FINAL PEACE CONFERENCE

Grey River Argus, 4 January 1946, Page 5

FINAL PEACE CONFERENCE

FRANCE TAKES A STAND For Democratic Decisions (Rec. 8.0) PARIS, Jan. 3 The text of a reply by the French Government to the decisions of the Moscow Big Three conference was approved at a six hour Cabinet meeting vesterday. LONDON, Jan. 3 “The Times” correspondent at Paris says: France neither accepts nor rejects the Moscow conference decisions as communicated by Mr. F. J.- Byrnes, U.S. Secretary of State. France in fact seeks more precise information about how Peace Treaties are to be concluded and about the. extent of the powers of the Peace Assembly, which, as Britain, America and Russia has suggested, should meet in Paris next May. The French Government has received Three Notes from Mr. Byrnes. '• The first was one giving the general results of the Moscow conference and also inquiring whether France would agree to the Peace Assembly being held' io Paris. The second Note detailed the measures proposed for the controlling of atomic energy. The third Note outlined the settlement reached at Moscow on the Far Eastern question. The French reply to Mr. Byrnes is based on the first Note. The “Times” correspondent at Paris says: "De Gaulle and 'the majority of the French Cabinet felt that they were not able to take' a more positive attitude until more information should become aavailable about the ideals and the aims of the Big Three Foreign Ministers.” The correspondent adds: General d’e Gaulle has undoubtedly cast his Government for the playing of a far more responsible role in the peace settlement than the Big Three Foreign Ministers had accorded to France. He especially wants to know what oppotunities France would have for starting the case for the internationalisation of the Ruhr. He also wants to know what is to be the function, of the Peace Assembly. He wants to know whether it is to be limited merely to taking cognisance of decisions in which the majority of the participants in the Assembly, including France have had no pait. It this were to be the case, there would be little point in France accepting the proposal that the Peace Assembly should meet in Paris. “The Times” correspondent adas: The French Government has been moved by General de Gaulle's determination to salve the national dignity of France on an issue which they regard as being little less than humiliating. In so doing, it is argued they have rendered a service to the smaller nations who have felt that thev had some claim to participate in one or another of the Peace Treaties. The French Government undoubtedly feels the need for an assurance that the Big Three Powers do not yield to the temptation to agree among themselves at the expense of the others.

“WAR OF NERVES”

London Press Complaint

LONDON, January 2. The circumstances i_i) which the Government of Persia is breaking up must be viewed with disquiet by British people, says the “Daily Mail”, in a leader. Moscow’s policy forced resignations at Teheran. Russia denies she is interfering, but she is exerting tremendous indirect pressure by fomenting' in Azerbaijan unrest designed to separate the Province and State. Russia followed more open methods against Turkey. It is all painfully familiar. It is the samp war Or nerves practised by the Nazis. . We see the same incitement of minorities, the same protestations of innocence, and the same cat and mouse tactics. “Nevertheless, there is a fundamental difference between the Nazi and Russian policies. No. one could accuse Russia of embarking on a career of aggression. Russia’s greatest interest is peace. Russia’s almost psychopathic state of mind is the reason for the course she is pursuing. She is still riven by distrusts. One’ outcome is that secrecy is shrouding, all Russian occupied territories. This also isolates Russia from current thoughts and sentiments of the world to Russia’s disadvantage. Russia should know there is not one man in the democracies who wants another war anywhere, yet Russia is playing with fire when she stretches the nerves of the Middle East countries. There'will come a time when a small nation Will refuse to be browbeaten by a greater Power. The. last war began when Poland resisted Germany. The Turks are as proud a race as the Poles.” “Our nerves are stretched to breaking point, our ’minds are troubled everywhere; we.are far from being in good spirits as we enter 1946,” says the Turkish newspaper “Ulus”, quoted by the Ankara radio. “Those who staked hopes on the Moscow conference have been disillusioned. Mr Byrnes made no secret of the fact that wide differences existed between the .British, United States and Russian viewpoints on Balkan questions. When two or three of the great Powers give up something that belongs to them and concerns their own interests, that may justly be called sacrifice, but when it is a question of agreeing among themselves to give up something which concerns the territories of a free independent nation tnat is nothing more nor less than a sacrifice of the principles on the support of which victory for democracy has been based. We must ensure that Turkey does not deteriorate into a state of hopelessness.”

SOVIET AND ROUMANIA. LONDON, January 2. The British, American and Russian Diplomatic Commission, comprising Sir A. Clark-Kerr, Mr Harriman, and Mr Vyshinsky, has begun formally to tender advice to King Michael on the steps to be taken to satisfy prerequisites to recognition of the Roumanian Government, reports the Associated Press correspondent, Bucharest. The broad outline of the steps to be taken-was laid down in the Moscow communique. The Commission expects its job of helping Roumania to broaden its Government, will be completed, in a few days. A number of Roumanian Government officials attended the conferences between the King and the Commission.