WIDE DIFFERENCES REVEALED

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

WIDE DIFFERENCES REVEALED

Range Of Problems Soviet Passion For Security N.Z.P.A.- —Special Correspondent LONDON, October 1. “It shows once again how widely the delegations have differed and how far short they have been of finding a common language with regard to the Balkan regimes, Italian colonies, the Italian Reparations Bill, and the scheme for internationalising the main European rivers,” says the diplomatic correspondent of “The Times,” commenting on the long period required by the Council of Foreign Ministers for drafting the protocol. “It also shows the vigour with which the delegations have expressed their different policies and avoided all along the easy way out offered by splendid generalisations,’’ the correspondent continues. “They have not even ‘agreed to differ.’ Where they have agreed they have made agreement precise. For the rest they recognise differences and regret them, but in the light of far clearer knowledge, they can shape their future policies and restrive for solid agreement. Mr Ernest Bevin (British Foreign Secretary) met Mr James Byrnes (United States) and M. Molotov (Russia) again during the week-end in the hope that they might get the Balkan talks moving at the 11th hour. But very little seems to have come out of these informal meetings." The Soviet Government sticks to the letter of the Potsdam Declaration which stipulated that the task of drawing up treaties with former satellite States should be reserved to the Powers which signed the surrender terms—that is to the three Potsdam Powers. The Americans are believed to have suggested that the preliminary examination should be made by the three Powers, bringing in France for future talks on Italy, and that their findings should then be put before a wider Allied conference, thereby meeting the Dominions’ claims for the participation of active belligerents. The exact procedure, however, had to be left in abeyance. Balkans Problem The correspondent says it was in approaching the Balkans that the delegates set themselves their hardest task. It was here that they probed most deeply, searching for the real springs of action and intention. Few people, who had not been in Russia during the war years can fully understand the Soviet Government’s passion for security, nor their determination to safeguard regimes which, for ideological reasons, they can trust. When suggestions w’ere made for broadening the regimes, Moscow believes that untrustworthy elements may be brought in, and its security impinged. It further believes that the Western Powers minimise the native strength of revolutionary forces in the countries concerned. On the other side. Western Governments maintain that the promised democracy is meaningless unless it provides for free elections, says the correspondent. Are the “friendly Governments,” they ask, “too friendly only with Moscow?” Have not other Powers equal concern in security?” Before accepting the far-reaching consequences of a bloc (already throwing a shadow across the discussions of the Soviet claims in Italian colonies), they are seeking a middle way.

The week-end brought better news about the prospects of Allied co-opera-tion in the policy toward Japan, added the correspondent.