STORMY SCENES AT UNO SESSION

Gisborne Herald, Volume LXXIII, Issue 21946, 14 February 1946, Page 7

STORMY SCENES AT UNO SESSION

MR. FRASER CLASHES WITH RUSSIANS

VIOLENT TONGUE-LASHING EXCHANGES

LONDON, Feb. 12. During the meeting of the United Nations’ Political and Security Committees to complete the consideration of the question of trade unions’ collaboration with the Economic and Social Council, Mr. P. Fraser (New Zealand), clashed time after time with the chairman, M. Manuilski (Ukraine), causing the stormiest scenes yet witnessed at any United Nations’ Organisation meeting. M. Gromyko (Soviet), also joined in. On occasions all three were on their feet at the same time, all talking with worried interpreters adding to the noise with attempted translations. The confusion was occasionally so great that it was difficult to follow the course of Mr. Fraser’s protests and the chairman’s rulings. .y Disputes Over Procedure

To-day’s meeting was the climax of a long 'series of meetings where the issue has mainly been whether a national organisation, like the American Federation of Labour, should have equal rights with an international organisation like the World Federation of Trade Unions. The American delegation, with Senator T. Connally as the spearhead, never rested, pushing the A.F.L.’s case. Finally there emerged from the subcommittee for to-day’s meeting an American draft resolution which had been overhauled and approved by the majority. The Russian and Belgian delegations tabled dissenting proposals, aimed _ at omitting .the A.F.L. from collaboration. M. Manuilski. with expressive hands held out, suggested that as the discussion was now closed the committee should proceed immediately to vote on the Russian, American and Belgian proposals in that order. Mr. P. J. Noel-Bnker (Britain) immediately objected and urged that to conform with the general practice, the American proposal, which had been through the sub-committee, should be taken first. U.S. Resolution Accepted M. Manuilski disagreed on the ground that the Soviet proposal was made first, whereupon Mr._ Nocl-Baker pointed out that the original Russian proposal was withdrawn after the matter was passed through another committee.

agreement to preamble, a substantive amendment could not and should not be accepted for the rest of the resolution. M. Manuilski, still soft-voiced, smiling gesturing with his hands, overruled the objection and again proceeded to put M. Gromyko’s amendment. “Those Tricks Won’t Do” Mr. Fraser leaped to his feet and, with his eyes blazing and face reddening, said: “These tricks won’t do. They are not the methods for this committee. I want a vote on your ruling. I said you did the wrong thing. I want the committee to say whether you did the right thing.” There followed an exchange between M. Manuiski and Mr. Fraser who, at length, formally putting it to the vote began an explanation but was, stopped when M. Gromyko rose and submitted again that he was not making a fresh proposal but merely amending one. He once turned to Mr. Fraser and said: “Why make such a noise?” Mr. Fraser again demanded a clear vote on the ruling. M. -Manuilski explained that the matter was not so much on procedure as convenience in order to end the protracted debate. Then followed one occasion when M. Manuilski, Mr. Fraser, and M. Gromvko were all on their feet talking. Mr. Noel-Baker, when the hubbub subsided, supported Mr. Fraser. He said the committee must dispose of the whole resolution before taking the amendment. Mr. Fraser Triumphs Mr. Fraser suggested that che meeting should vote, first, on the W.F.T.U., and secondly on the I.C.A. and thirdly on the A.F.L. He said that if they did that, he would throw his motion on the chairman’s ruling into the dustbin. He triumphed when the meeting decided by a large majority on a show of hands that amendments to the resolution should not be permitted and then adopted his suggestion for the voting procedure. The Political and Security Committee decided to ask the Assembly to recommend to the Economic and Social Council that the latter should arrange, as soon as possible, to collaborate, first, with the W.F.T.U., secondly, with the 1.C.A., and thirdly with the A.F.L. and other national and regional non-governmental organisations.

M. Manuilski suggested that the matter should be put to the vote, to which M. Gromyko unsuccessfully objected. The vote resulted in a heavy majority for the American resolution to be put first. The first part of the American resolution caused no difficulty. The meeting adopted the preamble setting out the rights which were proposed to be allotted to the three categories of organisation. The rest of the resolution was divided into two paragraphs, the first of which grouped the W.F.T.U. and 1.C.A., and the second dealt with the A.F.L. Move Causes Indignation

M Gromyko caught M. Manuilski’s eye and proposed by amendment, that his proposal should be substituted for the two paragraphs. (This would have had the effect of eliminating the I.C.A. and A.F.L., and limiting the W.F.T.U. to an advisory capacity). M. Manuilski had practically agreed to this when Mr. Fraser intervened. He had been taking part from time to time in earlier disputes about the procedure, but lie now objected and moved to dissent from the chairman's ruling. He said that the meeting, having decided the order in which the three proposals should be taken M. Gromyko could not now move his proposal as an amendment of the resolution which the meeting had decided to vote on first. Moreover, the voting having started on this resolution by

The committee voted separately on three categories as follows: For the first, 27 votes to 1; for the second, 24 to 4; for the third, 24 to 9. * Saudi-Arabia was the only dissentient from admitting the W.F.T.U. b'ut there were four abstensions. The Ukraine, Poland, and Byelorussia supported Russia in opposition to the vote on the 1.C.A.. from which there were twelve abstentions, France and Yugoslavia were among the five who joined the Soviet bloc on the vote on the A.F.L., from which there were four abstensions.