FIDDLING IN PARIS

Grey River Argus, 28 August 1946, Page 5

FIDDLING IN PARIS

WHILE EUROPE SUFFERS Soviet’s Sway Extending LONDON, August 26. British , newspaper comment no longer considers the Faris meeting seriously as a peace conference. One newspaper puts it, “as a circus in which most of the active members — chiefly Russians and their satellites — can perform their feats of oratory, while the real problems of Europe are to be’ found in the sideshows”. The Ukrainian complaint against Greece, the Russian demand for a share in the administration of the Dardanelles and the virtual stalemate reached at the Paris Conference are all seen in London as developments in the Russian-sponsored campaign to consolidate Soviet hegemony in South-Eastern Europe. Four reasons are generally ascribed to M. Manuils'ky’s move to cite Greece before the Security Council. It is considered:— (1) As a counter move to distract attention from Albania and her bickering with Greece. (2) As a means of delaying the Greek claims for frontier rectification against Bulgaria and Albania. (3) As a means of answering American charges against Yugoslavia. (4) As a move- to bring Greece within the Russian-dominated Balkan zone and eliminate British influence. There is no disposition anywhere to accept M. Manuilsky’s claim that the Ukraine made this move without prompting. The Russian pressure upon Turkey over the straits.' is also interpreted as a further" move in these manoeuvres. So far as the Paris Conference is concerned; it is discussed almost entirely as a sounding board for the differences developing in Paris and elsewhere. “The conference does not settle the differences —it serves rather to expose them. It does not heal the wounds—it rips away the temporary bandages which conceal them.” says the Daily Herald. “It is no use blinking at the facts. This conference is developing into a struggle by the Soviet Union to develop’ and extend its hegemony over the whole of South-Eastern Europe. That is the reality behind every move and manoeuvre,” says the Paris correspondent of the News Chronicle. “The division is now simply and clearly among the States ‘loyal’ to the Soviet and those who decline to accept Soviet leadership.”

Suggestions' that an effort may be made to arrange a meeting between M. Stalin, Mr Attlee and Mr Truman in an effort to salvage the Paris conference are not regarded optimistically. Faris reports claim that M. Stalin will not. leave Moscow for another conference, and that the conduct of Russian foreign policy is being left in the hands of M. Molotov and M. Vyshinsky. The retirement of M. Litvinov, the last top-ranking Russian diplomat with an understanding of the Western point of view, is interpreted in some quarters as an indication that there is not likely to be qny change in Russian policy. It is, however, possible that another conference of the v ‘Big Four” Foreign Ministers will be called in an effort to straighten out the rapidly developing differences', and smooth the way for some real progress in Paris. Both Mi- Bevirn and Mr Byrnes are reported to favour the idea, but no one can predict what the Russian reactions are likely to be. One development which is reported to be causing the Russians concern is the French inclination to step in with Britain and America. The Observer reports that this has caused' M- Molotov to remonstrate with M. Bidault in private, and caused a stormy scene in the French Cabinet when the French Communist Minister, M. Billioux, criticised M. Bidault on the same score. The critical tone of the French moderate press to the Russians has recently noticeably increased.

The Observer’s correspondent speaks of “the air of hopeless frustration” now surrounding the conference, and predicts that nothing important can be done till the Foreign Ministers' meet in October to consider the German and Austrian settlement. Against this background the firm and definite tone of the recent American Notes to Yugoslavia and Poland and the American decision to support Britain and Turkey in opposing the Russian requests for a share in the control of the Dardanelles are interpreted as signs' of stiffening Anglo-American opposition to what some commentators call “the Russian diplomatic offensive and war of nerves”. It is noted that the American Government has assured both the Yugoslavs and the Poles that it is prepared to defend its rights in Europe and that it has chosen this moment to bring an American naval squadron into the Mediterranean on a training cruise. The Observer, under a leader headed, “Enter America”, says the presence of American cruisers' in the Adriatic has been the main factor in dissuading the Yugoslavs from attempting to seize Trieste by a violent coup. British comment reflects the growing feeling that the present deteiioiation in relationship has reached a real danger point. There is considerable speculation about how far Russia is prepared to go, but the indications are that Britain and America consider they, on their part, have gone far enough. The Glasgow Herald’s Paris correspondent says it is not believed in Paris' that the Russians wish to push things to extremes', but there is an increasing danger, which must be recognised, that events may go beyond their control.