SOVIET COMPLAINTS

Grey River Argus, 16 October 1946, Page 5

SOVIET COMPLAINTS

AGAINST DECISIONS At Paris Conference PARIS, Oct. 14. At the conference Senator Vandenberg and the question of Finnish reparations should be returned to the drafting Powers for a review. The £75,000,000 sterling proposed by the Big Foui’ Foreign Ministers as unwise and unfair. He proposed it be reduced. The American delegation was disturbed by the amount suggested. Finland might be expected to pay about one-third as much as Rumania and, perhaps, half as much as Hungary. Mr Molotov said that although the conference had done much constructive work, there were a number of unsatisfactory aspects. A certain group of Powers had from the beginning to the end tried to impose its wishes upon the other States. Mr Molotov contended that the system of voting had been unjust. It had enabled Powers who had no real interest in certain questions to overrule the States vitally concerned. He instanced India as voting on matters affecting Eastern Europe. The Indian delegation could speak with greater authority of a conference discussing the independence of India. India, for the sake of following Britain’s wake, took an active part in the settlement of questions, not as an impartial country noi’ as a delegation desiring to seek the correct solution.

Mi’ Molotov said the Soviet delegation had consistently supported the decisions of the Big Four Foreign Ministers. However, Britain, America and' France had not been consistent. They had changed their stand on some important quqestions. Recalling Mr Stalin’s affirmative answer when he was asked by a British correspondent whether it was possible for him to work with the Western democracies, Mr Molotov reaffirmed the Soviet desire to work and collaborate with all the Powers, great and small, for lasting peace. Declaring that the conference had “violated” the Foreign Ministers’ agreed decisions on Trieste, Mr Molotov said the conference had adopted a number of anti-democratic clauses which contradicted the Foreign Ministers’ decisions. The main responsibility rested with' Britain, America, and France, who had violated the obligations they had undertaken. It was highly probable that the conference would have produced better results on these questions if the Council of Foreign Ministers had made a greater effort to find joint decisions thereon. Certain delegations had insisted on the convocation of the Peace Conference before decisions were reached, ow they were faced with the results of this lack of prtparation. Referring to Finland, Mr Molotov described Mr Vandenberg’s speech as most unhelpful. “The United States,” he said, “is playing strange politics in connection with Finland.” He recapitulated the Soviet viewpoint on Finnish conduct before the war and accused the former regime of collaborating with Hitler and being anti-Soviet. “The Soviet attitude to Finland is now generous, friendly and helpful,” Mr Molotov declared. The voting on the Greek-Bulgarian frontier issue was a great political error, which was unlikely to serve the interests of peace and likely to create trouble; Nevertheless, Bulgaria could rest assured that the voting of the conference was incorrect and would not be adopted by the Council of Foreign Ministers. “The voting of the small countries,” he said, “proved to be an instrument of a certain faith which is playing a game in favour of Greece against Bulgaria. Is it worthy of the conference to assist such a game? Mr Molotov added that the most convincing arguments had failed during the conference to achieve any object. If the arguments were for any reason not to the liking of certain dominating groups, they lost all weight. It remained only for the American representative to set the vote and the voting of 12 or 13 other delegates was assured.