TEMPERS FRAYED

Chronicle (Levin), 28 June 1946, Page 5

TEMPERS FRAYED

Press Assn.

Stiqurity. Cflwp! D#te yeto frustrat es progress

By Telegraph

-Copyright

* " Re'eeived Thursdav; 7 p.m., NEW YORIv, June 26. 'The sufb-committee appointed' by the Seeurity Council to try to obiain aq agreement" abont the. text- of the new Polisli resolution regarding Bpain, has been unsuccessful, aecqvding to a report presented by Dr. Evatt who pre^ented the t.ext of the new rpsojutioTi 011 belvalf of liiniself and Sir Alexand.er Cadogan, comprising the major-ity of the subcommittee. This was designed to keep, the Spanish question on the Council 's agenda in.a manner consist.ent Avith the hndings of the original sub-cQmniittee which investigated the Spanish question and to enable tlW General As semhly, at the proper time, to take up the matter without rpstriction and make any relevant reconimendation. Mr. Lange dissented and fepeated the arguments he used to suppqrt his ori ginal resolution. He described the amendment as wpak, ■ Mr. Gronivko alf?o called tlie amend; ment w-enk and said that'if reference in it to the Assembly's rights, was designed to ensure that the Assenibly discussed the Spanish cjuestion irres pective of whether it was referred to it by the Council or not, then it was absolutely conti'ai'y to the terms of the Cha-rter. After Dr. Evatt had replied t'no Cduncil by 9 votes to 2 approved the new resolution. Russia and Polan.fi oppo.sed it. When the Evatt-Cadogau ainendmenl was declared carried, Mr. Gromyko iin mediately protested that tlie am.endment was rejected because he, as ti}1' only permanent meipbei, voted again?! it. He claimed the amendment was not proceduval bu't substantivp and tlie veto eonsequentlv applied tlieretp. Mr. Najera (chairman) ruled that the amendment was proeedural onlv. There foltowed an. argumenf lastijig nearly three hours in which the tenipej's of the delegates, particularly those 0! Mr. Gromyko and Dr. Evatt, became more and more frayed. Mr. Najera finally asked the Counpil for a vote as to whether, it regarded the amendpienl as proeedural or substantiye. This vote resulted in favour of the aniend ment .being proeedural with Mr. GrCmivko and Mr. Lange jigain fqrming the minority. Mr. Parodi abstained J from voting. Mr. Gromyko promptly claimed that the veto be applied to this question a|sq and was uplield by Mr. Najera. Thjs, in effect, meant that Dr. Eyatt 's original amendment was also vetoed. Dr. Evatt protested that the ri]ling was based on the San Eranc.isco decision which was not supported by anvone exeept the tive spo^so^ing powers. It meant Ihgt not onlv could a permanent member veto a decisiop overwhplmingly carried by the Council but also eouhi determine the question which he would veto. That was seandalous.. He suggested the Council j sliould pass as a new resolution that i part of his amendment providjng that, j without prejudice to the rights of the Assenibly, the Securliy Council shouhl j keep the Spanish situation under cou- ' tinuous observation and retain it 011 J the, list of matter, s" wherewith they | were seized, in order that it would at i ■all times lie readv to take the measures J necessary to maintain international j peace and seeurity. Mr. Gromyko said he would agree to 1 that providing- tlie words "without prejudice to the rights of the Assenibly" were eliminated and a clause added providing that the Council J should again consider the subject before September 1. - Both Sir Alexander Cadogan and Dr. Evatt lieatedly protested against Mr. Gromyko 's suggestion. Sir Alexander Cadogan said My. Gromyko was trving to put across the Council the original Polisli resolution. It was fantastic that sueh an attempt should be made. Dr. Evatt said: '/ ' Mr. Gromyko wi 1 1 have to understand that his "no*" eannot be exercised against proposal after proposal until his own ideas are the only ones left. He now wants to try to force the Council to accept a resolution which by implication, has already been rejected by the vast majority. ' ; Mr. Gromyko then moved a resolution that the Council keep the Spanish question on the 'agenda and again discuss it before September 1 but omitting the words desired by Sir Alexander Cadogan and Dr. Evatt. The Council again became enmeshod in legal argument, suggestioiT qnd countersuggestion. Finally a vote. on Mr. Gromyko 's motion was taken clause by clause the Council agreeing to retain the Spanish question on the agenda but rejecting the portion requiring a further diseussion before September 1. The debate had largely developed into a fight between Dr. Evatt and Mr. Gromyko, only a few other members speaking and then briefiy. The Cadogan-Evatt resolution was finally put, every member voting for it except Mr. Gromyko and Mr. Lange. Mr. Najera declared the motion lost by the Soviet veto. Informed quarters stated that after meeting Russia's invocation of 'the veto power three times at one sittipg, and the depionstration tliat any member of' the Big Five could decide whether the subject was substantive or proeedural, was bonnd to b.ring the whole subject of t}ie veto to 0 head during ihe Assembly's September 'meeting.