THE OTAGO DAILY TIMES SATURDAY, APRIL 16, 1949. PACT AND VETO

Otago Daily Times, Issue 27057, 16 April 1949, Page 6

THE OTAGO DAILY TIMES SATURDAY, APRIL 16, 1949. PACT AND VETO

In a two-day debate by the General Assembly of the United Nations the atmosphere has at times been heated, but the discussion has largely been about the North Atlantic. Pact and not about the proposals to limit the use of the veto which formed the subject of the only resolution before the Assembly. The question of the veto is one which would normally have given provocation enough to cause displays of temperament among the delegates, and the fact that on this occasion it was passed over in favour of another is significant of the importance attached to that other subject. As. had been expected, Soviet Russia seized the first opportunity to attack the pact and to denounce American “ aggressiveness.” Mr Gromyko must know that he will convince no one who is not already convinced of the truth of his accusations, but the occasion demanded a set performance, and he has given it. Also, he would know perfectly well that the resolution about the veto can be dealt with very effectively—if Russia so wishes—when it is brought before the Security Council. The two subjects—the pact and the veto—are, indeed, not unrelated. The questions at issue in each arise from the differences between Russia and the West. But the vote on the. veto resolution emphasised more than that. Fortytwo nations voted for the limitation of the veto, and six voted against it, and that voting showed not Russia ranged against the West, but Russia and her satellites against virtually the rest of the world.

The word “ veto ” appears nowhere in the Charter of the United Nations. The relative clause states that seven votes, “ including the concurring votes of the permanent members ” shall constitute a majority. This means that there must be unanimity among the Big Five, and it has to be remembered this provision was regarded at San Francisco by these Powers as a safeguard, since the weight of responsibility • for implementing a decision would rest on them.Australia and New Zealand played a prominent part in the protest of the small Powers against the clause, and the misgivings which were expressed were soon shown to be well founded. Several attempts have already been made to rectify the error, but so far no way out of the impasse has been devised. The attempts have included —as on the present occasion—recommendations to limit the use of the veto in matters of procedure. Those early proposals were approved by the General Assembly with six dissentients—the same six dissentients as now—but then there were eleven abstentions, and at Lake Success there were only two. Perhaps this is progress, but if so, it is moral and not material progress. Decisions on the future use of the veto will continue to be made by Russia, unless that country withdraws from the United Nations.