BIG THREE MAY MEET

Southland Times, Issue 25796, 6 October 1945, Page 5

BIG THREE MAY MEET

FRAMING PEACE TREATIES SEQUEL TO LONDON DEADLOCK (Special Correspondent, N.Z.P.A.) LONDON, October 4. Negotiations between Mr Attlee, President Tinman and M. Stalin with a view to defining the procedures upon which another meeting of the Foreign Ministers can be held is believed in London to be the next move towards a peace settlement following the recent deadlock. Whether* such a meeting will consist of representatives of three, five or more nations is an important point to be settled. It is hoped that these negotiations will result in a conference at which draft peace treaties will be drawn up and then placed before the active belligerents in the war for general discussion and approval. The official view here is that the breakdown of the discussions by the Foreign Ministers is regrettable but not disastrous. Those who are wellinformed dismiss instantly the idea that the deadlock, on what was more or less a technical point, will result in no further meetings of the Foreign Ministers and a gradual drifting away to the signing of private treaties, coagulating into blocs and spheres of influence. If they are optimistic about anything at the moment it is that the leaders of the Big Three nations will find a solution. The effect of the deadlock on the public, however, has been to produce a mood of irritable cynicism, for the average man and woman here had come to believe in the theory that the United Nations were moving forward to a friendlier world based on the mutual sufferings of recent years and, in any case, necessitated by the arrival of the atomic bomb.

POWER POLITICS That technicalities should cause a breakdown of the first real attempt to outline the peace treaties and that there are many indications of international suspicion, power politics and blocs and all the atmosphere that leads to war has been more than a sharp disappointment. The public, of course, was almost completely unprepared for the disagreement and deadlock among the Big Powers at this meeting, a fact which tended to increase the disillusionment. Post-mortems are now being held on the causes of the breakdown and on the views expressed by Mr Byrnes and M. Molotov in their Press conferences. It is understood that Mr Bevin declared that he was going to have two nights’ sleep before he decided whether he would hold a Press conference or reserve his viewpoint until Parliament assembles. The Times in a leading article notes with satisfaction that Mr Byrnes and M. Molotov were equally emphatic and careful to avoid anything calculated to make a resumption of the conversations more difficult. It says that it would be wrong to discuss the rather obscure procedural arguments as merely captious and insignificant. They conceal real difficulties and differences of opinion which if not faced and resolved will prejudice relations in the future, as in the past. ESSENTIAL PRINCIPLES ' The Times continues: “Two essential principles have to be asserted and no one appears to contest them: The first is that the three Powers, in spite of their admittedly predominant role, cannot and do no desire to establish a dictatorship or to decide every issue of the peace settlement without full consultation with the smaller nations directly concerned in the particular case. The second is that no other country stands on the same footing as the Big Three, either in virtue of its past contribution to the winning of the war or in virtue of its potential contribution to the maintenance of the future world order, and that this exceptional position must be fully and frankly recognized. “During his stay in London M. Molotov has recklessly squandered the vast credit of goodwill towards Russia which had accumulated in this country during the war. As he will no doubt have been informed, he had united the Press and politicians in a remarkable way. Many would still gladly give to, Russia the benefit of the doubt—if only there were doubt. But M. Molotov has done his best to make it difficult. Those who have leaned over backwards .in their efforts to defend the Russian case have found it impossible to maintain this position any longer. Like other less supple mortals they have sat down.” STATUS OF MEMBERS A good deal of attention has been focussed on the council’s resolution on September 11, which M. Molotov insisted on being expunged from the record. This, it is pointed out, states: “All five members of council have the right to attend all meetings and take part in all discussions, but in matters concerning peace settlements the members whose governments have not been signatory to the relevant terms of the surrender should not be entitled to vote.” When asked at the conference to confirm this decision as it appears in the minutes, M. Molotov replied: “I wonder how the author of this report could

have found this decision, considering that no decision has been adopted by the council or signed by the ministers.” The Manchester Guardian’s diplomatic correspondent points out that as matters stand today the minutes of the conference are not actually signed and there are no protocols or signed records of any kind. He adds: “M. Molotov’s answer, carried to its logical conclusion, would mean that there have been no decisions, and, in that sense, no conference has taken place at all.” The Manchester Guardian in an editorial expresses the opinion that the Press conferences of M. Molotov and Mr Byrnes do not make a bad business any better. It agrees, however, that nothing irremediable has been done—for nothing has been done at all, but it is said that the matter cannot wait for ever and that all the governments will be forced to do some hard thinking in the next few weeks.

“The United States may wonder whether its attitude in the Pacific is not open to some of the same criticisms as is Russia’s policy in Europe,” says the editorial. “We ourselves may reflect on the wisdom of non-recognition when applied to countries we have little power to influence. It is to be hoped that M. Molotov will also take home with him a candid report. For though no nation has much to be proud of in this affair it is arguable * that Russia has suffered most.”