Greymouth Evening Star. THURSDAY, MAY 30, 1946. After Paris

Greymouth Evening Star, 30 May 1946, Page 6

Greymouth Evening Star. THURSDAY, MAY 30, 1946. After Paris

’J’IIE hitter attack by Mr. Molotov on, what he chose to cal] the “British-1 American bloc” and the emphatic denial, by Mr. Byrnes that such a bloc exists came as a tragic sequel to the failure of the Paris conference to reach agreement on major questions affecting the draft peace treaties. As the Daily IMail commented,' the stinging criticism launched by the Soviet delegate on Britain and America could have no other effect but to widen the already wide breach between the wartime Allies of the East and the West. Mr. Byrnes was, fortunately, moderate in his reply and so far there has been no official comment from London.

The Paris talks failed primarily because the area of compromise had been so narrowed down by the British and American concessions to Russia at Yalta and Potsdam that further bargaining on Moscow’s conditions was impracticable. Britain and America apparently went to Paris determined not to yield on any other issues deemed vital to their own interests and the balanced reconstruction of Europe. 11 was lime, Ihey felt, for Russia to do some of the giving in the process of give-and-take. Increasing Strain.

The irreconcilable differences revealed at that conference have certainly not been helped by the public exchanges that have since taken place. Russia’s attitude appears to the rest of the world as one of plain obstruction; but it is important to remember that it may wear a different appearance in Moscow. Tt is’certain, however. that Allied unity cannot much longer withstand the strains which Russian policy is imposing on it. The position cannot be allowed to remain as it is. It cannot also be allowed to deteriorate by acrimonious exchanges without increasing the risk of discordance degenerating into armed conflict. A question of prime importance is: What follows? Europe is in an appalling condition and much explosive material is lying around. That state of affairs, if it is allowed to continue while statesmen wrangle, must eventually result in an outburst which mat’ have workl-Avide repercussions. It is clearly not possible for the Powers to agree to differ, to go their own ways and to expect that somehow, sometime, peace will again be established on a firm footing.

It is obvious that Russia is bent, on obtaining political and economic advantage. She is endeavouring to consolidate her existing gains—they are considerable and at the same time to extend her influence still furthei- into Eastern Europe and possibly across the /Mediterranean. There is no conclusion that can be drawn other than that she is seeking, not the security of which, we have heard so much, but an undefined extension of her power. Peace Conference.

The United Slates has openly advocated that lhe peace conference of the 21 nations who actively waged war against the common enemy in Europe should be summoned at an early date. This action was previously suggested by the Dominion Ministers at their meeting in London when it was contended that the task of drawing up the draft peace treaties should not be left to the “Big Four” alone, particularly in view of their failure to agree on any question of vital importance.

It may not. however, be possible to proceed far at such a conference without some sort of prior agreement among the big Powers. They, after all, hold the key to the solution of many of the major problems, as it is on their goodwill that the maintenance of peace depends. The fundamental differences revealed at their conferences in recent months are the stumbling block. While they persist there is little likelihood of practical results in the task of peace-making. The holding of the peace conference would, however, enable a clear picture of the international scene to be obtained. It is time that the Big Four” were brought before the bar of world opinion.