“LIBERALISING” OF CHARTER

Nelson Evening Mail, Volume 80, 12 June 1945, Page 3

“LIBERALISING” OF CHARTER

AUSTRALIAN AND NEW ZEALAND’S PART TRIBUTE TO MR FRASER (Official News Service) San Francisc®, June 8. The New Zealand and Australian delegations to the United Nations conference will go home feeling that they have made important contributions to the “liberalising” of the charter of the new world organisation the "New York Times” says to-day in a specfial article reviewing the work here of the representatives of the two Dominions. The writer of the article, Russel Porter, who is a member of the “Times” staff reporting the conference, discusses the roles the New Zealand and Australian delegates have played together in furthering the interests of the so-called middle and small nations. He says Mr Fraser and Dr Evatt have co-operated ,closely on the lines of the Canberra agreement which was the first of the wartime security pacts and which tied the foreign policies of the two South Pacific countries closely together. They are not completely satisfied with the results of the conference so far since their opposition to the Big Five veto—particularly in its application to the peaceful settlement of disputes and to amendments to the charter—has up to the present been unsuccessful. Mr Fraser has ben recognised as one of the leading intellectual figures of the conference, Porter says. He and his delegation came here to fight for the pledge against aggression and in support of territorial integrity, for more power for the general assembly and less power for the security council.. Porter remarks also that the Austialians a id New Zealanders have shown a friendly a'titude here towards the United Kingdom and United Stavs but have followed an independent line, not unqoi the do?r'nation of either. Although t!.ey voted with the British on many t ccasi ins, they, like Canada, make it very e’ear tha? there \s no Britis.i EmDire bloc, or that No. 10 Downing Street could order a vote this way or that. Discussing Mr Fraser’s attitude to the veto Porter says it is believed that he would accept it on a provisional basis—that is. if the door was not closed against its revision by another conference in five or seven years, at which the veto powers would not be used against amendments. “Here of course he is running counter to the Russian viewpoint, but he has pointed out that Russia or any other big Power would always have the practical right of veto regardless of any phrasing of the charter, since any nat: could withdraw from the organisation if it felt its interests so required. If such a revisionary conference were pledged, he has made it clear, he could go back to New Zealand and say that while there are many defects and disappointments in the charter that was the price that had to be paid to keep the peace of the world, and that the charter was subject to change in future. Without such provision for change he has indicated a belief that there will be great public disappointment.”