SOVIET CRITICISM OF U.S. AND BRITAIN

Wanganui Chronicle, Volume 89, Issue 214, 10 September 1945, Page 5

SOVIET CRITICISM OF U.S. AND BRITAIN

RUMANIAN AFFAIRS “PRESSURE’ APPLIED ON KING MICHAEL LONDON REGRETS ARTICLE ON EVE OF PEACE TALKS. Recd. 8 p.m. Moscow, Sept. 8. The Russian semi-official newspaper, Izvestia, in a leading articie, accused the British and American representatives of applying pressure on King Michael of Rumania, which induced him to ask Britain and America to aid in forming a new government. | "The Russian standpoint is clear. It is based firmly on the principle of not permitting interference in the internal affairs of Rumania, which is a sovereign State ” says the paper. The Izvestia’s accusation followed a dinner at the Kremlin last night, at which Generalissimo Stalin entertained the Rumanian Prime Minister, Petre Groza. A communique, issued subsequently, stated that the dinner was held in a "friendly atmosphere." Izvestia added that the British and American actions in Bucharest were taken without the knowledge of, or consultation with, Russian members of the Allied Control Commission. "If this can be called fulfilling an agreement in co-ordinating Allied policies, what then can be called one-sided unilateral activity, violating the harmony of the Allied Powers?” Izvestia asks. Official quarters in London categorically deny Izvestia’s allegations, says Reuter’s diplomatic correspondent. They state that Britain did not take the initiative in the matter. Consequently, any suggestion that British officials contravened the Control Commission’s established procedure fell to the ground. It is officially pointed out on the score of consultation between British and Russian representatives in Rumania, that the British attitude of disapproval was made clear as long ago as last March when Dr. Petru Groza’s Government assumed office during the visit to Bucharest of Mr. Vyshinsky, the Soviet Deputy Foreign Minister. On the broader issue of interference in the affairs of sovereign States, British observers are puzzled to see how the Russian attitude squares with tho provisions of the Yalta Agreement, which state: "The three Governments will jointly assist the people of any European liberated State, or former Axis satellite, where in their judgment, conditions require them to form interim governmental authorities broadly representative of all democratic elements in the population.” It is generally regretted in London that Izvestia should have chosen to publish such an intransigent version of the case on the eve of the meeting of the Council of Foreign Ministers, at which discussion of the Peace Treaty with Rumania, and consequently the country’s internal regime, will certainly arise.