MARATHON TUSSLE

Evening Star, Issue 25715, 12 February 1946, Page 5

MARATHON TUSSLE

PERMANENT SITE FOR U.N.O. FIGHTING SPEECH BY AUSTRALIAN DELEGATE (Rec. 12.5 p.m.) LONDON, February 11. The Permanent Headquarters Site Committee of U.N.O. continued its marathon tussle on proposals from the inspection group recommending the Stamford-Greenwich area. The committee, having upheld the chairman's ruling that the tie on February 9 meant defeat of the French proposal for rejection of the inspection group's report, proceeded to debate not only a Netherlands amendment for adoption of the report and the appointment of a planning commission to study sites within the recommended area and determine the exact size of the required area, but also two amendments to the Netherlands proposal. These were, first, a Canadian amendment that the general region be Westchester-New York and Firfield-Connecticut instead of the Stamford-Greenwich area; secondly, a Polish amendment that adoption of the Netherlands proposals did not imply financial commitments by U.N.0., and did not impose any financial obligations on the members of U.N.0., also that the Assembly should remain free to decide these questions at the second part of the present session to be held in September. The Polfeh amendment crystallised the expressed fears of many delegations, especially those of the small countries and those occupied by the enemy during the war, about the effect on their budgets of U.N.O.'s expenditure for costly land in the recommended area.

Mr Hodgson (Australia), in a fighting speech, expressed the opinion that those who supported the French proposal, including Poland, should vote against the Polish and Canadian amendments, as well as the Netherlands amendment.

Mr Hodgson, after maintaining that the Interim Committee, through the inspection group, had not given due and equitable consideration to all invitations from the United States as required, said protests were now flooding in from many parts against both the selection of the Stamford-Greenwich area and the lack of consideration to invitations from other centres. Mr Hodgson, after reminding the committee that he had withdrawn his original motion in favour of the French proposal, adding that if the present proposals were carried he would again move the French amendment, as he understood he had the right to do. M. Lopez (Philippines) picturesquely argued that U.N.0., for its own dignity if for nothing else, should not impose itself on a site and a community where it was not wanted. U.N.O.'s self-respect for other peoples' opinions should persuade the delegates to seek a site elsewhere where they would be welcome. He was opposed to steam-roller tactics, which might lead to the delegates being received at Greenwich by pickets and placards reading,: "We don't want you." The loommittee adjourned.