CHAIRMANSHIP ISSUE

Greymouth Evening Star, 5 August 1946, Page 5

CHAIRMANSHIP ISSUE

CONFERENCE AMENDMENT WITHDRAWN MOLOTOV OPPOSES PLAN PARIS, August 3. When the rules committee of the Peace Conference met again to-day Holland announced that she would withdraw the amendment proposing that France should have the sole chairmanship. The Dutch clelega e, Jonkheer van Starkenborgh, explained that M. Bidault had made it known he would accept the chanmanship only if the 21 nations voted unanimously. Jonkheer van Starkenborgh proposed that the conference should simply elect a chairman. Mr. H. G. R. Mason (New Zealand) agreed to the Dutch suggestion and also withdrew the New Zealand amendment on the same lines. , The Dutch amendment was defeated by 12 votes to eight. New Zealand, Brazil, Australia, Belgium, Greece, India, Holland and South Africa voted for it, and the United States, Byelo-russa, Canada, France, China, Britain, Norway, Czechoslovakia, Poland, the Ukraine, Russia and Jugoslavia against it. Ethiopia abstained. Under the French alphabetical order the .first chairmanship will go to America, with France, Britain and Russia taking turns. The committee adjourned until Monday. Debate on Amendment.

M. Clementis (Czechoslovakia) opposed the new Dutch amendment and deplored the length of the discussion. He complained that delegates were not showing any real desire for unanimity and asked for support of the recommendation by the Big Four for a rotating chairmanship. , Senor de Freitas Valle (Brazil) withdrew Brazil’s amendment and favoured the conference electing a chairman. He said he hoped M. Bidault would be elected. Mr. Molotov opposed the Dutch amendment and asked the committee to confirm the Big Four proposal. He argued that disagreement would have a serious and dangerous effect on world opinion. “What is the reason behind objections to the proposal by the Foreign Ministers?” he asked. “There is a desire to overthrow the decision of the Council of Foreign Ministers. It should be clear why the Council adopted the proposal. It gives expression to the desire that while the proposals debated by the Council should be discussed by all delegates to the conference, the Council, including China, should not divest itself of responsibility for its decisions.”

British Attitude. Mr. Molotov said ' France and America supported the Big Four proposal and commented: “For some reason, the logic of which is not followed, Sir Hector McNeil is not supporting the proposal, although he j said the proposal \yas a good one.”j “I cannot see that I am illogical i because I agreed to the Council of Foreign Ministers’ proposal three weeks ago,” replied Sir Hector McNeil. “Are we to assume that all decisions made three weeks ago may not be changed? We are prepared on matters of procedure to consider] any reasonable amendment.” Sir Hector McNeil said that Britain supported the New Zealand and Dutch amendments because it was essential to have the principle relating to the chairmanship as widely acceptable to the conference as possible. However; it was now plain that the New Zealand and Dutch ■ proposals were not generally ac-, ceptable. Therefore, Britain would! now support the Foreign Ministers’ proposal for a rotating chairmanship. Evatt and Molotov Clash. Dr. H. V. Evatt (Australia) said the question was the right of an international conference to elect its own chairman. Mr. Molotov suggested that some attempt was being made to find and widen a rift in the United Nations. ’Dr. Evatt shouted: “Nothing of the kind.” Dr. Evatt, with emphasis, said: “This is simply an attempt by the conference to express its own view on a point of principle without being controlled by what has taken place in advance. Let me assure Mr. Molotov we came here to try to suggest improvements, so that the Council of Foreign Ministers may come to final decisions in some respects better than those now reached. I must insist on the rights of all delegates to express their views freely. Neither Mr. Molotov nor Sir Hector McNeil has answered the simple question, ‘Has the conference the right to elect its own chairman?’ ”

Mr. James Byrnes (U.S.A.) said the discussion on the chairmanship had assumed an importance it did not actually have. He feared the wrangle would affect the decisions ot the conference, and also later meetings of the Foreign. Ministers. He wanted delegates to know tne United States attitude. “Where suggestions sent out by the council don’t cause me to feel they would be harmful, I want to go along with those proposals,’ said Mr. Byrnes. The United States agreed to the Big Four submitting proposals on procedure on condition it was made clear they were to be agreed on or rejected by the conference. The United States refused to be bound beforehand to. any final ■decision on rule procedure.

GREECE WANTS FRONTIER REVISION

PARIS, Aug. 3

Mr. Tsaldaris (Greece), addressing the plenary session of the Peace Conference, presented three They were, first, reparations _ foi. damage the invaders had inflicted, second, the rectification ol the liontier with Albania by annexing that part of North Epirus now in Bulgaria; and third, the return of the part of North Epirus now in Albania to make the north-west frontier more secure. M. Spaak (Belgium) made a strong plea for the rights of smaller nations. “Complete equality among States is a chimera, and' would even be an injustice,” he said. Mr. Manuilsky (Ukraine) proposed a customs union between the free port of Trieste and Jugoslavia and also a common currency for both territories. Sir Samuel Ranganashan (India) said India strongly opposed the continuance of any form of colonial exploitation. It would be a bitter blow if the disposition of the African territories formerly, under Italy did not lead to a system under which North and East Africa could soon- be assured of self-government. The plenary session will not meet again until the rules committee has completed its work.

ITALIANS INVITED TO CONFERENCE ROME, Aug. 4. Italy has received an invitation to the Peace Conference. The'delegates headed by the Prime Minister (Signor de Gasperi) will fly to Paris on August 7. , DISTRIBUTING ITALY’S NAVAL SHIPS (Rec. 11 a.m.) LONDON, August 4. The Big Four’s naval experts committee failed do agree on the final allocation of the surplus Italian warships, says Reuter’s Paris correspondent. ■ The committee completed three lists, one of which does not include’ any modern battleships. The Russian representative „is believed to have proposed allocating the lists to Britain, Russia and America by drawing lots, but Britain is reported to have opposed this method. It is expected that the lists will be referred back to the Foreign Ministers. The committee agreed on the allocation of Italian ships to Greece, Albania and France.