GRAVE VIEW TAKEN

Timaru Herald, Volume CLVIII, Issue 23322, 4 October 1945, Page 5

GRAVE VIEW TAKEN

DIVISION OF EUROPE Dictated Big Power Peace N.Z.P.A.-- Sj»u(i :i I (’or re* pond ent LONDON, October 2. A grave view is taken of the deadlock that has arisen in the Council of Foreign Ministers, and not even confirmed optimists are now attempting to inquire what is causing the gloom. “On scarcely a single issue is there evidence of conception embracing the needs and welt are of Europe as a whole,” says the “Daily Telegraph," in a leading article. “Everything on the contrary points toward tlie ctv.sion of the Continent into spheres ol .merest more clearly defined than ever before. Almost every proposal for broader and more co-operative settlement is blocked by the insistence of tlie Russians on political and economic domination of tne whole of Eastern Europe from Stettin to Trieste and the Balkans.” The paper adds: “Unfortunately it seems impossible to make progress toward a common interpretation as to what is meant by democratic’ so long as the Russians adhere to the view that no form of opposition can be tolerated to a government of which they approve. Moreover, the conclusion of the economic agreement with Hungary. disclosed to the surprise of other partners on the Council, is an example of unilateral methods which make straightforward collaboration difficult. Finally the claim of Russia to the trusteeship of Tripolitania compels inquiry as to the ulterior aims of her policy.”

The “News Chronicle,” in a leading article says that M. Molotov’s insistence th: t peacemaking should be confined to the Big Three is much more than a technical matter. “The fundamental question is whether the Big Three are virtually to dictate to the world a peace settlement which affects everybody, or whether peace is to be made with the participation and concurrence of the smaller countries, too.”

There ’ are several accounts of the events that led up to the deadlock, and a slightly different version to those already cabled is given by the diplomatic correspondent of the “Daily Herald,” who says: “At the Council’s meeting on September 11, to meet the somewhat ambiguous rulings of the Berlin conference, the Council passed a resolution that all five delegations should take their share in discussing all treaties, but that only the signatories of the particular armistice should vote or participate in the decisions on the corresponding treaty. M. Molotov did not object, but 10 days later he ’suddenly announced that the decision of September 11 was a mistake and that the Soviet delegation could not agree that the French delegation should take any part in discussing East European treaties. “It was pointed out that the Council could not work properly if any member was able at any moment to annul decisions formally and unanimously taken after full discussion. M. Molotov merely repeated that the decision in question had been , a mistake, and should be rectified.

“As the Balkan treaties were being held up by the question of recognition, the matter was allowed to drop, and the Council proceeded to other business. But M. Molotov again raised the point when the protocol was being considered. At first he demanded that there

should not be one ‘protocol’ signed by all five members, but a series of protocols, each of which would be signed only by those members who, on the Russian thesis, were entitled to participate in the particular business. "Other delegations conceded the point. But M. Molotov still was not content. On Sunday, to the general astonishment, he demanded that all reference to the resolution of September 11 should be expunged from the record, and that since he now regarded it as a mistake, it must be considered as never having been voted. To this none of the others felt they could agree, for not only would it be in fact a falsification of the record, but it would also set a precedent whereby any Power at any minute could cancel or, annul any and very decision that had been reached. “M. Molotov then soundly declared that unless he had his way he would refuse to sign any protocol at all or agree to any instructions whatever being given to the deputies. "It. was,” says the correspondent, "a threat to destroy the whole workfuture as well as past—of the Council unless Russia was allowed to impose her will upon the other four members. Also it was a clear revelation of Russia’s desire to keep all discussion and decision in the hands of the smallest possible group of Powers, and to exclude all others from any voice in the framing of peace.” Angry Scenes Pessimism about the conference was not lightened by the “Evening News” mid-day headlines stating. "Bevin and Molotov In Clash.” and "British Minister Uses Forceful Language’.” Its diplomatic correspondent reported that over the week-end there were frequently angry scenes, especially between Mr Bevin and M. Molotov. Mr B=vin he said, can use particularly forceful langu.ive when he likes, and it is understood that this was more than once in evidence. M. Bida.llt was especially furious when M. Molotov attempted to exclude France from signing some of the protocols. A story of flaming’ tempers at the Council was told in a London dispatch in the “New York Times." It states: "On Monday afternoon Mr Bevin was angered when M. Molotov gave the same answer to repeated efforts by Mr Bevin and Mr James F. Byrnes to change his attitude over certain issues. ' Al th>’ end of it M Molotov remarked: ' ‘The previous tiler: iiDt of 'he Hie. Three Foreign Ministers v.ns a success. First beenuse it was held in Moscow, and. I second, because Mr Anthony I den and I Mr Cordell Hui! were there.' Mr Bevin made it plain that, he was furious al