The Grey River Argus FRIDAY, May 11, 1945. ’FRISCO CONFERENCE.

Grey River Argus, 11 May 1945, Page 4

The Grey River Argus FRIDAY, May 11, 1945. ’FRISCO CONFERENCE.

Release from war strain may soon bring some relaxation of war-time resolutions regarding world unity. The U.N.C.1.0. conference indicates as much, and news that various countries arc turning already to a hunt' for markets;' and to the question of a cut in taxes, points the same way. That the U.N.C.1.0. cannot hope to destroy regional unities is also evident. The middle and smaller Powers at San Francisco appear likely to force amendments to’the decisions of the Big Three —or Four,' or Five—as the case may he. ‘There is one unifying factor, that of labour, which the U.N.C.1.0. seems now disposed to recognise, by accepting consultants from the new international organisation; while advisers from other groupings are also intended to be consulted on matters of a social and economic character. An Australian diplomat reckons it to have been a mistake that the Polish question obtained any consideration at the conference, as he fears the deadlock casts discredit on the assemblage. The Americans generally are heading for a retention of their own separate regional autonomy, symbolised partly by the Monroe Doctrine. There thus seems a good case for Australia and New Zealand in seeking to have a distinctive regional control at least over the Central Pacific. Mr Fraser, as well as Doctor Evatt, have at San Francisco spoken out bluntly against the idea that because three governments control the greatest forces, they should be regarded as a permanent dictatorial triumvirate. On the face of it, at anyrate, it does not look to be a paragon of democracy. Short of the risk of imminent war on a major scale, the United Nations ought to be able to concede every unit ’its proper voice, and the middle and lesser ones collectively at least a voice equivalent to any of the “big” ones. As things are, the most vital issues can be solved by the proposed Council only with a majority of the “big” powers. The case thus may arise of one of the latter backing up a smaller power in aggressive policy without there being any remedy. The League of Nations, which it is desired to inter at San Francisco, lest any rights thereunder later might be cited, failed because the bigger Powers used it chiefly in their own particular interests, some pulling out the moment that the League decided adversely in their regard. The present idea appears to be that of sacrificing whatever might be regarded by a major Power as calculated to coerce it in any circumstances. Tlie reason is that otherwise so much military strength might in a dispute be diverted from the Organisation that it. could not prevent a major conflict. Admittedly no mere formality would be calculated to deter major Powers from forcible action in support of their own policies, and hence the endeavour to make the temporary unity of flic. “Big Three” a permanency so far as may ~be. Ultimately the World Security Organisation must depend on ethics, rather than politics—the working of the will of the Powers, and maximum study and precaution as the preventative of aggressive volition. This in turn must mean a good degree of give and take. It, therefore, tlie regional arrangements' now likely to be excepted from! the Organisation’s scope represent' an instance of such accoiiinioda-, tion, they arc a good sign. It isdesirable that all nations shall have a common organ for con-

ciliation, but in view of the surprises even of history during' the present century, it would be a mistake yet to expect too much from the new departure, and all nations doubtless will be guided bv that anticipation.