MINISTERS’ DEADLOCK

Greymouth Evening Star, 5 October 1945, Page 5

MINISTERS’ DEADLOCK

ARRANGING FURTHER MEETING BIG CHIEFS’NEGOTIATIONS (N.Z.P.A. Special Correspondent.) (Rec. 10.10 a.m.) - LONDON, Sept. 4. Negotiations between Mr Attlee, Mr Truman and Mr Stalin, with a view to defining procedure upon which another meeting of the Foreign Ministers can be held is believed here to be the next move towards a peace settlement following the recent deadlock. Whether such a meeting ’ will consist of representatives of the three, five or more nations is an important point to be settled. It is hoped that these negotiations will result in a conference at which draft peace treaties will be drawn up and then placed before the active belligerents in the recent war for general discussion and approval. The official view here is that the breakdown of discussions by the Foreign Ministers is regrettable, but not disastrous. Those who are well-in-formed dismiss instantly the idea that the deadlock on what is more or less a technical point will result in no further meetings of Foreign Ministers and a gradual drifting away t<s the signing of private treaties, coagulating into blocs and spheres of influence. If they are optimistic about anything at the moment, it is that the leaders of the Big Three nations will find a solution. The effect of the deadlock on the public, however, has been to produce a mood of irritable cynicism, for the average man and woman here had come to believe in the theory that the United Nations were moving forward to a friendlier world based on the mutual sufferings of recent years and in any case necessitated by the arrival of the atomic bomb. That technicalities should cause a breakdown of the first real attempt to outline the peace treaties and that there aie many indications of . international suspicion, power politics and blocs, and all the atmosphere that leads to war has been more than a sharp disappointment. The public, of course, was almost completely unprepared for a disagreement and deadlock among the big Powers at this meeting, which tended to increase the disillusionment. . , ~ Post-mortems are now being held on the

CAUSES OF THE BREAKDOWN,

and on the views expressed by Mr Byrnes and Mr Molotov in their Press conferences. (It is understood Mr Bevin declared he was going to have two nights’ sleep before he decided whether he would hold a Press conference or reserve his viewpoint until Parliament assembles). “The Times,” in a leading article, notes with satisfaction that Mr Byrnes and Mr Molotov were equally emphatic and careful to avoid anything calculated to make a resumption of conversations more difficult. It says it would be wrong to discuss the rather obscure procedure during arguments as merely captious ana insignificant. They conceal real .difficulties and differences of opimion which, if not faced and resolved, will prejudice relations in the future as in the past. The Leader continues: ‘Two essential principles have to be asserted and no one appears to contest them. The first is that the three Powers, in spite of their admittedly predominant role, cannot and do not desire to establish a dictatorship or decide every issue of the peace settlement without full consultation with the smaller nations directly concerned in. the particular case. The second is that no other country stands on the same footing as the “Big Three, either in virtue of its past contribution to winning the war or in virtue of its potential contribution to the mam-' tenance of future world order, and that this exceptional position must be fully and frankly recognised. . “No solution is possible . which does not take both these principles into account.” ~ x . , , „„„ A good deal of attention has been focussed on the Council’s resolution on September 11, which Molotov insisted on being expunged from the record. This, it is pointed out states: “All five members of the Council have the right to. attend all meetings and take part in all discussions, but in matters concerning peace settlements members whose Governments have not been signatory to the relevant terms of the surrender should not he entitled to V °When asked at the conference to confirm this decision as it appears in the minutes, Molotov replied: I wonder how the author of this report could have found this decision, considering no decision has been aodpted by the Council or signed by the Ministers.”

LIBERAL VIEWS. The “Manchester Guardian’s” diplomatic correspondent points out that as matters stand to " da y th ?? + utes of the conference are not actually signed and there piotocols or signed records of any kind. He adds: “Molotovs answer, cai ried to its logical conclusion, would mean that there have been no decision? and in that sense no conference ■hac taken place at all. . The “Manchester Guardian, in a leader, expresses the opinion that the Bvrnes-Molotov Press confer - ences do not make a bad business onv better. It agrees, however, that nothing irremediable has been done for nothing has been done at all, the ™«er cannot ei’nmentVwtll be?forced to do some hard thinking in the next few weeks. “The United States may wonder whethe"its attitude in the iq not open to some .of the same criticisms as is Russia s policy in |“EwiSm 0U when applied to countries we have & P °S MoToto U v “isi take home with him a candid report For though no nation has much to ne •nrniifl of in this affair, it is aiguaoic that Russia has suffered most. Online his stay in London Molotov has recklessly squandered the vast credit of goodwill towards Russia which had accumulated in this country during the iSr. As he will no doubt be informed he had united the Press 3imlSicians in a remarkable way. ManrwoffiTsVl? gladly give to Rus<?i a the benefit of the doubt—-if only there were a doubt. But Molotov has done his best to make it difficult Those who have leaned over Knrkwards in their efforts to defend k case have found it im,oL?le to ma ntain this position in? longer. Like other less supple mortals they have sat down.

DELEGATES’ DEPARTURE LONDON, October 3. Thp delegates to the Foreign M.m- -• + rnnncil Mr. Molotov, Mr. Bvrnes C and M. Bidault, left Britain by Sr yesterday afternoon to confer Sth their respective Governments, aftS th!’breakdown in the, firsl session of the Council. Each held a Press conference in London befol ehe Mt There is no statement from the British point of view, but the Foi eign Secretary (Mr. Ernest Bevm) is expected to make a full lepoit when the House of Commons assembles next Tuesday.

RUSSIAN PRESS COMMENT. (Recd. 11.50) LONDON, Oct. 4. The biggest news in the Russian capital is Mr. Molotov’s interpretation of the Potsdam conference in view of the participation of China and France in the Balkan peace treaties, says, the Associated Press.. Russian newspapers are giving the impression that Russia’s Allies failed to adhere to the Potsdam decisions. However, there is no pessimism m Moscow about future co-operation.

FRENCH MINISTER. PARIS, October 4. M. Georges Bidault, in an interview with the Frenca Press Agency announced that he did not intend to stand at the elections for the Constituent Assembly. REPATRIATION OF RUSSIANS. (Rec. 11 a.m.) a » MOSCOW, October 4. Golikov, head of the Repatriation Commission, reviewing the year’s work, in which more than 5,000,000 Russians were reoatriated, renewed the allegations that many hostile British, American and French elements were still terrorising the Russians in their zones and hindering repatriation. He admitted that the Allies had repatriated more than 1,000,000 Russians, but claimed that thousands were' still being held.