SURPRISE DEMAND

Greymouth Evening Star, 9 August 1946, Page 7

SURPRISE DEMAND

Russian Insistence ®n . V oting ■ Kevision. BOMBSHELL AT PARIS MEETING (Recd. 11.55 a.m.) PARIS, August 8. Mr. Molotov, speaking at the seventh plenary session of the Paris'Conference, announced that the Soviet delegation did not agree to the Rules Committee recommendation favouring a simple majority for recommendations from the conference to the Big Four. Mr. Molotov said:—“The Soviet delegation cannot agree that the conference should adopt -any recommendation by a majority of one vote —that 11 delegations should impose a proposal on the other 10—and therefore the Soviet delegation considers that the decision adopted by the Rules Committee is erroneous and insists on revision by a commission. “The voting procedure at an international conference is a very important question. The conference is called on to express views of many serious issues. It cannot be permitted that these questions should be decided by a majority of one. Mr. Molotov supported the principle of unanimity, but admitted the difficulty of achieving mutual understanding among 2.1 nations. “Small States are particularly interested in this rule,” he added. “Great Powers have frequently imposed their will’and gone to the length of maintaining troops in the territories of small States to bring pressure to bear on negotiations and dictate their will on the small nations. Britain and America proposed the voting procedure to facilitate the adoption of the recommendations they supported.”

Mr Molotov’s surprise demand came just as the plenary session was about to vote on the adoption of the proposal, says Reuter s correspondent. The British delegation temporarily left the chamber for a hurried consultation during the translation of Mr Molotov’s speech. Mr Molotov, referring to Dr. Evatt’s repudiation of the two-thirds majority, said that what was most important to Dr. Evatt was to secure the most convenient method for the conference to adopt recommendations unacceptable to the Soviet.” “This is the very reason why Dr. Evatt is so busy in his activities at this conference,” he concluded. Mr Molotov declared that support was given Dr. Evatt by certain Paris newspapers, which carried statements like “The Western Powers won the upper hand over the Soviet.” Mr Molotov said the Rules Committee had made an egregious error. The Soviet suggested that the committee's proposals be rejected and the Foreign Minister’s proposal accepted.

Dr. Evatt expressed amazement that Soviet opposition was still maintained. The method of securing unanimity was just as important as unanimity. “You can get unanimity by dictation, but we do not believe in it,” he said.

Declaring that he doubted whethei Mr Molotov was serious in asking the delegates to reverse their decision Dr. Evatt said: “I say that this thing goes a ltitle deeper. Of deeply serious import is substitution of assertion for argument and the introduction of confusion, filibustering and what amounts to intimidation.”

M. Kerdelj (Jugoslavia) announced that if the conference approved the Rules Committee’s decisions, Jugoslavia would continue to participate in the conference with strong reservations. ‘‘The Rules Committee’s decisions,” he said, “will enable a bloc of countries to impose their view on other cormtries.” Mr A. V. Alexander (Britain) said that Mr Molotov’s proposition would hardly bear examination. “It is briefly, that we should reject the committdq’s decision, which was carried by 15 to 6 votes.

“I am bound to confess,” Mr Alexander added, “that my view As that Mr. Molotov’s speech, for what reason he knows best, was a further delaying action to avoid getting to the real business of the conference.”

Mr. Alexander avowing pride in Britain’s wartime achievements said. “We fought the fight without which we would not be sitting here discussing peace.” x The session adjourned until tomorrow.