VOTING PROCEDURE

Greymouth Evening Star, 2 August 1946, Page 7

VOTING PROCEDURE

OPPOSITION TO TWO-THIRDS MAJORITY

ARGUMENT AT CONFERENCE PARIS, July 31.

Opposing the two-thirds majority rule at a meeting of the Peace Conference procedure committee, Dr. Evatt (Australia) declared, that it would mean that practically nothing of importance would go before the Foreign Ministers’ Council. He said it was essential for the conference to get down to work and make recommendations.

He agreed with Baron van Oosterhout, the Dutch Foreign Minister, that the role asigned to nations other than the four members of the Council of Foreign Ministers was not commensurate with their efforts and sacrifices in the war.

Baron van Oosterhout attacked the Big Four’s proposed rule as not in conformity with the sovereignty of the medium and small Powers. He proposed that permanent chairmanship of the conference should be given to the French, as host nation, instead of rotating among the Big Five. The Netherlands also opposed the proposals for a two-thirds majority vote, suggestng that a simple majority was sufficient. He said that the only conclusion that could be reached was that the Big Four wanted to relegate States with lesser material resources to the role of advisers.

Potsdam and Moscow

“Unless recommendations go from this conference to the Foreign Ministers’ Council there will be nothing before the Foreign Ministers for their final decisions,” said Dr. Evatt. “There is nothing whatever in the Potsdam and Moscow. declarations about a two-thirds majority.” Dr. Evatt said he had felt after the declarations by great leaders that there would be greater participation by the middle Powers and that they would play a part in making the peace. The United Nations had recognised their role, and six of the 11 members of the Security Council were drawn from those Powers. “I think some procedure analogous to that could have been chosen, instead of that which has been chosen,” Dr. Evatt said. “I hope some procedure will be found whereby the conference’s deliberations will not be rendered futile by the requirement of special majorities.” Mr Molotov, defending the twothirds majority rule, said: “I am hopeful that I will express the views of the members of the Council of Foreign Ministers when I say that we take a serious view of the voting procedure at this conference, and that in the conference’s commissions more weight attaches to decisions taken by a qualified majority than to decisions by a simple majority.” . Mr Molotov recalled that the Versailles and San Francisco conferences had followed a two-thirds majority voting procedure. “Is there r-’v reason to bel’eve,” he asked, “that a decision reached by an 11-10 vote is any better than a decision reached by a 14-7 vote?” Russian Attitude After quoting the view of the Paris newspaper “Le Populaire” that a simple majority would be disadvantageous to the Soviet, Mr Molotov said that a two-thirds majority would be “bad lor the Anglo-Saxons and their’ clients.” He said he did not know what considerations guided Dr. Evatt when he suggested, a simple majority, or what groups of countries and delegations he had in mind. His proposal would in advance set oft a majority against a minority. There were certain calculations behind it, bound up in attempts to form majorities and which would not be in keeping with the conference’s interests. The conference should concern itself, said Mr Molotov, not in permitting play on votes, but in assuring authority of procedure and authority of views. He said there should not be an attempt to set 12 countries against seven. The procedure committee should be concerned with how countries could best promote the establishment of peace. Therefore, it was bound to consider carefully the decisions of the Council of Foreign Ministers regarding procedure, so that the organisation of the conference could be improved. The twothirds majority rule would enhance the conference’s prestige and enable its views properly to influence the drafting of the peace treaties. Mr Tsaldaris (Greece) agreed with the Dutch views and moved an amendment “that all representatives should be authorised to bring up any question they felt was connected with the framing of a lasting peace.” He said that discussion should not be limited to questions embodied in the draft treaties from the Council of Foreign Ministers. The committee adjourned.