MADE CONCESSIONS

Manawatu Standard, Volume LXVI, Issue 26, 29 December 1945, Page 5

MADE CONCESSIONS

BRITAIN AND AMERICA

WASHINGTON OPINIONS (N.Z Press Association. —Copyright.) (9.30 a.m.) WASHINGTON, Dec. 27. The . Foreign Ministers are interpreted as promising as the Allied treatment of Korea an economic and political unit in the immediate future, looking towards complete independence after a maximum of five years’ trusteeship, says the New York Times correspondent. American military men welcomed the Soviet order to Russian commanders in Northern Korea to confer with the Americans within a fortnight. Such collaboration has been sought almost since the beginning of tne joint occupation of Korea, but hitherto the Russians have not been receptive to American advances. However, the five years’ trusteeship plan is expected to evoke protests from Koreans, who feel that they are ready for self-rule now. The communique’s reference to Rus-sian-American troop withdrawals from North China and Manchuria and the re-affirmation of support from the Chungking Government indicate that the entire Asia area is on.riie way to stabilisation under conditions contributing to world peace. The number and scope of tne decisions reached at Moscow surpassed all forecasts. However, Washington officials acknowledge privately that Britain and America made sweeping concessions to Russia, especially regarding the control of Japan, and the atomic bomb. Presumably the American delegation agreed, on many provisions only as a means of obtaining strong Russian participation in the United Nations Organisation. Meanwhile, some Congressional circles have criticised the communique as “A Retreat from Dondon.” They are particularly disturbed by the agreement regarding atomic energy. . . _ A responsible official said that General MacArthur’s powers remain untouched in spite of the establishment of the Four-Power Council for Japan. He pointed out that the council had been given only the functions of "consulting with and advising the Supreme Commander.” Furthermore, the method of voting enables the United States to block undesirable decisions, such as any attempt to champ the existing American Directives, which General MacArthur is carrying out. RIGHTS OF GREAT POWERS.

“The first reaction in Washington was that the conference has improved the relations between the Great Powers, but has re-affirmed the principle that the Great Powers have the right to dominate United Nations affairs even in the field of atomic energy,” says the New York Times correspondent. "Those who believe that peace is impossible without a ‘Bin- Three’ agreement and we r e disturbed about the effects of the ‘Big Three’ stalemate on the forthcoming United Nations Organisation Assembly meeting in London were pleased. On the other hand, those who hoped that the "Big Three’ would gradually guide the world to a point where all nations would be. equal before the law and no nation had a veto were disappointed. They argue that the principle of Big Power control in the long run will not be conducive, to peace. "The most glaring negative fact emerging from the conference is the complete failure to reach an agreement on the delicate Iranian situation. M. Molotov is reported to have told Mr Byrnes and Mr Bevin that the Soviet regarded the Azerbaijan autonomists’ movement as entirely spontaneous and normal, and emphasised that Red Army troops are in Northern Iran under the terms of the Tran-British-Russian Alliance of January, 1942, and are not connected with the’ autonomist uprising. In fact, M. Molotov maintained a "Hands Off! attitude. Mr Byrnes and Mr Bevin maintained a solid front on the issue of withdrawing troops from Iran, but M. Molotov counter-proposed that the topic could not be taken up without discussing the withdrawal of Allied troops from Greece, Indonesia and China.”