UNITED NATIONS CHARTER

Dominion, Volume 38, Issue 258, 28 July 1945, Page 8

UNITED NATIONS CHARTER

further Contributions To Debate In House Of Representatives PRIME MINISTER TO REPLY ON WEDNESDAY

The debate on the motion to approve and recommend the ratification of the Charter of the United Nations was continued in the House of Kepresentatives yesterday. No Opposition members participated in the discussion after Mr. Morton (Opposition, Waitemata), who resumed the debate, had completed his speech which had been interrupted by the adjournment on Thursday night. The House rose at 4.45 p.m. till 2.30 p.m. on M ednesday without the Prime Minister, Mr. Fraser, replying to the debate. This he intends to do next Wednesday night. The speakers yesterday included the '.Minister of Finance, Mr. Nash, who said that the peoples of the world could not live without one another.

Mr. Morton (Opposition, Waitemata), whose speech had been interrupted, by the adjournment on Thursday night, said there would be no assured peace unless something was done about unlimited manufacture and export of armaments in time of peace. Till within a week of the outbreak of war Britain was exporting vast quantities of armaments and raw materials for munitions to Germany, while successive Governments in New Zealand had tolerated similar exports to JaJpan. If the new international organization could give its attention to this matter of the armament trade it would have a rich reward. The world also needed the re-establish-ment and improvement of trade facilities. Few countries in the past had been exempt from blame for raising trade barriers which were a potent cause of war. We must iu the near future be. prepared to trade even with Germany, which would have to be allowed to engage in trade. We must show a spirit of tolerance and understanding of the other fellow’s point of view.

Hair-Splitting Alleged. Mr. Thorn (Government, Thames) referred to what he' described as the “deplorable speech” of Mr. Algie (Opposition, Remuera) the previous evening. Mr. Algie appeared to be a typical case of a man who was dedicating his intellect to the task of putting the elock back. Mr. Algie came from the university and was supposed to represent learning. In a world such as confronted them today he should be holding up the light by which others might better see their way about. Instead of that, he would cynically lead the people of New Zealand into a sort of valley of dry bones, where all hope for ' them would be extinguished. With the world in Hames this ex-professor was splitting hairs and playing wjth words. Mr. Algie, said Mr. Thorn, had claimed that the document prepared at San Francisco could not be defined as a Charter, but, said Mr. Thorn, in common usage of English the Charter had come to mean a declaration of principles which was exactly what emerged from San Francisco. Mr. Thorn cited the People’s Charter drawn up one hundred years ago in England and the Atlantic Charter as examples pf declaration of principle under the name of a Charter. That name was good enough for Mr. Roosevelt and Mr. Churchill, but not for the trivial and childish member for Kemuera, who had also been trivial in his references to the international court of justice. Mr. Thorn said that the international Court of Justice was the work of the jurists of 50 nations, all making a sincere contribution to peace, but all Mr. Algie could do was to scoff at it, and put a number of trick questions to the Government. His was the attitude of a pettifogger of the most smug and supercilious kind. Referring to the suggestion that the Opposition should have been represented in the New Zealand delegation, Mr. Thorn said that Mr. Algie.’s speech” had shown that such a course would merely have resulted in divided counsels. It was much better that New Zealand should have been repnjscnted by a delegation which could work single-mindedly for a policy in accordance with our democratic spirit and the general policy of the Government of the country. Mr. Denham (Government, Invercargill, who argued that private enterprise was conducive to conditions that caused war. said the soldiers in the Pacific were working men, but after they had driven the Japanese out private enterprise would want to step in and exploit the areas and make American, Dutch or British mil-

lionaires. What was wanted was a new order and the work of the San Francisco Conference was a step toward that. There were still serious obstacles in the way of jterrnanent peace, but the Charter would increase the difficulty of the aggressor and hamper the making of wars. The Minister of Finance, Mr. Nash, said he regarded the debate as the most interesting on foreign affairs heard in the House. It was something of which they could be proud that New Zealand, as a small nation with full independence, had been able to draw the support of some older European nations at the conference for her advocacy of ideas believed essential to world peace. The fact that, power was the determining factor at San Francisco need not. cause concern, because power was obviously the paramount factor in world affairs at the moment. He regretted that the proposals put forward by the New Zealand and Australian delegations against the veto had not been successful. If power were to be the determining factor in the long run in relations between nations there could be no permanent peace, but that did not belittle what had been done at San Francisco, The helpful thing that came out of the conference was that though power bad won—the veto had won—the New Zealand and Australian delegations bad asserted that there was another road to travel, and had received such support that it was now recognized that even if the Charter were retained in its present form the small nations did have some responsibility for the future of the world. Mr. Nash expressed agreement with the contention by Mr. Algie that the document would not do what had to be done. It was in the individual heart and brain that the success of the Charter would •be determined, and individuals could only react according to the knowledge they had. He also agreed that after discussing the world’s future at a high social, cultural and spiritual level there was a danger of the Charter being thrown away. If they were to have peace in the long run they must bring about the democratic union of all nations which would have to accept the responsibility for the world’s future whether good or ill. Replying to a question by Mr. C. Webb Kaipara). Mr. Nash said that if a nation did not keep the agreement then there was a case, against it. Another excellent feature arising out of the conference was the great step forward in regard to trusteeships. These were now accountable for territory under their control. It was not just a matter of nations obtaining another area of land for their economic advantage. Their responsibilities were to ensure the welfare of the people, in these territories. The Minister said that the co-operation provided for in the Charter was the major ingredient that would build something that would stop the breaches of the peace that had occurred in previous years. Peace was not permanently possible while people in this country, with its amazing resources, were able to live to an average of 67 years, and people in another part of the world lived for only 27 years. There were sufficient resources in the world for the healthy living of all. They had to remember that the Christian philosophy was not the only philosophy, and that there were religions that had many foundation principles like the foundation principles of Christianity. No road they <<>uld travel would give better results than following the road of the founder of Christianity. but in following that road no one should bo hungry and every individual should have a chance. The right to work had to be accompanied by the right to an income. Economic law was not static. The tendency today was to rely on the law of supply and demand, but it could be altered for the benefit of the world.

Women’s 'tights Recognized. Miss Howard (Government, Christchurch East) said that the document was the greatest milestone in (lie history of wom,?n in that written with it was recognition of the rights of women. It gave them equality, and there would be no retreat. Women had proved their ability during the war. and she believed that the people of Britain recognized that by returning 21 women to the new Parliament. Mr. Atmore (Independent. Nelson) sail] he considered that the San Francisco agreement represented a great step toward the unification of the human fam-

ily. In congratulating the Prime Minister and his delegation on its excellent work, Mr. Atmore said it was not unexpected. Men from small nations had previously led the world in an endeavour to recognize the rights of man. He had been pleased to hear the Leader of the Opposition commenting on the need to understand Russia. The Minister of Justice, Mr. Mason, said he believed the Charter would result in the development of a strong moral sense among the nations and a sound form of international security. He quoted examples of the meaning and use of the word “charter” and contended that the criticism by the member for Remuera- was frivolous. Mr. Combs (Government, Wellington Suburbs) said the majority of speakers had regretted the need for force and the possibility of the veto power being used adversely in the cause of the peace of the world. He felt they should embody in the resolution before the House a sentence conveying to the people of New Zealand in particular and to the world in general regret at the inclusion of the veto power. He stressed the need for educating and training young people in ideals under which they could live their lives fruitfully and happily if the Charter was to prove the success they, hoped. , , The debate was interrupted by the adjournment.