter before a plenary session. The islands, which include Etorofu and Kunajiri, were owned by Japan before the war. They are rich in maritime products. The reason given by the Hokkaido Assembly for its decisions is that the return of the islands will considerably relieve the nation’s acute food crisis.

BRITISH CUTS IN IMPORTS

WARNING GIVEN BY SIR STAFFORD CRIPPS LONDON, July 23. The economic situation was as urgent as the period before D-Day, said the President of the Board of Trade (Sir Stafford Cripps). The “battle of the balance of payments” was on. Britain’s independent economic survival es a great Power was at stake. With the present level of imports 70 to 80 per cent, of the pre-war volume, xhere was no cut Britain could manage without serious dislocation in the production of either foodstuffs or raw materials. The cuts imposed could not possibly right Britain’s balance of overseas payments, but merely helped to delay the date when Britain would run out of dollars and hard currencies.

Sir Stafford Cripps said the cuts in imports were a warning that unless some major action was taken to right the world shortage of dollars and to relieve the present great pressure on sterling dollar exchange, Britain would find it inevitably necessary further to curtail imports. “Our economic and political democracy is on trial before the eyes of the world. Our failure will mean its collapse. Our success will immeasurably strengthen what we believe to be right,” he said.

Indian Ambassadors to Russia.—Both India and Pakistan are to have women as ambassadors in Moscow. India recently appointed Mrs Vijaya Pandit, sister of Mr Nehru, and yesterday Pakistan appointed Begum Shah Nawaa as its Russian envoy.—New Delhi, July 23.