FREE TERRITORY

Otago Daily Times, Issue 26274, 4 October 1946, Page 5

FREE TERRITORY

THE TRIESTE ISSUE FINAL DEBATE AT PARIS VOTING ON FRENCH PROPOSALS (Rec. 9 p.m.) PARIS. Oct. 3. The dominant factor in Trieste today was a sense of fear, said Mr Sterndale Bennett (Britain), when opening (he final debate on the Trieste issue before the Italian Political and Terri'orial Committee. He said a sense of fear had been produced by illegal strikes, intimidation and terrorist activities on both sides. “While we at this conference have been talking, scarcely a night passed without a bomb outrage in Trieste,” he said. “Reports from the territory show a melancholy list of political murders, abductions and assaults. It is this knowledge that makes the British delegation so insistent on urging that everything should be done to establish a new regime to promote peace. ’ stability, public order and security.” Mr Bennett added that the lawless acts to which he referred were not the result of mere sporadic unorganised bands, the object of which was to frustrate and counteract the activities of the other side. It was these organisations which hoped to seize power in the new free territory. Mr B'ennett said Britain was not interested in establishing a regime which would facilitate the task of anyone wishing to seize power in the free territory for sectional interests. Mr Bennett, replying to a Yugoslav allegation that the British proposals would establish an iron curtain between Yugoslavia and the free territory, said that Britain did not favour iron curtains of any kind anywhere, and no such curtain would be established unless Yugoslavia did so. Mr Bennett supported the new French draft proposal defining the broad principles of the future statute for the free territory as follows: First, the Security Council should guarantee the free territory’s integrity and independence; secondly, the territory should be demilitarised and no armed force allowed on it unless authorised by the Security Council; thirdly, the formation of a popular assembly, with a council or government appointed by and responsible to the assembly; fourthly, certain- limitations on the powers of the Assembly Council resulting from the rights conferred on the governor; fifthly, the Security Council, after consulting Italy and Yugoslavia, to appoint a governor, who would be empowered to propose laws and also veto laws threatening the Security Council’s responsibilities. Vyshinsky Attacks Proposals Mr Vyshinsky strongly attacked the British, French, and American proposals and urged the committee to adopt the broad principles on which the “Big Four” had agreed and leave the details to the Foreign Ministers’ Council, “ where discussions are easier and more auspicious.” Mr Vyshinsky said Britain, France, and America wanted a more limited statute for Trieste than existed in ordinary countries. They apparently wanted to see some sort of extraordinary government, but such extradordinary governments had been thrown into the ash can and their leaders, would soon be hanging from the end of a rope. Preserving Law and Order Mr Vyshinsky, replying to Mr Bennett's description of conditions in Trieste, said: “If there is something amiss it is no fault of the people or racial feeling. It is the fault of the present regime." Senator T. Connally (United States) said his delegation would support the

French proposals, adding that the Security Council must have an arm reaching to Trieste to see that law and order were preserved. The governor must be empowered to do that. M. Vilfan (Yugoslavia) attacked the French proposals, saying that provision for Security Council forces to enter territory was unnecessary. It would put the territory’s provisional Government under a force of foreign powers. ’’ This is what we want to avoid." M. Murville (France) stressed that under the French proposals no armed forces would be allowed permanently in the free territory. The Polish proposal that the Trieste statute should be reconsidered by the “ Big Four,” who should allow Jugoslavia to restate her views before reaching a decision was rejected by 14 votes to 6. Soviet Plan Rejected The Soviet amendment to the French proposals, namely, that all foreign troops should be withdrawn from the free territory within 30 days of ratification of the peace treaty was rejected by 13 votes to 6. The French proposals were then voted on section by section, the controversial parts in each case being adopted by 14 votes to 6.