SMALL NATIONS DISPLEASED WITH USE OF VETO

Wanganui Chronicle, 3 December 1946, Page 5

SMALL NATIONS DISPLEASED WITH USE OF VETO

Recd. 6 p.m.

New York, Dec. 1.

Russia to-day made a conciliatory gesture to the little nations when a revolt against the big Powers’ use of the veto was discussed in an extraordinary Sunday session of the United Nations political and security committee. After debate the matter was referred to a sub-comtnittee. Russia submitted a resolution which at least took note of the dissatisfaction of the little Powers. The resolution calls on the General Assembly to “express confidence that in the future the Security Council shall take into account the experience of its work during preceding periods, with a view to securing conditions which would be as favourable as possible to the adoption of agreed decisions.” Mr. Hasluck (Australia) opened the debate on the use of the veto power, regarding which Australia, Cuba, Argentina, Peru and Canada submitted formal proposals. Mr. Hasluck said that Australia was opposed to the use of veto power, but he would like to make it clear that Australia’s purpose was not to revise the Charter, but simply to make the Security Council work in the terms of the Charter as it now exists.

NOT PLEASED AT WAV VETO USED.

Mr. Hasluck said: “We have been deeply concerned at the fact that the veto power has been applied in such a way as to delay, confuse and weaken the council in its attempts to deal with various matters, and our concern is shared by a large majority of other delegations. The Charter requires the council in regard to a pacific settlement of disputes to apply methods at negotiation, inquiry, mediation, conciliation, arbitration and judicial settlement and to resort to regional agencies or arrangements. We simply wish to ensure that those methods are applied. "We want to bring about orderliness and objectivity in the Security Council so that every nation can have confidence that any complaint before the council will be handled'promptly and smoothly. Experience has shown that that objective cannot be realised unless moderation is shown in the use of the veto. Furthermore, it has become apparent that wise, restrained use of the veto would be facilitated by the adoption of recognised procedures, and particularly by laying down of an established routine for handling cases before the council, thus avoiding the necessity of frequent votes or the possibility of injecting purely political consideration into quasi-judicial matters.

“Canada to-day circulated useful suggestions regarding procedures, and these parne very close to the Australian views. I recommend the Australian proposal to the committee, with the hope that it will be carried by a large majority, which would impress the council with the General Assembly's desire that the intention of the Charter will be fulfilled.” Mr. Vyshinsky, who submitted the Russian resolution, condemned both the Australian and Cuban proposals to revise or modify the Security Council’s voting procedure, also the British plan for a modified use of veto presented by Sir Hartley Shawcross. This proposed that the Powers consult each other before an issue reached a vote in the Security Council, that they explain publicly the reason whenever they cast a veto, that the Powers agree on the definition of a dispute, and that an abstention of one of the “Big Five” should not be counted as a veto. NOT A “DISEASE” Sir Hartley Shawcross said veto was "not a disease, just a symptom.” He was in sympathy with Canadian proposals to modify the use of veto, but he would not be a party 'to any vote of censure” of the way the Powers had used their voting privileges. Mr. Vyshinsky described the British plan as a veil designed to give veto a better appearance to appease little nations. Russia would not deign to use such “military camouflage." He rejected any restrictions on the right ot the “Big Five” to prevent SecurCouncil act:on on an issue ny a single negative vote. Senator Connally (United States urged that the use of veto be restrained. He called on the' Security Council to take a liberal approach and withhold veto except in the most important actions. Senator Connally appealed for Big Power unanimity. “My country wants peace with every nation on earth —with the United Kingdom on my left and with the Soviet Union on my right,” he said. At that point he turned toward Mr. Vyshinsky, who grasped his hand and shook it as the crowded gallery applauded. Senator Connally concluded.

“It is either live in peace together or march down the broad highway that leads to hell.”

China, Norway, Poland and Denmark proposed that a sub-committee be appointed to draw up a resolution based on the various proposals before the committee. Mr. Hasluck objected, saying that he did not see what the

sub-committee could achieve. “Two tendencies have been expressed,” he said. “One is for revision of the Charter, the other, as in the Australian resolution, at present contemplates qn appeal to the ‘Big Five’ to help with the problem and appeal to the Security Council to work at it,” "Regarding the Russian resolution, we would have no great difficulty accepting it, but it is couched in such general terms, whereas Australia is concerned with the working of the veto.” The committee referred the matter to a sub-committee.