VOTING PROCEDURE

Otago Daily Times, Issue 26227, 10 August 1946, Page 7

VOTING PROCEDURE

PARIS PEACE DEBATES RUSSIA RAISES OBJECTION INSISTENCE ON REVISON PARIS, Aug. 8. Mr Molotov, speaking at the seventh plenary session of the Paris Conference, announced that the Soviet delegation did not agree with the Rules Committee’s recommendation favouring a simple majority for recommendations from the conference to the “ Big Four.” Mr Molotov said: “ The Soviet delegation cannot agree that the conference should adopt any recommendation by a majority of one vote—that 11 delegations should impose a proposal on the other 10. Therefore the Soviet delegation considers the decision adopted by the Rules Committee erroneous, and insists on its revision by the commission.

“The voting procedure at an international conference is a very importantquestion. The conference is called on to express views on many serious issues. It cannot be permitted that these questions be decided by a majority of one.” ’ Mr Molotov supported the principle of unanimity, but admitted “the difficulty of achieving mutual understanding among 21 nations.

Interests of Small Nations “ Small States are particularly interested in this rule. The Great Powers frequently imposed their will and have gone to the length, .of maintaining troops in their territories to bring pressure to bear on negotiations and dictate their will on small nations. Britain and America proposed the voting procedure to facilitate the adoption of the recommendations they supported.” Mr Molotov’s surprise demand came just as the plenary session was about to vote on the adoption of the proposal, says Reuter’s correspondent. The British delegation temporarily left the Chamber for hurried consultation during the translation of Mr Molotov’s speech.

Dr Evatt Under Fire

Mr Molotov, referring to Dr Evatt’s repudiation of the two-thirds majority, said that what was most important to' Dr Evatt was to secure the most convenient method for the conference to adopt recommendations unacceptable to the Soviet. “This is the very reason why Dr Evatt is so busy in his actiyities at this conference.”

Mr Molotov declared that support was given to Dr Evatt by certain Paris newspapers which carried statements like' “Western Fowers won upper hand over Soviet.” Mr Molotov said the Rules Committee made an egregious error. The Soviet suggested that the committee’s proposals be rejected and the Foreign Ministers’ proposal accepted.

Mr Molotov’s Sincerity Questioned Dr Evatt expressed amazement that opposition was still maintained, . The method of securing unanimity was just as important as unanimity. "You can get unanimity by dictation, but we do not. believe in it,” he said. Declaring that he doubted whether Mr Molotov was serious in asking the delegates to reverse the decision, Dr Evatt said: “ I say this thing goes a little deeper.” The deeply serious import was the substitution of assertion for argument and the introduction of confusion, filibustering and- what amounted ■to intimidation. Further Delay Deplored Mr A'. V. Alexander (Britain) said Mr Molotov’s proposition would hardly bear examination. “It is briefly that we should reject the committee’s decision, carried by 15 to 6 votes. I am bound to confess that my view is that Mr Molotov’s speech, for what reason he knows best, was for further delaying action to av.oid getting to the real business of the conference.” Mr Alexander, avowing pride in Britain’s war-time achievements, said: “We fought a fight without which we would not be sitting here discussing peace.” The session adjourned until to-mor-row. ,