RUSSIAN STAND

Greymouth Evening Star, 19 September 1946, Page 7

RUSSIAN STAND

Agency correspondents say that Mr. Novikov earlier pointed out that Russia was one of the countries which did recognise the obligation and nature of the International Court’s jurisdiction, for which reason she could not agree to the Bri-tish-American proposals. Mr. Gladwvn Jebb (Britain) said that under the Russian plan for the settlement of disputes nothing would happen. The disputes might go on for ever. “Would Never Work.”

Colonel Hodgson (Australia) argued that the Russian proposal would never work. The Council oi' Foreign Ministers had for a year been trying without success to settle dozens of disputes. The Bulgarian Committee completed all its work except the decision on the British proposal to protect the rights of Jews. The Trieste sub-committee broached the issue of the Governor’s powers in the free territory of Trieste, regarding which the Big Four did not agree. Differences arose over the question of initiative for putting forward legislation. Mr. Piyade (Jugoslavia) complained that the American draft for the statute laying down Trieste’s form of government gave the governor dictatorial powers. . Mr. Sterndale Bennett (Britain) supported the American view that the governor should have the right to initiate legislation in matter s affecting his responsibility to the Security Council. M. Wilfrom (France) said that the French draft statute gave the governor even wider powers of initiative than the American draft, because they thought in terms of a French governor who presided over the government of a territory. . Mr. Bebler (Jugoslavia) said thac Jugoslavs regarded the power of the governor as -taking away the democratic -power of the people. Russia and Trieste.

Mr. Vyshinsky supported the Jugoslav proposal to call the governor a high commissioner. He agreed that the governor should be a representative of the Security Council, but as such he should not participate in legislation and should not possess executive authority. The Security Council’s functions relating to Trieste were to ensure the territory’s integrity, not to govern it. Consequently the governor’s functions should be similarly restricted. The governor could not have executive legislative authority, because if he had he would be responsible to the legitimate authority in the territory—the Assembly—and could be dismissed by the Assembly. Mr. Vyshinsky added that even the restricted rights of initiative with which the governor would be invested under the British and Ameiican drafts did not accord. with the s Council of Foreign Ministers’ proposals. ~ , The sub-committee adjourned.

■ Decisions of Treaty. Commissions QUESTION OF ACCEPTANCE (Recd. 11.55 a.m.) PARIS, September 18. Russia has served notice'that she might continue to fight against treaty commission decisions to which she is opposed whenever they came up for approval at a plenary session and possibly ultimately before the Foreign Ministers’ Council, says the Associated Press correspondent at Paris. Tiiis occurred when flic Bulgarian Political and Territorial Committee by eight votes to live approved of a British-Ameri-can amendment providing lor the reference of disagreements over the enforcement of the Bulgarian treaty to the International Court of .lustice and rejected Russian proposals favouring' direct, negotiations. Mr. Novikov (Russia) thereupon for the first time invoked the conference rule under which a committee minority of more than one-third may submit a minority report to a plenary session. If the majoriiy'Js still less than two-thirds, its measure carries less weight when the treaties go for final approval to the Big' Four.