PROPOSALS AT UM TO OUTLAW ATOMIC WAR

Grey River Argus, 9 November 1949, Page 5

PROPOSALS AT UM TO OUTLAW ATOMIC WAR

xßec 11.50) NEW YORK, Nov 7. A resolution asking all nations to renounce enough of their national sovereignty to ensure effective international control of atomic energy was submitted to the United Nations Political Committee by France and Canada to-day. hTe committee has also before it an Indian motion that the whole probelm of atomic energy be referred to an international Law Commission with the request that it submit to th? General Assembly before July 31, 1950, a draft of a declaration on the duties of States and individuals in respect to the development of atomic enerfy, so as to ensure its use for peaceful purpose only. The French and Canadian resolution asked the General Assembly to endorse the following main, points.— (1) Atomic energy, if used for peace wil lead to an increase of human welfare, but if used for war, may bring about the destruction of all civilisation. (2) Humanity is in danger so long as States retain under their individual control the' development and operation of atomic energy facilities. (3) An international co-operative effort can avoid this danger, and hasten the development of atomic | energy for peaceful purposes. | (4) All nations would join such j co-operative development, and do I everything in their power, . by the acceptance of international control, to prohibit and eliminate atomic weapons. (5) The Atomic Energy Commission should continue to explore every avenue of possible agreement. Sir Carl Berendsen (N.Z.) said all of the world, but Russia, was willing to accept essential international control supervision. He said: “All the world, except the Soviet, is prepared to show to any authorised observer everything that is being done in atomic research, or in its application to war-like, industrial, or other purposes. The Soviet and its satellites are not willing. They attempt to cover their recalcitrance with facesaving propagandist proposals, which deceive no one. The conclusion is as obvious as it is ominous. Those who accept inspection have nothing to hide. Those who decline inspection are inevitably and properly suspect of the intention and of indeed the act of deceit”. Sir C. Berendsen opposed any suggestions for standstill or truce agreements. “This is not a dreamland wherein we live”, he said. “Let no one be deceived by tine phrases or optimistic resolutions. The sole test is effective inspection, and control on an international basis”. Sir C. Berendsen rejected the Indian proposal. He said he appreciated the Indian “purity of motive”, but that it was not a matter that could be settled in law. Law without sanction was a mockery. New Zealand would support the CanadianFrench proposals.