ON VETO ISSUE

Evening Post, Volume CXXXIX, Issue 118, 21 May 1945, Page 4

ON VETO ISSUE

SMALL POWERS' FAILURE

SAN FRANCISCO, May 18. Mr. P. Fraser and Dr. H. V. Eyatt led the attack by the small nations [against the veto powers of the Big Five in a lengthy meeting of the committee on the security council procedures last night. In response to questions by Mr. Fraser, the British Permanent Undersecretary of Foreign Affairs, Sir Alexander Cadogan, defended the Yalta decision requiring unanimity of the Big Five upon the use of force. However, Sir Alexander Cadogan pointed the way towards some modification in the case of a preliminary peaceful settlement. He said that the British view of the Yalta Agreement was that there would be no veto on having the council consider a threatening situation whether or not a member of the Big Five was involved. Furthermore, the results of the investigation could be made known by the security council, although the council could not formally brand a Great Power as an aggressor. Dr. Evatt advanced Australia's argument for the elimination of any kind of veto by any of the Big Powers in the investigation of the peaceful settlement of disputes. The Associated Press says there is a possibility that the Australian view may be adopted if Russian agreement is obtained, but that all Russian decisions apparently are in abeyance at present awaiting word from Moscow. The Associated Press points out that the small nations now realise that they have no hope of removing the Big Five veto on the use of force, and I^ierefore are concentrating on removing the veto in the preliminary stages of peaceful settlement. Meanwhile, it is learned that considerable support is building up behind the Australian proposal that the United Nations should pledge to respect each other's territorial integrity and political independence. The small nations favour the pledge as a protection against possible aggression and also as a concrete approach to a definition of aggression.