TALKS MAY BREAK DOWN

Timaru Herald, Volume CLVIII, Issue 23315, 26 September 1945, Page 5

TALKS MAY BREAK DOWN

Stand By Russia Territorial Security N. Z. P. A. S pec ia J Co r res pond en i LONDON, September 24. The feeling that Russia is determined to make sure that she secures a territorial position which will be equally good for defence or offence against Western Europe has tended to be confirmed by events of recent days, and the failure of the Council of Foreign Ministers to reach agreement on any point they discussed.

Whether the Council will continue its discussions is being considered at the moment. If they break down, then the feeling that the victorious Allies are drifting away from international co-operation toward the formation of Power blocs will inevitably be strengthened.

A hint that the Council may continue the talks in a more hopeful atmosphere is perhaps contained in comment by the Russian newspaper “Pravda,” which broadcast from Moscow: “No one denies that difficulties have arisen. That they would arise is evident from questions to be discussed, but the collaboration experienced between the Great Powers during the war gave ground for the conviction that insurmountable difficulties do not exist.”

It is remarked here that if this observation may be interpreted as an indication that some compromise may be found, such a result would be in keeping with Russian methods of negotiation—at first adamant, but willing to dilute claims in face of strong opposition. Only the Russians know what real motives lie behind their aparent desire to divide Europe into blocs, but there is something perhaps to be said for their present attitude, namely their experiences with Western nations during the years between the two wars. “Liberator,” in the “Observer,” remarks that the Russians’ actions are probably for defensive and not expansionist or aggressive reasons, “but that is not the point. The Russians are now acting as the Allies did in Paris in 1919, and we are paying dearly for the long record of inter-Allied suspicion and of hostility to the Soviet Union, which began with the shortsighted rivalries and hard-bargaining intrigues of that unhappy time.” Saying that Soviet foreign policy was showing certain constant elements which deserve some emphasis. “Liberator” remarks: “Throughout the war all actions and treaties by the Soviet were ostensibly aimed against Germany and against the possibility of a German recovery, with the help of others, after the war. No danger of aggression from Germany or Italy exists so long as they are not encouraged from outside. This has to be recognised if we are to understand what is going on at Lancaster House (where the Ministers are conferring) the Russians are still very suspicious, and fear their former allies rather more than ■ their former enemies Therefore they are willing to be as tough as maybe toward those enemy nations who fall within the influence of the West, and as accommodating as they can be to those who come within their own purview. “The actual pattern of the Soviet security system is also becoming clearer,” continues “Liberator.” He says: “The bloc in Eastern Europe was formed and cemented during the final phases of the war. and presents a solid barrier between Western Europe and the Soviet Union, but this is one case, if viewed from west of the European continent. Russian geopoliticians in Moscow get an entirely different perspective. They see this protective 500-mile bloc across a comnarativelv narrow tongue of Central Europe from Trieste to Lubeck, but they «ee also 1500 miles of open Black

Sea flank extending from Albania and Azerbaijan, in the south, and a similar situation in ~ie Scandinavian north. “Russian policy on this open flank has busily matured. There has been persistent trouble in Iran, the war of nerves and propaganda against the Turks has been accompanied by specific out 1 ever officially-formulated demands for bases in the Straits, and for territory in Turkish Armenia, and more latterly there has been definite interest in and almost encouragement of the Arab League. Status Questioned “The Russians, in their present mood,” declares “Liberator.” “will follow any Imperialist lead with their traditional determination. They know what they want. From Istanbul to Tangier, and from Leros to Aden, their security plan requires at least partial control over all the narrows.” Apart from the Council’s failure to reach decisions, another tendency viewed with misgiving here is for the status of France and China to be questioned, and for the conference to revert to Three-Power deliberations. This is stated to be a particularly unhappy thrust in view of the helpful, moderating influence that the French and Chinese delegates brought to bear, and which have gone some way in hardening fears of a tendency for decisions of the future of the world to be decided by the three Powers, and not the international body. While there is still a disposition to look on the brighter side, and trust that reason and good sense will prevail in decisions taken, there is no hiding the belief that a grave view of the Council’s differences is taken here and that even the next few days will be all-important.