COUNCIL SENSATION

Otago Daily Times, Issue 26114, 29 March 1946, Page 5

COUNCIL SENSATION

SHOWDOWN ON PERSIA REJECTION OF MOTION (Rec. 11 p.m.) NEW YORK, Mar. 27. Mr Byrnes told the council that the United States Government received information from its official representative at Teheran that there was no agreement between Russia and Persia. Certain proposals had been made but these had not been accepted. Mr Gromyko insisted that there was at least an understanding between Moscow and Teheran on the withdrawal of troops. He declared that negotiations were still in progress which Russia did not want interfered with. Mr Gromyko notified the council that Russia would not discuss the Persian case before April 10. «, The Russian motion for a postponement until April 10 was defeated. It received only two affirmative votes, these being Russia and Poland. Mr Gromyko told the council that since Russia could no longer participate in the meeting he would leave. He and his staff walked out when it became apparent that the council intended to vote to call Persia to state her complaints against Russia.

‘‘Russia served notice on the United Nations that unless she gets her way she will paralyse it, even at the risk of wrecking it,” says the New York Times in an editorial. “The outcome of a long-pending showdown between the United Nations Organisation and Russia may be called a victory for the United Nations Organisation, for only her Polish satellite supported Russia’s stand, but it is a victory in which nobody can rejoice —a victory which serves the interest neither of Russia nor the world, and which could have tragic consequences. It must still be hoped' that the repercussions will produce second thoughts in Moscow which will induce it to honour the charter it signed and bow to majority rule on at least matters subject to decision by a majority, since the United Nations Organisation can function in no other manner.”

The New York correspondent, James Reston, says Russia’s action was not a break with the United Nations. It was not comparable with the German, Italian and Japanese departures from the League of Nations, nor an indication, that the coalition which produced victory has been dissolved. It was a parliamentary manoeuvre, an expression of protest against the council. It was, of course, a psychological blow against the United Nations and an illustration of Soviet thesis that great powers should direct, even dictate, prpcedural matters as well as questions of substance.