FOREIGN MINISTERS

Greymouth Evening Star, 4 October 1945, Page 5

FOREIGN MINISTERS

LONDON MEETINGS ENDED U.S.A. EMBASSY STATEMENT PEACE-MAKING POWERS

LONDON, October 2. “The Foreign Ministers’ Council has decided to terminate its present session” says a communique. The Council met twice to-day (Tuesday). Mr. Molotov presided m the morning and Dr. Wang Shih-chieh m the af The°°United States Embassy in London, on the authority of the secretary of State (Mr. James Byrnes) has issued the following statement: “The initial series of meetings of the Foreign Ministers’ Council dealt with many matters, in accordance with the directive from the Berlin conference to continue preparatory work for the peace settlement with a view to submitting conclusions to the United Notions. The present meeting is the. first meeting of the principal Allies to be held since the fighting stopped. There emerged differences of view which had not appeared so long as the first imperative was to preserve fighting unity. There was a considerable area of agreement on the differences which developed, and they were explored in a spirit of conciliation. There is good reason to believe that with continued patience and understanding on all sides, agreement on’essentials can be attained. We are determined upon that outcome. “Towards the conclusion of the present series of meetings difficulties arose over procedure. The Soviet delegation came to feel that the treaty discussions should be confined in each case to the signatories of surrender terms, as contemplated by the narrow provisions ot the nrst Berlin agreement, rather than under the broader provisions of the second Berlin agreement. The Soviet delegation of September 22 took the position that the Council should rescind its decision of September 11, whereby China and France were invited to participate in all the discussions. This would have meant the i elimination of China from the pendr ing discussion on European . peace treaties, and the similar elimination of France, except in the case of the Italian treaty. HELD IN ABEYANCE “The United States Secretary of State took the position that he would be reluctant to see such a narrowing of participation in the pending work of the European peace treaties, and the elimination from them of i permanent members of the United; Nations Security Council. He would, ; however, accept any treaty-making! procedure which was consistent with ■ the Berlin agreement, provided the' Council agreed, as authorised by the i Berlin agreement,* to call a peace conference of the principally interested States. Such a conference should include the permanent mem-: bers of the Security Council, the European members of the United Nations, and non-European members who had supplied substantial military contingents against the European members of the Axis.. The Council would review the preliminary treaty work of the conference. “The Soviet delegation took the position that it could not make a commitment in reference to such a future peace conference without personal consultation with its Government. , .... “The Council’s work, in the circumstances, will be held in abeyance. If, as we confidently hope, agreement regarding future procedure is obtained, the deputies’ drafting work can then go forward on a basis of the directives which the Council has already given the deputies.” Pointing out that as no protocols have been signed, the Foreign Ministers’ deputies have now no agreed directives on which to work, the “Daily Herald” diplomatic correspondent says: “The only course now open seems to be for the five Governments to start discussions all over again.” But here, again, the correspondent emphasises that the Russians in their present mood may refuse to discuss anything vzith the Chinese and French. “Indeed, the ominous implication of the Russian attitude is that the Soviet may oppose any idea of the conference aiming at anything but having treaties entirely made by the Great Powers, or by three of them, and only formally submitted to the rest,” says the correspondent. “It is a thesis which none of the other Powers could possibly accept. Certainly Britain would never agree to the exclusion of the Dominions and India from all share -in the peacemaking.”

SOME PROGRESS CLAIMED. NEW YORK, October 3. Mr. John Foster Dulles, adviser to the Secretary of State (Mr. Byrnes), described the outcome of the Foreign Ministers’ meeting in terms providing a cheerful and surprising contrast to the outpourings of gloom carried in Press reports. Mr. Dulles, interviewed by telephone in London, said that the Council wound up on a hopeful basis, since all sides made their opinions clear, and that the session gave the five Powers a sound foundation on which to build. The participants believed, said Mr. Dulles, that future meetings of the Foreign Ministers would be held. Some progress had been made at this meeting, and the general feeling was that fair progress would be made at the next. Therefore it was felt that Big Three meetings would be unnecessary. Mr. Dulles had a lengthy conversation with Mr. Molotov, leading him to the conviction that Russian and American relations were now better than ever. Mr. Dulles seemed amazed when told that the meeting had received “a terrifically bad Press in the United States.” He thought there should be more realisation of the toughness of the task, and expressed the opinion that many of the problems would be met and solved. MOSCOW EXPLANATION LONDON, October 3. The Moscow radio announced that the Council of Foreign Ministers had ended its London sesssion without reaching any decision. A Russian news agency statement, broadcast by the radio, ascribed the failure to the refusal of the other Ministers to accept Russia’s proposals for the apportioning and signing of the protocols and agreements. “The Moscow radio claimed that Mr Molotov had made a last-minute effort to keep the London conference of the Foreign Ministers in session, but that the British and American delegates turned down his proposals,” says the Associated Press. “The radio, quoting a Russian Tass News Agency report from London, said that Mr Molotov disagreed strongly with Mr Bevin and Mr Byrnes about procedure for the Balkans treaties, but he had noted that the conference was agreed on other points. Therefore, Mr Molotov proposed: (1) That all five Powers should sign the protocols on the Works and Reparations Commission for Germany, on Austria, and also on other questions; (2) that four

