SOVIET QUERY

Gisborne Herald, Volume LXXIII, Issue 21933, 30 January 1946, Page 5

SOVIET QUERY

POWER OF COUNCIL HEARING OF DISPUTE RUSSIA AND PERSIA LONDON. Jan. 28Chapter 6 of the San Francisco Charter, comprising Articles 33 to 37, providing for the peaceful settlement of disputes, met its first test to-day when the United Nations’ Security Council heard the leader of the Soviet delegation, M. Vyshinsky—following a statement by the Persian delegate, Seyed Hassan Taquizadeh, on Persia’s complaint against Russia —challenge the council’s right to decide the dispute. The meeting lasted two hours and adjourned without other speeches until Wednesday. The chairman, Mr. Norman Makin (Australia), in opening the discussion, suggested that the procedure should be, first, to give Hie Persian and then the Soviet delegates the opportunity to supplement their letters to the council; secondly, to throw the subject open for discussion with fhe right for any delegate to move a motion. M. Vyshinsky objected that the matter should be limited to procedure but M. Makin’s suggested procedure was adopted.

The council also adopted Mr. Makin’s proposal that M. Taquizadeh, representing a non-member State which was a party to the dispute, should attend and speak, but not vote.

Interference Alleged M. Taquizadeh told the' Security Council that it would have been easy for the Persian Army to restore order in Azerbaijan had the Russians allowed the Persian Army to go there. This clearly was interference in the Persians’ internal affairs and was only one instance of many. As a result of Russian interference Azerbaijan was no longer under the control of the central Government, The Soviet, replying to the British and American notes, said that if events had taken place in northern Persia they were fostered by reactionary elements who were opposed to the rights of the people in that territory. The Soviet authorities had not only hindered the troops’ movements in that district but had opposed the despatch of troops there on the ground that they would increase the disorders and bloodshed and thus compel the Soviet to bring in more troops to ensure the safety of the Russian garrison. The Soviet, by admitting it had prevented the despatch of Persian troops, acknowledged it had committed a breach of the treaty. Therefore, it was not necessary to detail other breaches.

Direct Settlement Sought Persia asked that the Security Council should recommend the withdrawal of all moral and material support for the rebels in Azerbaijan. The Persian Government had sought a settlement of the dispute by direct approach to Russia in accordance with Article 33 of the Charter. Persia had addressed a number of notes to Russia but Russia either had not replied or found herself unable to admit Persia’s protest.

The only course remaining for Persia was to bring the dispute before the Security Council. She called for the withdrawal of Soviet troops by March 2 in accordance with the tripartite agreement. “I am confident that, in the spirt! which animated the new world organisation and in accordance with the' Charter’s principles the Security Council will grant Persia’s request for full freedom of action in their own territory,” he said. The Persian delegation, in presenting these facts, hopes that the dispute will be dealt with objectively and settled in lasting friendship with the Soviet Government,”

M. Vyshinsky said the complaint had been brought by a Government that was no longer in power and without sufficient grounds. He would deal only with the procedural side. He claimed that the council had to decide only whether negotiations had taken place and whether there had been results from it.

M. Taquizadeh had admitted both, he said. The negotiations were completed by December 1. The Persian Foreign Minister then stated that he did not desire to supply further data for the continuation of negotiations. The Persian delegation considered that the results were unsatisfactory, but the Government on December 1 expressed satisfaction in a Note to Moscow. The Soviet had not refused to go on with the negotiations but. Persia had. Articles Held Inapplicable

M. Vyshinsky then analysed the Charter’s Articles 33 and 37 and said that Article 33, which clearly put the obligation for entering negotiations on both parties, could not apply to the Persian dispute because the Soviet Government had never refused to continue the negotiations. Therefore, why should the Security Council intervene. Article 34 did np.t apply to the base because no one conversant with the facts sav there was any basis on which the article could be applied. Article 36 could not be applied because he himself had signed a document expressing the Soviet Government’s wish to continue the negotiations.

Referring to Article 37, M. Vyshinsky said it was much too early to say in the Security Council that it was impossible that both parties could come to terms. M. Vyshinsky asked the council to leave the matter aside and open for consultation and for negotiation between the two parties and not be diverted from the right course of action by incorrect interpretations of the Charter.

‘ This is just and fair and corresponds to good neighbours and is in UNO’s interest. We want to bring co-operation among all nations, establish good relations among all parties and the nations so that we can arrive at better unity and understanding.’’