THE OTAGO DAILY TIMES Tuesday, July 9, 1946. THE FIFTH DELEGATE

Otago Daily Times, Issue 26199, 9 July 1946, Page 4

THE OTAGO DAILY TIMES Tuesday, July 9, 1946. THE FIFTH DELEGATE

Agreement on the Italian treaty has not ended the tedious wrangling among the Foreign Ministers of the “ Big Four ” in Paris. It was hoped, and not unreasonably, that once the basis of this admittedly difficult treaty was established and a date decided for the plenary session of the 21-nation Peace Conference, the conversations would conclude amicably and promptly. Once again, however, the tergiversations of the Soviet delegate, Mr Molotov, have excited sharp criticisms by the Bi'itish and United States delegates —their patience worn thin by weeks of * bickering—and a bitter debate has arisen over the form of the invitations to the Peace Conference.

The significance of the present impasse lies much deeper than in the expressed divergencies of opinion on questions of procedure. The concessions already made by all parties indicate that agreement is less a matter of magnanimity than of principle. Each of the delegates is making, each in his own way and in accordance with his own traditional outlook, an attempt to ensure security, but the whole course of the conversations has shown how greatly the Soviet approach to the problem differs from that of the Western democracies. All of the “ Big Four ” agree that security will best be achieved through the United Nations, but their failure to define a common concept of security has been responsible for the continued mistrust which, throughout the discussions, has sat in the fifth chair, provoking suspicions of nationalist ambitions in every proposal, inferring hidden motives behind every concession. Examples of this mistrust, which must be overcome if the United Nations is to become a real and vital force, have been distressingly frequent within and without the Foreign Ministers’ Conference, and of late the United States, rather than Great Britain, has become the principal object of Russian suspicions. Mr Byrnes’s statement that the United States would put the problems of peacemaking before the United Nations, unless the Peace Conference were called this summer, was characterised by Mr Molotov as an attempt “to utilise methods of pressure, threats, and intimidation,” which involved “ the risk of undermining the prestige of the United Nations Organisation.” Similarly Mr Gromyko, the Soviet spokesman in the Security Council, recently attacked the “tendency on the part of certain countries to play a dominating part in the United Nations,” and asserted that “attempts to use the organisation as a tool in the hands of one country, or small group of countries, can lead to farreaching, undesirable, negative consequences.” It is the mistrust that is inherent in these and other similar statements which must be overcome before the naturally suspicious Russians can ever be persuaded to. cooperate whole-heartedly to make the United Nations a success. The obstructive, cantankerous, and often illogical methods of argument which have been used by Soviet spokesmen at Paris and elsewhere will have to be endured, although with distaste, while there remains any hope of reaching a common understanding for the maintehance of peace. Meanwhile, it must be remembered that these displays of intransigence at the council table have frequently been maintained by Russian’ delegates only as long as the time required for reports to reach Moscow *hnd for instructions to return. It is quite possible that the obstacle at present confronting the conference may disappear as suddenly as it was raised.