COUNCIL’S FAILURE

Greymouth Evening Star, 6 October 1945, Page 4

COUNCIL’S FAILURE

DR. EVATT’S VIEWS.

LONDON, October 4, The failure of the Council of Foreign Ministers was not an irrepar-. able set-back, but a definite gam towards making a more just and equitable peace settlement, affording Australia and other ’ small nations an opportunity to participate, said the; Australian Minister of External Af-i fairs (Dr. Evatt) at a Press confer- | enee. “Australia’s case as‘expounded from the beginning has now been accepted by the three great Powers,”! said Dr. '“The statement .by! Mr. James Byrnes that every nation! which gave meh in battle should be entitled to take part in drafting the' peace settlement, puts Australia s ■ point of view. Britain has already indicated her acceptance of th ar principle, and I am coniidem it will aisu be acceptable to Russia.” Dr. Evatt said the council was an ! extension into the post-surrender period of the three-Power Agreement which had worked succeasiully | during the war. The Potsdam Agree- i ment had, however, added France 1 and China to the Powers discussing ■ the settlement. Several vague provisions designed to take > into account the.: position of the other United Na? tions Jiad been added. One was that the result of the council’s deliberaI tions should be submitted to the, 1 United Nations. The Potsdam suggestion that “countries with a direct interest” might be consulted was anything but clear-cut. The Potsdam ararngement was unworkable, because it restricted membership of the council to five Powers who would be permanent members of the World Security Council. It followed a wron* analogy that the Security Council would include six non-permanent ’ members, 'providing a balance between the great Powers and the other United Nations. I Dr. Evatt said that the particular disagreement which ended the conference of Foreign Ministers related to the participation in the council of China and France. The matter should now be examined in relation, nqi only to these two Powers, but to ail belligerents entitled to participate. The conference must include such States which carried on sustained belligerence against the Axis Powers. It must be borne in mind that the United States, Australia, and New Zealand bore the brunt of the fighting in the Pacific. “We cannot possibly be excluded from the Japanese settlement,” he added.

MR FRASER’S COMMENT

WELLINGTON, October 5

Although he . regretted the partial failure of the Foreign Ministers’ Conference, he could not regret the stand which had been taken for more democratic methods and principles, said the Prime Minister (Mr Fraser), addressing the Dominion Conference of the League of Nations Union to-day. This was a time when not only the principles for which the union stood were being tested, but when the future of the world, for weal or woe, was also being settled, he said. The worst that could happen now was for people to rush in in condemnatory terms about any nation or representatives of any nation. It was necessary to endeavour to shed preconceived ideas and perhaps prejudices built up over the years. Even in the partial failure of the Foreign Ministers’ meeting, he believed there were signs of progress, said Mr Fraser. The recent declaration of the Dominions at the London .conference showed that they had seen and still saw, though he thought the danger was lessening, the very great menace to the world in the form of domination by a few big PowersSuch an arrangement, though unavoidable in war time, might in peace time mean, however good the intentions of members, only the setting up of one dictatorship in place of another, and mankind would not agree to anything of that nature permanently. It now appeared, however, that the limit of domination by big nations had been reached at the Foreign Ministers’ Conference. Mr Fraser inade an eloquent plea for a spirit of understanding regarding international affairs, because it was just as true of nations as of individuals that they had to know the truth and the truth only would make them free. A solution was possible only if justice was done to the smaller nations. The world was now at the most critical stage in its history, and the future could not be settled unless simple principles were applied on the widest scale.