THE PERSIAN CASE

Greymouth Evening Star, 17 April 1946, Page 7

THE PERSIAN CASE

Opposition to Russian Proposal ■ UNO POSTPONES ACTION (Recd. 2 p.m.) . NEW YORK, April 16. M. Bonnet (France) in a compromise move proposed to tne security Council that the Russian - Persian case be turned over to the Secretary-General, Mr Lie, so that he could collect information for a report to the General Assembly, which will meet on September 3. M. Bonnet proposed that the Council should take note of Persia s withdrawal of its complaint and also of the Russian-Persian agreement whereby Russia promised unconditionally to withdraw its troops before Lie. in a memorandum, informed the Council that there may be no way whereby the Council can keep the Persian issue before it. The Council referred the memorandum to a committee of experts for a report within two days. The main points of the memorandum were:— ' 1 The Council had made no finding that a dispute existed. 2. In view of this, the only possible action was to order an investigation under the charter, which was not done. 3 Persia had asked the Council to drop the complaint. Mr Stettinius, resuming the debate on Russia’s proposal to delete the Persian issue from the agenda, said that Mr. Gromyko (Russia), had Questioned the United States motives which was regrettable Mi Stettoius reiterated that the United States considered is would be unwise to drop the Persian matter. The Council could not ignore the fact that the sudden reversal of the Persian position occuired whil .

Soviet troops were still in Persia. Mr Stettinius said his opposition to the Russian proposal did not in any way mean that the United States questioned Russia’s integrity. . : Mr Gromyko said that Russia and ■ Persia had reached an agreement on all points. Both Governments want>ed the case dropped. “It is impossible I to desire a quick and calm settlement of the Persian case and at the same time insist on keeping the case on the agenda,’ he added. “Mr Stettinius sacrificed logic in order to prolong and inflate this so-called Pei - j sian question. I called things by then names yesterday and did not expect the United States delegate to agree (Mr Gromyko yesterday expressed i doubt that Britain and America) wanted a peaceful settlement ol the case) The President, Dr. Quo Tail chai, opposed the Russian proposal, making the toral opponents eight. The Council finally postponed action regarding the Russian motion and adjourned until April 17. I Before the adjournment, France,; Russia and Poland demanded consideration on April 17 of the Polish] complaint against Spain, but Dr. Quo i Taichi did not indicate what business > would be dealt with. The Council thanked Dr. Quo Tai-chi for his services as chairman. | He will be replaced on April 17 by] the Egyptian delegate, Dr. Hafez Alih ] Pashi, in accordance with the rule, that each delegate will preside lor a} month in alphabetical order ol the' nations on the Council. t PERSIA’S WITHDRAWAL j tgr —— ‘ EARLIER DISCUSSION BY I COUNCIL ; RUSSIAN ACCUSATIONS i NEW YORK, April 15. : Persia, at to-day’s meeting of the Security Council, officially withdrew ( her complaint against Russia. i The chairman ol the Council (Dr. Quo Tai-chi) informed the delegates shortly after the meeting opened that he had received a letter from the Persian Ambassador to the United States (Hussein Ala) stating that the, Persian Government had informed; him that Persia had complete confi- ! dence in Russia and for that reason ; withdrew her complaint. !

Soviet Viewpoint Mr. Gromyko (Russia) reviewed the steps so far taken in the controversy. He added that the RussianPersian agreement announced on April 5 meant that the Soviet could not accept the Council’s decision of April 4 to keep the case open until May 6. The withdrawal of Russian troops from Persia was taking place under proper conditions. Developments had shown that Persia s complaint was without foundation, fheie was absolutely no reason for delegates to think that peace was threatened by the Persian situation Mr. Gromyko urged the Council td delete the the case from the agenda. Mr. Edward Stettimus (United States) said that the situation was unchanged since the Council s decision on April 4. For that reason he would not support Russia’s motion to delete the question. He recalled that when the Council acted on April 4 it had Soviet assurances that the Russian troops would be withdrawn by May 6

’Sir Alexander Cadogan (Britain), Dr van Kieffens (Holland), and Colonel Hodgson (Australia) supported the American view. Brazil and Mexico also supported it. The Council ad- . journed without taking a vote. j British Delegate Angered Mr. Gromyko marked the closing stages of the debate by a statement that he believed Britain and America did not want to see a peaceful solution to the Persian case. ' Mr. Stettinius and Sir Alexander Cadogan were apparently angered by Mr. Gromyko’s charges and indicated that they would reply to-morrow. bn Alexander Cadogan commented that there would have been no discussion of the Persian matter to-day or before May 6 if Russia had not reported the question. He vehemently denied that Britain did not want the issue settled The Brazilian Foreign Minister (Di. Velloso), opposing the withdrawal oi the case, said the councils authority was at stake. . „:i Dr. van Kieffens, urging the council to retain the case until the settlement was carHed into effect, said that this did not show lack of confidence in Russia but was merely sound procedure, which any businessman would follow in a credit transaction. Mr Lange (Poland), who urged that the case should be dropped from the agenda, said the Security Council still would maintain jurisdiction and could reopen the case at any time M. Bonnet (France), supporting this, suggested that the Secretary-General (Mr Trygve Lie) be instructed to submit to the council any additional reports on the case. s Purpose of Demand . “The Security Council has deal), with the dispute that has confounded It from the start, and in the opinion of a majority of its members wifi determine its future,” says the New York Times correspondent (James Reston). “Mr. Gromyko s demand that the Persian question be removed from the agenda was to the Western mind

no, demand for a legitimate right but a demand to paralyse action by the Council.

“What worries the majority of members of the Security Council is that the Soviet delegates are most sincere in their attitude. Nobody was accusing Mr. Gromyko of bad faith or suggesting that he was merely attempting to make debating points. If that were the problem the rest of the members of the Council would be more hopeful.” The New York Herald-Tribune says: “Apparently virtually nothing '.resolved at the Council meeting except a grim demonstration that the diplomatic cleavage is growing dangerously deep between Russia on the one hand and Britain and America on the other hand. Under the stirface of the Persian case was the British and American determination to take a ’firm stand against the Soviet, not only on the Persian issue, but on a broad I front of policies and procedures involving the political organisation of i parts of Europe and Russian expansion in the Eastern Mediterranean.

REPORTS OF FIGHTING IN PERSIA (Rec. noon) TEHERAN, April 16. Following reports of fighting in the Khorramdareh area, the Prime Minister, Ghavam Sultaneh, instructed the War Minister to establish security throughout the country. An unconfirmed report says that fighting broke out yesterday between Persian Government and Democratic Party forces at Khorramdareh, midway between Kazivin and Zenjan. This is an area evacuated by the Russians. ' ' • *• A Teheran contractor told Reuter s correspondent that eight of his buses had been hired by the Government to tpke troops tp Khprramdaren.