Ministers

Timaru Herald, Volume CLVIII, Issue 23318, 29 September 1945, Page 5

Ministers

Gbomy Failure? ISSUE OF COUNCIL DISCUSSIONS Two Viewpoints N.Z.P.A.—Special Correspondent LONDON, Sept. 27. Is the Council of Foreign Ministers such a gloomy failure that the majority of newspaper reports would appear to indicate, and is there real reason to suppose that since the Big Powers cannot agree, the world is going to be carved up into blocks of influence? Fortunately there are two views on the subject, and while one is inclined to affirm the tendency to something approaching alarm and despondency, the other sees nothing very unusual in the fact that difficulties are being uncovered, and differences of opinion freely stated. While one opinion tends to the belief that there is something sinister about Soviet intentions, the other sees in Russia’s actions chiefly the methods of hard-bargaining intent on getting what is described here this week as the rewards of two wars rolled into one For 20 years, the argument runs, Russia, has been in the wilderness of world politics as a country that contracted sonrething approaching a contagious disease. To-day she is a powerful nation, and intends to be treated as an equal. During the last four years she has almost inevitably been described as our brave, glorious and successful ally. Reports on various “Big Three talks” invariably emphasised the unity of views and intentions which has not really been remarkable since any contrary suggestion would undoubtedly have impeded the war effort.

But there were certain differences of opinion at those meetings and, when tney were encountered, no decision was taken. At Potsdam, although the German war had ended, outward unity had to be preserved in the view of the war against Japan. Decisions which could not be completed were referred to the council of Foreign Ministers, which was then established, for consultation. Now, for the first time, fundamental differences of opinion on which the Big Three were unable to agree are being debated by their Foreign Ministers in circumstances which no longer necesltate the same degree of preserving outward unity or secrecy regarding the proceedings. Shock to Public This now apparent divergency of viewpoints has come as something of a shock to the general public of all nations which, during the last few years, have formed the comfortable habit of assuming that, to use a colloqualism, “everything in the garden was fairly rosy amc"" the Big Three.” “Why be surprised? runs the argument. We know, or should nave known all along, that Britain and America would take a different view on many matters from Russia. Surely the onlv way of discussing these differences and of endeavouring to reach agreement is to hammer the matter out round the table—and thump it if necessary. It obviously would be better than the various Foreign Ministers talking at one another from the centre of their own capitals. It is much more preferable that these differences of opinion should be stated here now. This is not the last and only meeting of the Foreign Ministers, nor are they deciding the peace treaty finally and irrevocably. It is true that the Ministers have agreed on very little, and have referred most subjects to their deputies, but this in itself is seen by many as not a very bad thing, since the deputies will have more time to cons.ae. individual points of view in detail than can the Ministers themselves or the heads of States. Thus a commission will go to the Julian March (Venezia Guilia), and the' deputies will have round-table discussions wnth me Dominions’ representatives. Those who tend to adopt this “why so gloomy?” attitude regarding the Council of Foreign Ministers at the same time are not wearing rose-tinted glasses. They realise quite well that no peace conference is very easy of achievement; it is certainly not a Versailles nor a Congress of Vienna, and that where the nations start bargaining it is going to be hard bargaining, since the nations, like human beings, have not been changed even by six years of war. It is apparently true that there has been table-thumping, and that some of it had been done by the British Foreign Secretary (Mr Ernest Bevini. While it was at one time thought that Britain might act as an intermediary between Russia and America in Big Three relations, apparently America has changed places with Britain and is acting in something like that capacity bet,ween her and Russia, since Mr James F. Byrnes seems to understand M. Molotov better than does Mr Bevin. It is also true that there have been irritations, and that the Russians have been responsible for some of them, as. for instance, yesterday when M. Molotov complained about Tuesday night’s official announcement of the work done that day. As all the delegations, including the Russians, had previouslv agreed to the announcement, this occasioned some surprise. Attempt at Understanding But the feeling is growing that, even if this present conference has revealed many differences and the shadow of power politics, blocks, spheres of influence and other international paraphernalia, it is at least the beginning of an attempt to get real understanding and enduring peace among the nations, and that all hope thereof should not be abandoned incontinently at the first hurdles. The Dominions’ views on the Council’s procedure and the statement issued are reported to be not unwelcome in official circles in London. It is featured in all the morning papers, but it was not made altogether clear that- it was an all-Dominions’ statement, and that the Australian Government’s view agreed with those of the other Dominions. There is not the slightest indication that the Rt. Hon. P. Fraser had made an almost identical statement in Wellington at the same time as Dr. H. V. Evatt in London, since his remarks were neither reported from Wellington nor issued in London, However. there is no doubt where the Dominions stand in the matter.