SOVIET SILENCE

Gisborne Herald, Volume LXXIV, Issue 22438, 19 September 1947, Page 5

SOVIET SILENCE

MARSHALL’S PLAN EFFECTS_FEARED RIVAL TO COUNCIL VETO ISSUE COMPLICATED (N.Z.P.A.—Renter— Copyright.) NEW YORK, Sept. 17. The Russians did not join the loud general applause at the conclusion of Mr. Marshall’s speech and the Soviet Deputy Foreign Minister. M. Vyshinsky withdrew his request to address the United Nations Assembly following Mr Marshall M. Vyshinsky's move is not explained, out it appeared that Russia wanted time ‘o study Mr Marshall’s speech. Mr Marshall placed responsibility for the United Nations’ in effectiveness, both by direct and indirect reference, to Russia and also by frequent references to the findings of the majority as opposed to the views of the minority. Referring to Greece and the views of the majority, Mr Marshall said that one permanent member of the council ' has three times vetoed the efforts c £ the council to deal with the situation.” ‘‘Gniy Basis of Control”

On the question of atomic weapons, Mr. Marshall again pointed out, that ‘ the majority is convinced that its proposals provide the only adequate basis for effective control.”

Reuter’s savs diplomatic circles interpreted Mr. Marshall's speech as an attempt by the United States to break the paralysing stranglehold of great Power veto over the United Nation’s efforts to maintain peace. Mr. Marshall’s proposals for setting up an interim committee for peace and security would, in effect be a continuous session of the General Assembly. Such a committee would consider international disputes and threats to international peace winch the Security Council failed to resolve or which member States wished to bring before the committee which would have precisely the same powers and rules of procedure as the Assembly. Diplomatic officials consider the key to Mr. Marshall’s proposal is that a recommendation for the settlement _ot international disputes by a 55-nation committee would not be subject to any veto. Soviet Allegations Its recommendations would not be obligatory upon member States, but when—as in the majority of cases which have been before the Security Council—the overwhelming majority favoured one course of action, lack of compulsion would make little difference and the recommendations could be assured of voluntary implementation. Official Soviet circles already allege that the committee would, in fact, constitute a rival Security Council and that the General Assembly would be usurping what the charter describes as the “primary responsibility for peace and security’’ of the Security Council.

The United States answer to the Soviet charge is that since the committee would only be carrying on the functions of the General Assembly this could only be held to be true if it was also held that the Assembly itself was a rival of the Security Council and that the charter did not give the Security Council the “sole” responsibility for peace and security, but speciucally made the General Assembly responsible for this in general terms. On the other hand, American official circles frankly acknowledge that it would not be necessary _ to have an Assembly standing committee if the Security' Council were functioning smoothly in the settlement of international disputes. Repeatedly Blocked by Russia American officials also point out that such a committee would not be necessary if the majority decision had not repeatedly been blocked by Russian vetoes. The American view, however, is that if a great Power is determined to use its veto to obstruct the peace-maintain-ing machinery, even in preliminary stages, it is only logical for the United Nations gathered in general assembly, to try what can be done by other machinery. There is considerable doubt among the other delegations whether Mr. Marshall’s proposal to remove the power of veto over the application for membership could ' be done constitutionally without an amendment of the foarter, and it is understood the United States does not favour the actual amendment of the charter at this stage.

Mr. Marshall, however., does specifically propose that the voting procedure of the Security Council be “liberalised . The United States delegation suggests such a liberalisation might be effected by an agreed definition of what ma.ters are substantive and subject to veto, and what are procedural and not subject to veto. Belgium’s premier, M Spaak, described Mr. Marshall’s speech as very important and very good. Sir Carl Berendsen, New Zealand, said: “The fact that the United States has proposed consideration of any deviation of the veto is of great moment to the world."