AVIATION CONTROL

Greymouth Evening Star, 10 November 1944, Page 6

AVIATION CONTROL

N.Z. AUST. PROPOSAL LOST

NEW YORK, November 9. The Chicago Aviation Conference dropped the New Zealand and Australian proposal for a global air corporation from further consideration, upon a Brazilian motion that there was lack of unanimity necessary to achieve such a goal,” says the Chicago correspondent of the “New York Times.” “The New Zealand and Australian proposal was eloquently proposed and just as eloquently buried. Only New Zealand and Australia voted against the Brazilian motion to drop the proposal. “A French delegate (M. Max Hymans) proposed that the matter be further studied by an interim permanent organisation. This proposal was ruled out of order by the chairman of the South African delegation (Mr John Martin), who presided over the conference. M. Hymans reserved the right to raise the matter later. ‘The New Zealand and Australian proposal was presented by Mr D. G. Sullivan, whose eloquence and sincerity impressed the conference. His presentation of the case brought him a round of undiplomatically hearty applause. “We are familiar with the ruthlessness of the struggle in domestic commerce,” said Mr Sullivan. “Indeed, those who have to do with war-time supply are too well aware that even the need for national unity in war time does not assuage this acquisitive passion. I say solemnly that we here and now, should free international air commerce from that kind of passionate struggle. I say, with deep personal conviction and representing the judgment of my Government, that competition between private and national interest in the field of aviation will yet be the cause of another war.” Mr A. S. Drakeford seconded the proposal for Australia. U.S.A. ATTITUDE Mr Adolf Eerie (United States), supporting the Brazilian motion, complimented New Zealand and Australia on the wisdom and propriety of bringing the proposal before the conference. “Hoping for the ideal as we do, but recognising the real as we must, we know that the instrument is still unfashioned to which we could commit so much of the fate of all nations,” he said. The “New York Times” points out that the great respect with which the Anzac proposal was turned down reflects the possibility that the British Labour Party shares the New Zealand and Australian views, and might il returned to power, bring them up again with the Empire force behind them. Hence, it is considered possible that the French proposal for study and trial of ttfe New Zealand and Australian plan might be adopted, if only in a regional sense. “The results of the Presidential election have strengthened the hand of the American delegation,” says the “New York Times.” “The American people have clearly given the delegation a popular mandate to stand by its programme favouring an international air body limited to consultative and technical functions. However this does not preclude the possibility of the usual give and take of an international conference with the British and the Canadians* who in different degrees favour an international air authority with broad powers The rejection of tne New Zealand and Australian proposal ended any possibility of extreme internationalism at this time. What remains is to work out an agreement on a middle course, determining the amount ol competition and regulation.”