THREAT OF COMPLETE BREAKDOWN

Timaru Herald, Volume CLVIII, Issue 23321, 3 October 1945, Page 5

THREAT OF COMPLETE BREAKDOWN

| Foreign Ministers’ Council Status of Members Disputed By Telegraph—N.Z. Press Assn.—Copyright (Received 7.30 p.m.) LONDON, October 2. ILL members of the Foreign Ministers’ Council to-day got in touch with their Governments in a last-minute effort to save the conference from complete shipwreck, states the correspondent of the “Daily Express.” It seems impossible that they will succeed, and the conference may have to break up without even agreeing on the official record of its proceedings. It is thought, if this is the case, it is unlikely that the Council will ever meet again. Some entirely new form of consultation might be worked out by the major Governments of the United Nations. The threat of complete breakdown came suddenly, though it had been clear for some days that the conference was in grave difficulties. The present position is that even the few points on which , a measure of agreement has been reached are once more in the melting pot, so the results of three weeks’ meetings may be nil. Developments to-day suggest that there will be practically nothing to go before the experts who were to have continued the discussions after their chiefs left London and to prepare plans for the next meeting, probably in December.

The crisis resulted from a highly technical but fundamental difference of opinion between the Foreign Ministers over the status of the various Council members in discussing the framing of the peace treaties with the enemies. The Potsdam Conference ruled that only the Governments which accepted the surrender of any Axis countries should participate in preparing the peace treaties. It was unanimously agreed at the opening of the Foreign Ministers’ Council meeting to allow all five members to attend ail meetings, but only those directly concerned should have a final say in framing the treaties. Soviet Claims It is on this basis that the Ministers began to discuss the Italian and Finnish treaties. Subsequently a deadlock arose over the Russian claims for individual trusteeship over the Italian colony in Africa. When it was proposed tq carry on the discussion on the Bulgarian and Rumanian treaties, M. Molotov invoked the Potsdam ruling and objected to the presence of the French and Chinese representatives on the ground that their Governments had not signed the surrender of either of these countries. A deadlock again developed over this problem, and it was agreed to bypass it. The conference then began to frame the protocol. M. Molotov immediately raised the same point about the »xclusion of those Ministers whose Governments were not directly concerned in specific points, and contended that discussions on the Italian and Finnish treaties were void because countries not concerned were represented at them. This meant that practically the whole proceedings were negatived. Mr Bevin immediately consulted Mr Attlee and the Cabinet, who felt it was impossible to concede the point and that, if mutual agreement varied the Potsdam Instructions, it should not be upset by the actions of one party. Other Governments were consulted by telephone and cable by the Foreign Secretaries, and they took the same view. M. Molotov exchanged long cables with Generalissimo Stalin during the week-end and he was equally unable to change his opinion. Complete deadlock develoued. Adoption of the Russian contention that onlv Governments directly concerned should be present at the discussion of treaties would mean that on none of the contemplated peace treaties would all five Foreign Ministers be present. Most Ministers felt that such a position struck at the whole set-up of the Council and that it was useless to continue. The diplomatic correspondent of “The Times” says the Council made no progress at all over the Balkan States, which means in effect that no immediate progress was made toward doser Allied understanding throughout Europe.