TRUSTEESHIPS

Grey River Argus, 18 November 1946, Page 8

TRUSTEESHIPS

SOVIET COMPLAINT NEW YORK, Nov. 12. At the U.N.O. Trusteeship Committee, M. Novikov (Soviet), criticising Britain, Australia and South Africa, made the charge that these mandate holders were responsible for the failure to establish the Trusteeship Council. He said the Soviet would reject South Africa’s proposed annexation of South-west Africa, insisting on trusteeship. He criticised American statements on trusteeships as ‘‘contraaictory” and also described the trusteeship reports so far submitted as •‘mere declarations of intentions'.” He complained that the mandatory Powers had not yet submitted any draft agreement. He denied that Russia proposed to introduce the' veto into the Assembly’s work, but suggested that a sub-committee should be appointed to define the term “States directly concerned.” Mr K. H. Bailey (Australia) said that Australia had undertaken, after consultation with the United Kingdom and New Zealand, that Nauru would be placed under trusteeship. That undertaking was still good and the necessary steps- were being taken. Australia had acted in accordance with both the letter and spirit of the Assembly’s February resolution. Tnere had been no procrastination by the mandatory Powers'. Mr John Foster Dulles (Unite-1 States),- told the press that the Soviet had complained that the Trusteeship Council had not been established, bi.fi it was the Soviet at the London Assembly that had prevented rhe establishment of it in provisional form, and since then had done nothing about the draft trusteeship agreements' submitted to it.