EUROPEAN PEACE TREATIES

Southland Times, Issue 25797, 8 October 1945, Page 5

EUROPEAN PEACE TREATIES

Hopes For Big Five

Agreement

(Rec. 9 p.m.) WASHINGTON, Oct. 6. The Secretary of State, Mr James Byrnes, declaring that he was firmly against the dictation of world peace by the Big Three, in a broadcast to the nation expressed the hope that Russia would agree to a general conference to settle the peace in Europe. Mr Byrnes admitted that the Foreign Ministers’ meeting ended in a stalemate, and attributed a major part of the disagreement to the Soviet suspicion that the western Allies actually did not want Governments in Bulgaria and Rumania who were friendly to the Soviet Union. Mr Byrnes said there could be no greater misconception out of the attitude of the United States than that the Government shared the desire of the Soviet Union to have Governments friendly to the Soviet in Eastern and Central Europe, but that lasting peace depended not only upon friendship between governments, but on friendship between peoples. Mr Byrnes said that on September 11, the Council, with Russia agreeing, decided that all five members, China, and France as well as the Big Three, should attend the meeting. M. Molotov 11 days later suddenly took the position that this violated the Berlin Agreement, which stated that the peace treaties would be worked out only by the States which signed the armistice terms with the defeated countries. This meant, in effect, the Big Three, for Balkan countries. POWERS OF BIG THREE

Neither Mr Truman nor Mr Attlee understood that the Berlin decision meant that China and France could not discuss all the treaty matters, even though they might sign the final proposals or treaties. The United States, as a result of the disagreement, finally proposed that the Big Three

should do the preparatory work of the European peace treaties, and then submit the proposals to a general European peace conference of the victor States. The United States was willing to dictate the terms of peace to an enemy, but was unwilling to dictate the terms of peace to her Allies. This was a peoples’ war, and must be a peoples’ peace. “The matter that caused the suspension of our work is not a trivial technical question,-” he said. “It is whether peace shall be made by five or three nations, to the exclusion of the other nations vitally concerned with the maintenance and enforcement of peace. The issue goes even deeper. The Council of Foreign Ministers acts under the unanimity rule, just as the United Nations Security Council must act in many important matters. In the Security Council, however, no nation had the veto power - in procedural matters, while in the Foreign Ministers’ Council, one nation could veto all action. The veto power is a great power and should not be lightly exercised. “The Americans are willing to make many concessions, but the United States does not believe in agreement at any price. The power of veto in procedural matters should not be used by the United States or any other nation to coerce tire judgment or conscience of her fellow nations. Peace must be based on mutual understanding and respect, and cannot be secured by procedural manoeuvrings, which obscure from the people the real, vital issues upon which peace depends.” Mr Byrnes disclosed that M. Molotov had agreed that the proposal for a general European peace conference was correct in principle, and added: “My hope is that after he has conferred with his Government, it will agree that the nations that fought in the world war should have the chance to make the world peace.” DETAILED REPORT The Associated Press of America comments that the speech, which was Mr Byrnes’s first major address as Secretary of State, was unprecedented for direct, detailed official reporting on international affairs. The meeting had achieved substantial accomplishments: first, that Trieste should be a free port under international control, regardless of who rules it; second, that the Dodecanese should be given to Greece, although “one member” asked for a further study of the question; third, that the Italian colonies should be placed under international trusteeship; fourth, progress had been made on directives for the preparatory work for the Finnish, Rumanian and Bulgarian treaties.

On the other hand, Mr Byrnes made it plain that there was considerable disagreement on Italian reparations. The United States took the position that Italy was unable to pay anything like 600,000,000 dollars, and pointed out that the United States would not be able to contribute more millions for Italian relief if the money was to be used to enable Italy to pay reparations to other countries.

The first reaction to Mr Byrnes’s report was that it was less pessimistic than expected. It has not removed the apprehension felt over the current differences between Washington and Moscow, but at least helped to define the issues and offered some hope that the stalemate can be broken. CONCERN - FELT IN CONGRESS Mr Byrnes To Present Another Report (Rec. 9 p.m.) WASHINGTON, Oct. 6. In an atmosphere of great Congressional concern over the failure of the London Foreign Ministers’ meeting, fhe Senate Foreign Relations Committee has been summoned to meet on Monday in closed session to hear another report from Mr Byrnes on the conference and other aspects of American foreign policy. Senator Tom Connally, the chairman of the committee, said the committee would ask Mr Byrnes for an expression of opinion on the Russian request for a voice in governing Japan. The Associated Press says that any move to accept the Russian proposal appeared certain to arouse a storm of protest in Congress. As a result of the breakdown of the Foreign Ministers’ meeting, highly placed Congressmen have suggested that another Big Three conference is likely soon. • Mr John Foster Dulles, Republican

adviser to Mr Byrnes, broadcasting, said that London made a good beginning at the peace-making rather than a bad one. He pointed out that the meeting did not create difficulties but brought to light difficulties of long standing w-hich had been obscured in wartime behind the front of fighting unity. Mr Dulles urged the American people to be calm and mature and see what happened in its true proportions. “We must realize that we are only at the beginning of a long and difficult negotiation that will involve the structure of the postwar world,” he said. “Nothing that has happened so far indicates that we may not all comb to agree.”