WORLD SECURITY

Greymouth Evening Star, 14 May 1945, Page 6

WORLD SECURITY

UNCIO DISSENSIONS MEMBERSHIP OF COUNCIL SAN FRANCISCO, May 12. The UNCIO committee on the World Security Council, with some nations abstaining, voted to restrict the size of the Security. Council to 11 members, five of which must be Britain, the United States, Russia, China, and France. This means that the smaller countries have been rebuffed in their effort to win more authority for themselves m the shaping of a peaceful world. The committee’s vote has to be ratified by a plenary session. The issue could be reopened in the committee itself. Delegates of several small nations are reported to have stated that they may ask for a review if some of their demands are rejected, such as their bids for more power for the General Assembly in advising the Security Council, or even authority for the Assembly to reject a Council decision if necessary. Spokesmen for several countries which previously urged, enlargement of the Security Council explained that they had reconsidered their attitude and now supported the Big Four plan. The effort of the small nations, headed by New Zealand, to participate in the decisions of the Security Council on the use of force, has been successfully blocked by Britain, America, and Russia, said an earlier report. At Friday’s meeting of the committee on enforcement arrangements, Mr. Berendsen (New Zealand) argued that the Security Council should be empowered to act only after obtaining the approval of a simple majority in the General Assembly. “’The League of Nations failed because it relied on the pagan principle of sparing one’s own children by throwing the children of others to the wolves,” he said. “At the same time the Covenant’s unanimity rule was its weakness. To overcome that, Dumbarton Oaks has gone too far in the other direction by establishing the stultifying principle that nations which are not members of the Security Council have not even a choice, let alone a vote, in the decision. The present proposals would bind the smaller Powers for all time to send their sons to die as a result of 'decisions taken by unknown men in unknown circumstances based on unknown principles.”

The Big Three remained adamant on the original Dumbarton Oaks proposals to confine decisions to use force to the Security Council alone. “The ‘no vote, no fight’ attitude towards the mechanism for keeping world peace is gaining strength among lhe small and middle Powers, many’of which are lining up behind the proposal that any country whose forces are used ought to have a vote whenever strong-arm methods are adopted to prevent war,” reported the Associated Press correspondent yesterday. “A Canadian proposal that even if a nation has not a seat on the council it should be called in and allowed to vote if its forces are to be used, produced a heated debate. It looks as though somebody will have to retreat. That somebody will be the little fellows. The great nations are not aloof at the proposals of the smaller countries. They simply contend that a compact, hardhitting central authority within the structure of the world organisation is essential if war is to cease.” U.S.A. OPINIONS. The correspondent of the New York “Herald-Tribune” said: “The United States declares that it is unnecessary for the small nations to have a vote before they put troops into battle, because they already have the right under the Dumbarton Oaks plans to determine their contribution of armed forces.” The “Herald-Tribune"’ says: “This does not meet the objection squarely. Small nations foresee one situation where they might be glad to pitch in with armed forces, and another where they might be reluctant to do so. They do not like to promise aid in advance without having a voice in each decision which might involve them.

“Mr. Stassen (United States) replying to Mr. Berendsen (New Zealand) during the small countries’ attempt to upset the Security Council’s supremacy, asked how delegates could return to their own countries and confess that they had voted against the kind of world organisation which offered the best chance for centuries of maintaining world peace, so that their sons might not have to go and die for another world war. Mr Stassen warned that the effort to obtain a workable world organisation might be jeopardised by weakening the authority of the Security Counci i.

“Meanwhile, the Big Four are drafting a counter-proposal designed to give the middle countries like Canada and Australia a sort of priority when the six lesser nations are selected for seats on the Security Counci i. An amendment which has passed the committee stage with only a few dissentients directs the Assembly, when filling those seats, to take into consideration ‘military and industrial potentials, strategic location, regional representation, economic resources, foreign and domestic commerce, and geographical location.’ Thus Canada, Australia, New Zealand, Brazil, and some European countries which sent troops to ' the war have a better chance of getting on the Council than other countries' The acceptance of the new plan would go far towards giving Canada the place she wants and would also undermine the aurgment on Canada’s own amendment.”

The committee on the. Security Council has adopted an amendment which Mr. Eden described as the most important introduced by the British delegation. It authorised the Security Council not only to recommend the procedure to be followed in settling any disnute threatenin'* peace, but also gave the Council power, at the request of all parties to a dispute, to recommend terms of settlement.

The economic and social committee voted unanimously to make the Economic and Social Council one of tne principal organs of the new world organisation. This change in status is welcomed by many nations, including New Zealand and Australia.

TRUSTEESHIPS QUESTION.

RUSSIAN PROPOSALS.

. SAN FRANCISCO, May 12. Britain and the United States are reported to have reached complete agreement at San Francisco on trusteeships, with the United States having its way about strong control over bases in strategic areas considered vital for defence, while Britain was at least partially satisfied with the new formula for letting the Security Council supervise the economic and social adyancement of the peoples of such territories. Final agreement on trusteeships may be held up for days, pending approval from Lonr don and Washington, and perhaps Moscow. Paris and Chungking. The Russian suggestion for eventual independence of dependent peoples encountered a measure of opposition from the other big Powers on the ground that it might be better to specify self-government. Russia recommended that the Big Five be given permanent seats on the special council which will deal with general trusteeship questions, thus

increasing the membership to 19 or 20.

The “New York Times’s” correspondent says that Russia has served notice on the United Nations that she intends to take an active part in the allocation and supervision of colonial areas and strategic bases under the new World Organisation. After listening to the arguments for two weeks the Russian delegation distributed its own plan, which emphasised that the Soviet should be a permanent member of the proposed Trusteeship Council, and that the Security Council, on which the Soviet is a permanent member, should be given a larger role than has been assigned it either by Britain or the United States. The Russian plan, furthermore, goes beyond the British and American plan, arguing not only that colonial peoples should be given an opportunity to work toward selfgovernment, but that the aim should be full national independence. It is perhaps significant that the Russians

chose , the United States plan as the basis of their charter. They have made six amendments which will undoubtedly complicate the negotiations and prolong the conference. The Russians emphasised that the question of who received colonial territories and strategic bases should be definitely a subject for future discussion, thereby amending the American draft, which stated that it should be a matter “for subsequent agreement” on which x territories would be brought under the trusteeship system. Other Russian amendments stressed the desire of the Soviet to be a party to all negotiations on this topic. The New York “Herald-Tribune” says: “A point in the American international trusteeship proposals which is expected to arouse serious British opposition and also possible support for London from some of the Dominions, is the clause which includes the basic objectives of trusteeship, ‘non-discriminatory treat-

ment in trustee territories with respect to economic and other appropriate civil activities of the nations of all member States.’ The . British opposition is based on the imperial preference policy which found full expression in the Ottawa agreements. Observers consider that some of the Dominions, may baulk at the phrase banning discrimination, although they favour trusteeship as a whole. This will be for non-economic reasons. Countries like Australia,, for example, desire to restrict immigration and also to control it in favour of certain races against others.”