The Press MONDAY, JUNE 24, 1946. The Veto

Press, Volume LXXXII, Issue 24909, 24 June 1946, Page 4

The Press MONDAY, JUNE 24, 1946. The Veto

In Soviet hands, as the Security Council’s vote on the Spanish report has shown, the veto is a flexible instrument. No one has yet questioned that the Great Powers may properly use it to halt extreme action. The middle and smaller nations at San Francisco would have preferred to see the permanent members of the Security Council abandon their power to veto; but they conceded that the Big Five reasonably based their refusal to surrender it on the ground that, since they would have to supply the bulk of the military and industrial forces in undertaking action against an aggressor, they should have, collectively or singly, the decisive voice'. But the veto can, also, be applied to block moderate action. Dr. Evatt’s proposal that the Spanish question be referred to the General in accordance with the recommendation of the council’s subcommittee on Spain did not go far enough to please Mr Gromyko. The sub-committee had not found Spain a present threat to international peace, but a potential threat. Nor had it recommended an immediate diplomatic breach. Instead, it suggested that the General Assembly should take such action, when it meets again in September, as it then considers appropriate. Mr Gromyko’s use of the veto in these circumstances seems very dubious. Whatever else may be thought of it, the approach approved by nine of the Security Council’s members is the least likely to commit any of the Big Three to armed action. Mr Gromyko’s right to employ the veto has not been directly challenged; but the comment that has followed emphasises that the circumstances in which the permanent members of the Security Council may properly use the veto power have still to be clearly defined. For instance, the Russians have, since the beginning of April, maintained that the Charter empowers each member of the Big Five to prevent any measure. or proposal it dislikes from being raised in the council. Britain, the United States, and China reject that interpretation. The council’s committee on procedure last month temporarily abandoned its efforts to find a middle ground. The conflict has still to be resolved. Again, as the council’s debate on Persia revealed, the Charter references to a “dis- " pute ” and a “ situation ” posed a problem that defied solution ‘and still defies it. It is only when such tangles as these are, unravelled that the Security Council will be able to settle matters of real importance.