Word Compromise' Missing

Northern Advocate, 18 October 1947, Page 7

Word Compromise' Missing

Sir Hartley Shawcross continued: “M. Vyshinsky’s exciting excursions into the realm of fantasy were not, of course, intended for the committee but for an audience as far removed from the committee as were the excursions themselves from the realities of the world situation.”

' Sir Hartley said he feared, however, that the Soviet’s real reason for objection to the Little Assembly proposal was that it thought it was undesirable that world opinion should have an opportunity of expressing itself more than was absolutely necessary.

“We are so ready to try and meet the views of those who disagree with us, if we can do so without sacrificing principles which we believe vital and true. Will our Soviet colleagues never try to meet us part of the way ? ” M. Gromyko, rejecting Sir Hartley’s plea, said as far-as this issue was concei’ned the Soviet did not have the word “compromise” in its vocabulary. ' The Little Assembly plan had been

produced because the United States had been prevented from dictating the Security Council’s actions, though its “obedient majority” plan was supported by warmongers, who anxiously were awaiting the ruin of the United Nations.

Five other nations spoke in favour of a Little Assembly. M. Kusma Kiselev (White Russia) said Senator Vandenberg (United States) had reached the “strange conclusion” that the United States and Russia could not work together in the United Nations.

Senator Vandenberg, he said, was one of the original sponsors of the Big Power veto privilege, but he now sought to get around it. M. Kiselev said the whole idea behind the Little Assembly was to overcome Russia’s veto power in the Security Council.