HUMAN RIGHTS

Otago Daily Times, Issue 26242, 28 August 1946, Page 5

HUMAN RIGHTS

AUSTRALIAN PROPOSAL A EUROPEAN COURT OPPOSED BY.; THE SOVIET . , . PARIS, Aug. 26. An Australian amendment calling for the establishment ■of . a European court of human rights led to a breeze between Australia and the Ukraine at the meeting of the Italian Committee. Mr Manuilsky (Ukraine) declared that such a court would have sovereignty over Governments contrary to the United Nations Charter. Colonel W. R. Hodgson (Australia) complained that the Ukraine was arguing against substance before the amendment had been put. “I ask you at least to play the game, to be fair, and nqt to be completely out of order,” he said. The Australian amendment proposed to incorporate in the paragraph relating to the conclusion of any treaty the words, “ a treaty conforming to the principles of justice and equity, and securing to all nations in the territories affected by it human rights and fundamental freedoms without distinction of race, sect, or religion.” Britain’s Attitude Mr Hector McNeil (Britain) thought the United Kingdom might support the proposal if the paragraph read “ a peace treaty which, in conformity with the principles of justice, will settle questions still outstanding.” The committee accepted this and postponed discussion on the rest of the Australian proposal because “ human rights ” are referred to in article 14. The committee took two hours to reach this result and another 80 minutes to adopt the fourth and fifth paragraphs. Opposing Australia's amendment in the Balkans Committee, Mr Molotov said that as Australia was 10,000 miles and two oceans away from Rumania, she must have very serious reasons for the proposals designed to upset the armistice agreement signed two years ago. • Mr Molotov quoted Soviet official reports of the destruction which the Germans, aided by the Rumanians, caused Soviet territory. He declared that 17,000 large towns, 70,000 villages, and 6,000,000 buildings were destroyed, 25,000,000 people rendered homeless, and nearly 32,000 factories wrecked.

Mr Molotov said Australia was more concerned about Rumania’s interests than the Rumanians themselves, adding sarcastically, says Reuter’s: “It seems you are better able to understand Rumania’s interests if you are 10,000 miles away.” Australia’s proposals would mean nullification or stultification of the reparations settlement, and it would mean that Rumania would be dependent on dollars and pounds—in other words, on America and Britain. That might be right from Britain’s and America's viewpoints, as 4 it would work out that Rumania would have to sell goods for dollars and sterling to pay reparations. Mr Molotov said nobody had asked Australia to make this suggestion, certainly not Russia, America Britain, or Rumania. Australia’s services were unnecessary in this case. The proposal would strike a heavy blow at those Soviet areas like the Crimea which were laid waste by the Rumanians, and would undermine European peace. It would play into the hands of those anxious to disrupt friendly Russian-Rumanian relations Anyone agreeing with it would strike a blow at the establishment of a durable peace in Europe, which was a very dangerous thing. It would benefit only the reactionaries who were anxious 'to postpone a settlement. The committee adjourned till tomorrow.

Military Committee

The Military Committee spent the first part of the morning discussing the accuracy of the minutes of the last meeting, and the second half debating the procedure when hearing views of enemy States. Publication of the complete amendments to the five treaties is at present under consideration. It revealed that Jugoslavia is demanding £325,000.000 reparations from Italy, which is £75,000,000 above Russia s total demand from five former enemy countries. , Jugoslavia proposed that reparations be taken, first, by a share of war fac tory equipment; secondly, by a share of the merchant fleet; thirdly, by surplus gold coin from the Bank of Italy