WIDE SOVIET DIVERGENCE

Grey River Argus, 20 September 1945, Page 5

WIDE SOVIET DIVERGENCE

FROM BRITAIN AND U.S.A.

(Rec. 9.5) LONDON, Sept 19 The political correspondent of tne “Daily Express” says that many differences have arisen in the Council of Foreign Ministers. Proposals are on the table which it seems almost impossible to reconcile. It is obvious from M. Molotov’s attitude at the Press conference, that on some ol the most vital issues—ltalian colonies future of Trieste, and’ composition of Balkan countries—his views are widely different from those ol Britain and America. A settlement of these dificulties is essential if a peace treaty is to be drawn up for signature by the Italians and the Balkan countries, but there seems at present small prospect of compromise. YUGOSLAV TACTICS.

LONDON, September 18. Coinciding with the Big Five Council meeting, there are reports from Italy alleging the Yugoslavs are using terrorist tactics to induce the population of Julian March (Venezia Giula; to sign a petition favouring-the transfer of the territory to Tito. These incidents and reports of questionable methods adopted by* Tito to choose electors for the new Yugoslav Constituent Assembly are causing the Yugoslavs to be regarded with increasing reserve, despite their recoin against the Germans, and the feeling that Italy should .receive some punishIt is estimated that as the result oi ambiguity of the law concerning the right to vote, 60 per cent, of the Yugoslav people, will be disenfranchised, resulting in almost 100 per cent, vote in favour of Tito and his National Liberation Council. The Yugoslavs may be said to n? taking a “strong line” at the Counci. Thev sent a deputation of 40 members, and the language in their memorandum is regarded as being munt. It is claimed that Venezia Giula oi Julian March is a constituent part ol Yugoslavia, and that the only rational and just solution” oj the problem is for the region m its entiretv to be united with Yugoslavia by act of international law. Onlv such a solution of the Julian March problem as that laid down in the memorandum would correspond to the needs and wishes of the population.

DIVERGENT VIEWS ON ITALIAN COLONIES. (Ree 95) LONDON, Sept. 19. The “Daily Mail” states: Mr Molotov, Soviet Foreign Minister, left after his press conference many question marks behind him. It is understood that Britain, probably in association with some of-the British Dominions, has had views about control of some of the Italian colonies. _ Observers are asking whether Britain and America are perturbed about the extent of Russia’s demand. They ask whether Russia is seeking to extend her influence to a degree which the other nations may not wish to concede. America, at first, it is believed was in favour of allowing the Italians to run their own colonies under supervision. But it is reported that another American scheme has now been tabled at the Big Five Conference, providing for the administration of each colony by a GovernorGeneral to be appointed by the World Organisation’s Trusteeship Council. This scheme apparently Italian colonies receiving independence in ten or fifteen years. It is reported that Britain looks on this proposal with some favour. ITALY’S ANXIETY OVER TRIESTE. (Rec. 11.5) LONDON, Sept. 19. A statement from the Italian Embassy says Signor Gasperi, Italian Foreign Minister, at the Foreign Ministers’ Council yesterday, stressed the need to ensure the international functioning of Trieste. He also urged that the Council should adopt emergency measures to obviate the alarming economic social consequences that, are arising from the present demarcation line.

The Embassy added that Signor Gasperi suggested that the Wilson Line was a possible basis of discussion.

U.S.A. AND ITALY.

ENGLISH PRESS COMMENT. LONDON, September 18. Commenting on reports that the United States would support a scheme for Italy to administer her former colonies under an International Trust, the “Manchester Guardian’s” diplomatic correspondent says: “A strong current of American opinion favouring the proposal is in keening with the kindiv feeling towards Italy that characterised the United States policy even during hostilities, influenced by the large Italian population within the States, together with the Roman Catholic bloc. It also reflects American distaste for the flavour of territorial aggrandisement that would attach to the entry of an alternative authority on the scene. Equally, the prospect of an Italian mandate would be favourable to American economic penetration. Whether or not, complete reversion to Italy is the ollicial view of the American delegation to the Council of Foreign Ministers, , the idea is one of many that must no-.y be reviewed by Foreign Ministeis and deputies.. That it will be hotly disputed there is no doubt. Although there is no inclination in Britain to ffive Italy less than her deserts, memory of the heavy British losses sustained in the British conquest of the Italian Empire are alone a brake upon any easy gesture of restoring what would so easily appear to be the status quo.” SOVIET AIMS IN DOUBT IS BRITISH ATTITUDE TO SPAIN UNAVAILING? (Rec. 9.51 LONDON. Sept. 19 The “Daily Telegraph” in a leading article, asks: “Does the Soviet Government seriously stake a claim to the trusteeship of Italy’s North African possessions? It would be as reasonable to suggest that Britain should become the trustee of outer Mongolia, on the ground of the British Empire’s unique experience in handling native populations.” The "Daily Telegraph” expresses the opinion that it would greatly assist to a settlement of this and other matters if the Russian policy were to be clearly stated. It said: “Statesmanship must inevitably reach an impasse when one of the essential factors in each international situation remains persistently enigmatic. The text of the Franco-Churchill letters show Britain’s undeviating .loyalty to the Britsh-Russian treaty. The pre-eminent need’ is that, reciprocally, we should know where Russia stands and what the Soviet Government is aiming at. CHURCHILL AND FRANCO LONDON, Sept. 18 Reuter’s News Agency, publishes as a message from Bade, Switzerland, the text of letters exchanged last year between General Franco and Mr. Churchill showing the latter bluntl- repudiated Spanish claims to participate in peace settlements, of future world organisation, in a letter' rejecting outright proposals from General Franco late last year for common action against Russia. In a letter on October 18, General Franco said: “Since we cannot be-

lieve in the good faith of Communist Russia, and since we knew the insidious power of Bolshevism, we must take into account the. fact that the weakening and destruction of her neighbours will greatly increase Russia’s ambition and power, making more than ever necessary an intelligent understanding attitude on the part if the Western Powers.” General Franco followed with the suggestion that Britain and Spain should work towarls more intimate relationship, and prepare for possible common action in future. Mr. Churchhill replying on behalf of the War Cabinet, described as “a serious mistake” any idea that Britain would be readv to consider any bloc of Powers based on hostility to her ally, Russia, or any assumed need for defence against her. Britain considered the permanence of Anglo-Russian collaboration essential to the future peace and prosperity of Europe. He added: “It is out of the question for Britain to support Spanish aspirations for participation m future peace settlements. Nor do I tnnjk it likely that Spain will be invited to join a future world organisation. SPAIN AND NORTH AFRICA (Rec. 11.5) MADRID. Sept. 19. The Spanish Foreign Ministry has issued a statement as follows: The decision to re-establish an international regime at Tangier has been taken without Soain’s knowledge, ot without any previous agreement with her Spain' has been invited to participate in a so-called provisional regime. The statement does not indicate whether Spain accepts the invistatement . asserts Spain occupied Tangier in order to prevent the Axis Powers doing so, theieby saving incalculable damage to Tangier and to the cause of peace. France and Britain were fully informed before Snain intervened and there was a modus vivendi subseouentlv reached, consolidating the de facto situation that was created.