CONDUCT OF ELECTIONS

Greymouth Evening Star, 4 November 1946, Page 6

CONDUCT OF ELECTIONS

TERRORISM IN BULGARIA . ALLEGED . CRITICISM BY OBSERVERS LONDON, November 2. Reports from a British diplomatic observer on the Bulgarian elections on October 27 express extreme dissatisfaction, says the Exchange Telegraph Agency’s diplomatic correspondent. The Foreign Office has received the .reports, which say that it appeared on a great many occasions that opposition meetings were broken up by organised groups of Government* supporters. The Government constantly alleged that members of the opposition were “foreign agents, but refused the opposition any opportunity to reply as it might have done. The correspondent adds that other authoritative reports received in London point out that 200 members of the opposition Agrarian Party are in a concentration camp, including 30 or 40 election candidates.. The conclusion from all the reports was that there was severe terrorism during the campaign. This was reflected in the result. Other reports received by the Foreign Office say there was a marked falling off in the terrorism on election day. The opposition supporters appear to have been generally free to cast their votes, but on the ether hand there were many opportunities for plural voting. The Government distributed thousands of blank voting cards which could have been, used for plural voting. Members of the Allied mission had a number of such cards in their possession. They also alleged that the presidents of voting bureaux were able to destroy opposition votes'and fill in the cards of those who abstained in favour of the Communists.

RUMANIAN REPLY TO BRITISH NOTE BUCHAREST, November 3. The Rumanian Government regards the criticisms and recommendations contained in the British Note on the Rumanian elections to be held on November 19 as an infringement of Rumanian, sovereignty and dirct interference in Rumanian domestic affairs. This answer was contained in the official Rumanian reply to the British Note which the Foreign Minister, Mr Tatarescu, handed to the British political representative in Rumania. The Note thanked the British Government for its expressions of satisfaction that the elections were being held, but regretted that the Government could not accept the British representations. The Note recalled that although the Armistice of September 12, 1944, laid on Rumania certain well defined obligations which the Government was scrupulously carrying out, it also left her independent with her sovereignty intact and gave no Power the right of control over, or interference with, her internal affairs. . It was true that the British Note referred only to the decision taken at the Moscow conference under which the Groza Government undertook to hold free elections as a condition for British and American recognition, but the decision did not mean that Rumania renounced her sovereignty.She accepted because she was anxious to have normal relations with all countries and desired to ensure fundamental liberties at home Rucollective decsion by the Eig Three, mania’s obligations devolved from a She assumed that the fulfilment of them was an obligation to them jointly but not individually. The Rumanian reply declared that the British Note did not correspond with the facts. It added that the electoral campaign was being conducted freely, and it expressed the opinion that the elections on November 19 would represent the peoples will and aspirations. A similar reply to. the American Note has been handed to the American political representative.