Powers, excluding China, should sign on the points agreed upon in the Italian treaty; (3) that Russia, Britain, and America should sign agreements relating to the treaties witn Rumania, Bulgaria, and Hungary; (4) that Britain and Russia , should sign agreements relating to Finland, ine I Moscow radio added: ‘Acceptance ot i such proposals would have shown I exactly on what questions agreement i had been reached and would .have created a friendly atmosphere for ' further review. The other Ministers did not agree.’’’ i The broadcast Tass report added. “It must be borne in mind that _on ! some questions there are serious differences of opinion. For example, Mr Bevin and Mr Byrnes insisted that France and China, which did not even declare war against Bulgaria, Rumania, and Hungary, should be included in the preparation of the peace treaties with those countlies, in direct contradiction to the decisions of the Potsdam Conference, .which determined that the drafting ■ of treaties should be incumbent on j the countries which had signed the I armistice terms. The Russian delei gation therefore did not agree to accept this and similar proposals.. Notwithstanding, the Russian delegatio endeavoured to see that the first session of the Council should not end without result, but should further the decisions made at Potsdam. Therefore, the Russian delegation on luesdav brought up proposals aimed at a friendly settlement of the differences of opinion.”

MOLOTOV’S STATEMENT NO COMPROMISE LIKELY (Recd. 12.35 p.m.) LONDON, Oct. 3. Following Mr. Byrnes statement that the termination of the first session of the Foreign Ministers Council was decided upon to enable Mi. Molotov to place before his Government a compromise proposal designed to end the present deadlock, Mr. Molotov told a Press conference that Russia would insist that the terms of the Potsdam agreement regarding signatories to the European peace treaties must be carried out. Molotov declared that the Potsdam clauses setting out which countries would sign the peace treaties with Italy, gary, Bulgaria and Rumania must be observed. , , . . Emphasising the decisions reached at Potsdam were binding on the Foreign Ministers, Molotov said, if it be demanded I break or violate the Berlin decision made by the three Powers, and one says that unless I do he cannot agree with me on other questions, then I reply that it is not the habit of the Soviet Union to violate its obligations, and I do not recommend others to do so? •' Molotov parried questions regarding a report that the Council on September 11, had reached an agreement whereby China and France were invited to participate in all the discussions “If you can find such decision of the Council of Foreign Ministers then show it to me. Tell me by whom it was signed.” . . Molotov declared the Foreign Ministers must now reflect on what was the next step to be taken. He added if the countries, as agreed at Potsdam, concluded peace treaties with Italy, Hungary, Bulgaria, Rumania and r inland, Russia would be ready to discuss at an international conference with the other countries concerned any changes and improvements in the drafts, and might be ready to agree to modifications. Molotov said the thirty-three meetings of the Council were

NOT HELD FOR NOTHING. There was intense work and questions were agreed on such as expediting the work of the Reparations Commission in Germany, and questions relating to Austria and other points. The conference unfortunately did not discuss the question of the Allied Control Council for Japan. However, Britain, America, Russia and France reached an agreement on certain questions relating to peace treaties with Bulgaria, Rumania and Hungary and Britain and America without difficulty, had reached an agreement concerning the peace treaty for Finland. “However we had to spend a lot of time arguing whether the decision of the Berlin conference should .be carried out. Soviet people believe that once a decision is reached it must be carried out and Foreign Ministers are unable to'change an agreement adopted by the heads of Government. The Russians in Council yesterday, desiring to create more favourable conditions for the termination of the work of the conference, submitted the following proposals:” (Molotov then read the proposals as broadcast from Moscow). r Molotov concluded: “The- Council of Foreign Ministers did not accept the proposals and were unwilling to postpone the outstanding questions until to-day.”

FRENCH VERSION. (Recd. 12.50 p.m.) M. Bidault issued a statement saying the fact that no final communique summarising the decisions of the Foreign Ministers’ Council was issued, does not mean that no results were obtained. “On the contrary, the study of questions on the agenda particularly that regarding peace treaties with Italy, Finland, Bulgaria, Rumania and Hungary, has been carried out in detail and an agreement reached on several important points, while at the same time directives were given for further study of unsettled points. The experience gamed from the conference, shows without doubt, a common study and frank discussion between the interested powers are capable of promoting solutions for the establishment of a just peace. Finally, the conference adjourned without reaching the decisions the world expected of it. for other reasons than the difficulties which arose over the problems on the agenda.” Addressing a Press conference, M. Bidault said he was convinced the postponement of the work council does not mean failure. “I am confident that satisfactory conclusions will be reached avoiding the delays in final settlement of peace. He added that France firmly believed she should participate in all international peace settlements and that it was not possible to exclude any interested powers. , . . • I Mr. Bevin at present is giving careful consideration to the situation which has arisen following the Council of Foreign Ministers, says the Press Association. He will report fully to Parliament.