WORLD AVIATION

New Zealand Herald, Volume 81, Issue 25047, 10 November 1944, Page 6

WORLD AVIATION

DOMINIONS' PLAN CONFERENCE REJECTION NO SUPPORT GIVEN DECISION AT CHICAGO By Telegraph—Press Association—Copyright (Reed. 11.40 p.m.) NEW YORK, Nov. 0 The Chicago aviation conference dropped the New Zealand and Australian proposal for a world air corporation from further consideration upon a Brazilian motion that there was lack of the unanimity necessary to achieve such a goal. The proposal was presented by the New Zealand delegate, Mr D. G. Sullivan, whose eloquence and sincerity impressed the conference. His presentation brought him a round of hearty applause. Ruthless Economic Struggle "We are familiar with the ruthlessness of the struggle in domestic commerce," said Mr Sullivan. "Indeed, those who have to do with wartime supply are too well aware that even the need for national unity in wartime does not assuage this acquisitive passion. "I say solemnly that we, here and now, should free international air commerce from that kind of passionate struggle. I say with deep personal conviction. and representing the judgment of my Government, that competition between private and national interest in the field of aviation will yet be the Cause ot' another war." The Australian delegate. .Mr A. S. Drakeford, seconded the proposal. Mr Drakeford said that Australia advocated it, firstly, because an organisation with such powers of authority could ho more effectively integrated than any world security council, and secondly, because sanctions and supervision could be more readily applied if all nations participated in tho ownership and control of aviation. The instrumentality of the proposal might not be considered the best way, and even by some might he considered the worst way, to deal with the problem. But no attempt at all to deal with it would deeply disappoint the hearts and minds of millions of people throughout the world who were desperately seeking tho development of means whereby a world holocaust could be prevented. Ideal or the Real Mr Adolf 13erle, United States [Assistant-Secretary of State, supporting the Brazilian motion, complimented New Zealand and Australia on the wisdom and propriety of bringing the proposal before the conference. "Hoping for the ideal, as we do. but recognising the real, as we must," he said, "we know that the instrument is still tmfa?hioned to which we could commit so much of the fate of all nations." The French delegate, M. Max Hymans, proposed that the matter be further studied by the interim permanent organisation. This proposal was ruled out of order by the chairman of the South African delegation, Mr John .Martin, who presided over the conference. M. Hymans reserved the right to rsn'se the matter later. The Chicago correspondent of the New York Times says the proposal was eloquently proposed and just as eloquently buried. Only New Zealand and Australia voted against the Brazilian motion to drop the proposal. Respect in Rejection The New York Times points out that the great respect with which the Anzac proposal was turned down reflects the possibility that the British Labour Party shares the New Zealand and Australian views, and might, if returned to power, bring them up again with the Empire's force behind them. Hence it is considered possible that the French proposal for a study and trial of the New Zealand and Australian plan might be adopted if only in a regional sense. The results of the Presidential election strengthened the hand of the American delegation. The American people have clearly given the delegation a popular mandate to stand by its programme favouring an international air body limited to consultative and technical functions. However, this does not preclude the possibility of the usual give and take of an international conference with the British and Canadians, who in different degrees favour an international air authoritv with broad powers. The rejection of the New Zealand and Australian proposal ended any possibility of extreme internationalism at this time. What remains i« to work out an agreement on a middle course determining the amount of competition and regulation.