The Gisborne Herald. WITH WHICH IS INCORPORATED “THE TIMES.” GISBORNE, FRIDAY, DECEMBER 6, 1946. DISARMAMENT AND FREEDOM FROM FEAR

Gisborne Herald, Volume LXXIII, Issue 22197, 6 December 1946, Page 4

The Gisborne Herald. WITH WHICH IS INCORPORATED “THE TIMES.” GISBORNE, FRIDAY, DECEMBER 6, 1946. DISARMAMENT AND FREEDOM FROM FEAR

JJMIE finest Christmas present the United Nations could give to the world would be the announcement of a complete agreement on all subjects bearing directly on the maintenance of peace. At the moment the trend of the discussions in New York is by no means discouraging. The statement made by the chief Russian delegate, M. Molotov, that the Soviet Union, being anxious for unanimity, would not insist on its own disarmament plan is. rightly regarded as an important concession opening the way for immediate United Nations’ action. Of particular interest was M. Molotov’s assurance that, although Russia retained the right of veto in the Security Council discussions leading up to the establishment of control and inspection, the veto would not apply to any system of controls. and inspection in connection with arms limitation. This is a decided improvement on a stringent use of the right of veto which formerly threatened to make it impossible for' the Security Council to function at all. The Russian. Foreign Minister ’s latest pronouncement, however. does not mark the first occasion during these and previous meetings in Europe in which the note of acrimony has been dropped in favour of a spirit of conciliation. At a recent dinner given to the Big Three Foreign Ministers by the Foreign Press Association in New York, M. Molotov intimated Russia’s readiness to meet America half-way in disarmament plans. Furthermore his assertion that arms reduction must be general, under the direct guidance of the United Nations, was much on the same lines as the earlier comment by the British Prime . Minister, Mr. Attlee. If this atmosphere of conciliation is retained right till the end of the sittings all the remaining uncertainties should be removed. Nations’ Fighting Forces.

At one stage of the debate by the Political and Security Committee M. Molotov specifically asked for a reduction of naval and air arms, “the size of which in certain cases does not correspond to conditions of peace.” This was obviously a hint to Britain and the United States, particularly perhaps the latter, that Russia was apprehensive of the mounting air and naval strength of those Powers. In addition there was the question of the atomic bomb, which naturally bears a direct relationship to any naval air arm. The Russian delegate has always been most vehement in his declaration that the use of atomic energy for war purposes should be prohibited. It will be observed that little or nothing was said about the size and equipment of the Red Army, the development of which behind the Soviet frontiers could be steady if not so spectacular as the growth of roving British and American air and naval units.

The wider agreement which is hoped for clearly calls for universal disarmament—a disarmament that applies to all States and covers all weapons and means for waging war. It must bear on the responsibilities, geographical situation and status of the major Powers and be proportionate to the needs imposed upon them by those factors and in their relation to each other. It must also he effectual, based upon firm mutual confidence in each other’s policy and good faith. There must be scope for differences to be frankly debated and amicably disposed, for in any other atmosphere collaboration in an emergency must remain uncertain and incomplete. For all these .reasons the steadily strengthening note of conciliation in New York must be regarded as a genuine effort to establish international equilibrium. Ruling Out Atomic War. 1

Another consideration must be that the disarmament problem cannot be solved until the Powers agree without reservation to conditions which will permit the possibility of atomic warfare being completely ruled out. The need to eleminate all terrible weapons and retain only those which would enable the United Nations to act as a peace-keeping police force has been properly stressed. But scientists have warned that the danger of diversion of atomic materials from peaceful to warlike purposes exists all along the line of production. It is least dangerous but easiest to prevent at the mining stage; most dangerous and hardest to control at the stage where concentrated fissionable material is produced. The scientists conclude, therefore, that unless appropriate safeguards are taken at each of these stages it will be difficult to ensure that no diversion of material or installations will take place. Finally, there is the spiritual side to he considered. The nations must exorcise fear. We must exorcise fear from the mind of Russia that the capitalistic Powers are planning the ruin of their social experiment and perhaps designing their eventual conquest, fear from the mind of the United States that it is being used and exploited for the private and selfish ends of Britain and Russia, and fear from the mind of Britain that what she has intended as generosity will be taken as weakness and that she is to be starved and economically ruined. The Big Three cannot banish fear from the world until they have banished it from their own council chamber. And the United Nations will not achieve the final triumph until they have all cast out the fear that is in them.