DEMOCRATIC VOTE

Greymouth Evening Star, 6 August 1946, Page 7

DEMOCRATIC VOTE

'New Zealand Demand at Paris

RULE OF THE MAJORITY (Recd. 1 p.m.) PARIS, August 5. Speaking at a session of the Peace Conference Rules Committee to-day, Mr. W. J. Jordan, (New Zealand), referring* to the voting question, said the conference was in danger of doing‘nothing if it was to have a two-thirds majority. It could not even elect a chairman. It was in danger of declaring to the world that it feared the operation of the democratic vote. Mr. Jordan described Mr. Byrnes’s statement that “we would seriously consider recommendations with a two-thirds majority,” as patronising. “It is asked whether a simple majority can decide anything,” he said. “I ask whether a minority of four should be allowed to decide everything? Shall we declare that our Parliaments should require a two-thirds majority to ratify the conference’s decisions? Why should not the majority’s expressed will be given effect? We consider that the vote of any of the big four should have the same value as New Zealand’s. We are. representing the forces of democracy, and yet we are in danger of declaring to the world that we fear the operation of the free, democratic’vote, even if it is only for making recommendaMr. Jordan was warmly cheered by the small Powers delegations when he finished.

M. Modzelewski (Poland) said that if they wanted a firm and lasting peace the decisions of the Foreign Ministers’ Council should not be attacked Peace could be safeguarded only through co-operation by permanent harmony with the Great Powers. Poland, which did not aspire to be a great Power, would support the two-thirds majority rule. The “Practical Thing." Mr. Byrnes supported the British proposal as the “practical thing to do,” asserting that it offered some of the advantages which the small Powers sought from the simple majority rule. He reiterated that he would support in the Foreign Ministers’ Council any recommendation Passed by 3 two-thirds rnajoiity, even if he had opposed it at the conference. Mr. Byrnes pointed out that theie were 26 questions on which the council did not agree. It the other members of the “Big Four” did as he had done, it would be the conference rather than the council which would write the treaties on such questions. Mr. Byrnes announced that he would also support Mr. Mackenzie King’s proposal that the council meet concurrently with the conference to act on the latter’s proposals. Mr. Byrnes said the manner in which the council was bound on agreed questions made it difficult for the conference to make recommendations by a two-thirds majority, but the council was bound to consider seriously any proposal to which the conference gave a simple majority, even if if was a majority of only one, and not reject it arbitrarily. M. Vlado Clementis (Czechoslovakia) supported the two-thirds majority proposal. M. van Langenhove (Belgium) said that a drastic split over the voting procedure was unjustified, but it was essential that all opinions expressed in the conference should be taken into account when the Ministers drew up the final drafts of the treaties, whatever the majority whereby they were made.

Britain’s Attitude.

Sir Hector McNeil (Britain) said he considered that the British amendment met both the substance o! the arguments for a simple majority and the Foreign Ministers’ original proposals. “Our amendment meets most ol the arguments of our colleagues who support the Dutch amendment,’.’ he said. “It is obviously improper to neglect those arguments. The United Kingdom will not do so.” Mr. Lange (Norway) opposed the Dutch amendment in favour of a simole majority voting rule. He described the British amendment as having very real advantages.

Mr. Molotov, in a 30-minute speech, opposed the British >and Dutch amendments, emphasising the importance of the two-thirds majority rule. He pointed, out that the British amendment would abolish the Council of Foreign Ministers’ decision and declared that Britain had taken up an attitude at variance with the one she had adopted at the Council of Foreign Ministers.

Russian Proposal.

Mr. Molotov said: “There are nine nations present which have been invaded. These under the simple majority vote could be placed in a minority by the 12 countries which have not been invaded.” Mr. Molotov then presented a compromise in the form of an amendment—that all .recommendations from the conference to the Big Four” should be by a two-thirds majority, but that other suggestions from the delegations should be submitted to the “Big Four” as coming .from the delegations individually.

Mr. Molotov said the objective of the majority question was to ensure a majority for the British-American bloc. He expressed surprise at Mr. Byrnes’s support for the Canadian proposal.

Mr. Molotov said: “The Soviet delegation proposed this at the council meeting on July 3, when Mr. Byrnes said it'was impossible. “We are only able to believe that when the Soviet presents something it is senseless to Mr. Byrnes, but intelligent when somebody else presents it.” Dr. Evatt (Australia) said he could not understand why Mr. Molotov, having proposed such an amendment, should not be prepared to go as far as the Dutch proposal. He said Mr. Molotov did not impute to any person in the conference any idea of causing any rift in the unity of the deliberations. He declared that Mr. Molotov should not em- - phasise what he described as a “play on votes.” Mr. Molotov’s suggestion that certain Powers were determined to combine their votes was not true.

“Australia, like all the other countries to which Mr. Molotov refers, came to the conference as a free country to get a signed peace and justice for Europe, Dr. Evatt added. He announced that Australia would support the Netherlands and New Zealand amendments, but if they were .rejected, would vote for the British proposal.

Mr. Byrnes at an earlier session said he would support the British suggestion for the adoption of the simple and two-thirds majority in the voting. . , The British compromise appeal suggests that both conference recommendations adopted by a twothirds majority, and those which obtain a simple majority below twothirds should be submitted to the Foreign Minister’s Council. Brazil supported Holland’s amendment to the draft rules that a simple majority should operate in the Peace conference voting. Two-Thirds Impossible to Achieve. Jonkheer van Starkenborgh (Holland) opposed the British plan for the two grades of recommendations by the Foreign Ministers, one with a two-thirds majority and one with under two-thirds. He suggested that the statement by Mr. Byrnes that he would endeavour to see any conference recommendation carried out by the “Big Four” would be more acceptable if Mr. Byrnes did not also support the “Big Four’s” insistence on the two-thirds majority. With the Big Four’s votes assured against amendments to the draft tieaties a two-thirds majority would be almost impossible to achieve. M. Kardelj (Jugoslavia) said a simple majority rule would upset the satisfactory solutions reached at the Foreign Ministers’ Council, with the small nations joining “certain large nations” to gain their point of view. The treaties should be written by the Great Powers who had waged war carrying the greater burden.