GHOSTS OF GENEVA HAUNT UNO

Gisborne Herald, Volume LXXIII, Issue 21922, 17 January 1946, Page 5

GHOSTS OF GENEVA HAUNT UNO

answer is “yes,” but at present it is right to say that it causes no undue worry and that nothing sinister is seen in it.

There is a good deal of elasticity between the groups, particularly the British and American. It may be asked what did Mr. P. Fraser, leader of the New Zealand delegation, mean by his reference to the circulation ol lists by the big Powers recommending the nomination of certain nations for the Security Council—lists incidentally of which Mr. Ernest Bevin denied any knowledge. If there were no lists there was something very much like them being handed round. There is reason for this. It saves time and discussion in the General Assembly. Before any appointment is made, such as the chairmanship of a committee, general agreement is reached between the various countries beforehand as to who shall be nominated. It is much the same as informal conferences held in councils or clubs before the chairman is appointed. N.Z. Backs Australia It is when an agreement cannot be reached that each country may make a secret nomination and vote secretly for its own choice or, perhaps, for the group or area with which it is most closely associated. New Zealand's support of Australia for a seat on the Security Council is a case in point, although there was nothing secret about New Zealand s nomination. Another case was the preference or the Russians for M. Lie as president of the Assembly to M. Spaak who, it was agreed in informal discussions beforehand would be generally acceptable.

No Fundamental Clash

An interesting point in this case was that Russians preferred to make an open nomination and later requested that all nominations should be open and not secret. The Russians probably prefer this practice for . the normal Communist way of deciding an issue is by roll call or show of hands. The British view is that a secret nomination and ballot ensures democratic expression of opinion with less chance of the small powers being intimidated by the Great Powers. It also gives the Assembly the full right to exercise its functions as a body where all nations have an equal say. There is no fundamental clash of opinion on this matter, and these opening manoeuvres in the election of the Assembly’s various bodies are regarded

as little different from any ipther type of election, with each delegation having its own preferences, to which they are fully entitled. “Will UNO work?” is a question that only time can answer. Certainly, Britain left, no doubt that she will make every contribution to see that it does, while Mr. Byrnes’ speech equally pledged America. Nobody doubts that Russia will support UNO, though Big Three conferences seem more to her liking at the moment. The absence of M. Molotov and M. Vishinsky is regretted, but there is a feeling that Russia is exercising her usual cautious reserve before fully committing herself.

Speaking generally of the atmosphere in the General Assembly, the layman senses that it is yet rather collar proud and slightly self-conscious of the grave responsibility it holds in the eyes of the ordinary man and woman, and is also lacking in character —which can only come with time. Nobody doubts that this character or atmosphere will grow, but meanwhile one senses the smell of fresh paint mingled with a slight mustiness wafted from Geneva, and this sometimes makes it difficult for high-sounding noble-minded phrases to be readily assimilated. Prominent Personalities Already personalities are emerging from the Assembly, one of whom is undoubtedly M. Manuilsky, leader of the Ukranian delegation, a friend oi Generalissimo Stalin. M. Manuilsky was the dominating character at the preparatory commission, and he seems equally at home in the Assembly. M. Gromyko, angular and jet black haired, gives an impression of strength, and Mr. Byrnes and Mr. P. J. NoelBaker of earnestness.

So far little has been seen of other members of the American delegation except in the lobby when Senator Vandenberg, who seems .to wear a big black homburg as often as he can, strides and poses majestically. Little has been heard from France, but M. Bidault had to return briefly to Paris for an important foreign affairs debate. Where, it may be asked, does New Zealand fit in the picture? Our delegation, of course, is one man, Mr. P. Fraser, assisted by an able team oi civil servants —as are all delegations, though Canada will, at various stages, be represented by five Cabinet Ministers. Mr Fraser has made the presence of the New Zealand delegation known early in the conference. It is generally agreed that but for his support Australia would not have been on the Security Council, while his announcement that New Zealand would withdraw from the Economic and Social Council in favour of Yugoslavia again placed the Dominion in the limelight. Mr. Fraser—as New Zealand knows whether in an election year or not —is recognised as an astute leader, and with his background on international conferences is widely respected in UNO. As chairman of one of the six main committees and a member of the General Committee, he is taking a definite part in the conference.

VITAL DIFFERENCE

BIG POWERS’ UNITY BLOCS IN EVIDENCE MR FRASER'S PROMINENCE (Special Correspondent.) (9.30 a.m.) LONDON, Jan. 16. Is the United Nations’ Organisation a “mixture, as before,” of the League of Nations? Are these blocs and groups of nations already working together in it for their own ends? Will UNO work? These are among a number of general questions being asked by the English public to-day and probably also in New Zealand. Here are some general first impressions of UNO in its initial wee.t —superficial, perhaps, but objective. There is no doubt that the ghosts of Geneva are tending to hover around this first session of UNO, giving rise to a certain amount of scepticism and remarks such as “we heard all this before” and “this is where we came in.”

But on entering the huge auditorium at the Central Hall, Westminster, with its royal blue, gold, cream and grey colourings, the important difference from the League is immediately noticeable. Important Difference Sitting side by side at a long pale oak table are the American and Russian delegations. America never attended a League meeting at. Geneva, while Russia made only brief appearances. That is an important difference and also the fact that the Security Council—as long as the five great Powers who arc permanent members agree—can take action against a would-be aggressor.

Inevitably, the presence of those big Powers tends imperceptibly to dominate the conference. Their delegates, white haired and black suited, appear much the same as the delegates of the other nations, but what a difference in Ihe power they wield! The British delegation sits directly in front of the Russians and Americans and, with the Dominions’ representatives scattered at the other tables, they form the third influential group. Also to be noted are delegates from the Ukraine and Byelorussia, and their presence, too, endorses the difference between the League and UNO. for they certainly would not be present without Russian approval.

Groupings of States To the question “are there groups or blocs of nations in UNO, the answer is “Yes.” Naturally they consult among themselves outside .the conference hall. In the American group are countries such ns those oi South America, Cuba, and the Philippines. . , ~ „ In the Russian grouping thcie is also Poland, Yugoslavia, and Czechoslovakia. With Britain and the Dominions, certain western European countries like France and Belgium find they have similar interests. Then there is the middle . eastern grouping composed of countries such as Iraq, Iran, Syria, Saudi-Arabia and Egypt— members of the Arab ncague. "Are these various groupings working together to impress their point of view on the Assembly? Again the