MOTION FOR RATIFICATION

Nelson Evening Mail, Volume 80, 30 July 1945, Page 6

MOTION FOR RATIFICATION

NEW ZEALAND’S OBLIGATIONS? (From Our Parliamentary Reporter) Wellington, July 27. The House of Representatives yesterdi.y continued the debate on the Prime Minister's motion for the ratification of the United Nations Charter. Mr P. G. Connolly (Government, Dunedin West) said he regretted that the declaration of war against armament manufacturers by the League of Nations in 1939 had been allowed to become a dead letter, because he felt that this was a factor in the promotion of international strife. As with other traders, these firms always worked for increased output, and what the armament industry always wanted was permanent tension and the constant threat of war. Enormous profits were also made by stock exchange speculators through the violent fluctuations of prices in time of war. Mr C. G. E. Harker (National, Waipawa) said it had been suggested that if the manufacture of munitions were handled by the State there would be nothing further to worry about. He could not help reflecting that it was Britain that led the world in disarmament and there was a stage when Britain was strongly supported by Germany, although at that time led by Stresemann, a man of peace. The danger to the world of munition making by a State inside a State should not be disregarded. Mr F. Langstone (Government, Waimarino) said the Charter was one of the greatest documents the woi*ld had ever produced, and should bring peace to all the nations. The preamble was almost a poem and should be placed in every school and assembly hall in New Zealand. The breath of life would have to be put into the organisation to create faith, inspiration and enthusiasm. The Charter was a step to end once and for all the scourge of war. Mr C. M. Bowden (National, Wellnigton West) said he thought the unanimity required in the Security Council was likely to be the source of strength of the organisation, but he was also of the opinion that the Economic Social Council would be the most important sphere of activity of the United Nations organisation because if the stress of circumstances were removed the necessity of action by the Security Council was likely to be reduced. The price New Zealand would have lo pa> as a signatory of the Charter was within its capacity and was a small price compared with what would have to be paid if the organisation was not a success. The practising of Christian principles would enable New Zealand to play its part sfnd carry out the spirit of the Charter. “SOMEWHAT TOO HUMBLE"

Mr C. M. Williams (Government, Kaiapoi) said he thought the Prime Minister had been somewhat too humble in his report on the results of. the' conference and on the New Zealand delegation’s success. The New Zealand and Australian delegations represented countries with strong democratic traditions and they did not realise perhaps how much ahead they were in their ideals and traditions compared with many of the other nations represented at the conference. He felt the New Zealand delegation had aimed at achieving a degree of perfection in world organisation in a world which was still far from perfect. In the sphere of world organisation there was only a tradition of a quarter of a century.

Mr J. T. Watts (National, Riccarton) said the weaknesses of the Charter were that there were no sanctions, that there were difficulties revolving round the veto clause, and that as with all agreements it depended on the capacity of Governments to work together to carry out its provisions. The success that would attach to the Charter depended on the ability of Britain and America to work with Russia. He felt it was not too early for the Government to make a declaration in general terms as to what its plans were for carrying out the obligations under the Charter and the Canberra Agreement.

Mr W. T. Anderton (Government, Eden) said he believed the Great Powers had so much power in the Security Council because past events had forced them to realise that unless there was the necessary machinery to act and act quickly, and the necessary power to force, the same humbug 1 would go on in the future as had gone on since 1920. It was far better to give the five Great Powers the greater responsibility within the new world organisation than for some to be inside and some outside, the position to which the League of Nations was subjected.