NATIONS' CHARTER

Evening Post, Volume CXL, Issue 23, 27 July 1945, Page 5

NATIONS' CHARTER

WORLD SECURITY

DEBATE CONTINUED

The House of Representatives yesterday continued the debate on the Prime Minister's motion for the ratification oi' the United Nations Charter. It is hoped by the Prime Minister that the vote will be taken today.

Mr. P. G. Connolly (Government, Dunedin West) said he regretted thai the declaration of war against armament manufacturers by the League of Nations in 1939 had been allowed to become a dead letter, because he felt that that was a factor in the promotion of international strife. As with othertraders, these firms always worked for increased output, and what the armament industry always wanted was permanent tension and the constant threat of war. Enormous profits were also made by Stock Exchange speculators through the violent fluctuations of prices in time of war. Mr. C. G. E. Harker (National, Waipawa)- said it had been suggested that if the manufacture of munitions were handled by the State there would be nothing further to worry about. He could not help reflecting that it was Britain that led the world in disarmament and there was a stage when Britain was strongly supported by Germany, although' at that time led by Stresemann, a man of peace. The danger to tlfe world of munition making by a State inside a State should not be disregarded. . Mr. F. Langstone (Government, Waimarino) said the Charter was one of the greatest documents the world had ever produced, and should bring peace to all the nations. , The preamble was almost a poem and should be placed in every school and assembly hall in New Zealand. Mr. C. M. Bowden (National, Wellington West) said he thought the unanimity required in the Security Council was likely to be the real source of strength of the organisation, but he was also of the opinion that the Economic Social Council would be the most important sphere of activity of the United Nations organisation, because if the stress of circumstances were removed the necessity of action by the Security Council was likely to be reduced. The price New Zealand would have to pay as a signatory of the Charter was within its capacity and was a small price compared with what would have to be paid if the organisation was not a success The practising of Christian principles would enable New Zealand to play its part and carry out the spirit of the Charter.

"SOMEWHAT TOO HUMBLE."

Mr C. M. Williams (Government, Kaiapoi) said he thought the Prime Minister had been somewhat too humble in his report on the results of the conference and on the New Zealand delegation's success. The New Zealand and Australian delegations represented countries with strong democratic traditions and they did not realise perhaps how much ahead they were in their ideals and traditions compared with many of the other nations represented at the conference. He felt the New Zealand delegation had aimed at achieving a degree of perfection in world ■ organisation in a world which v/as still far from perfect. In the sphere of world organisation there was only a tradition of a quarter of a cenUMr. J. T. Watts (National, Riccarton) said the weaknesses-of the Charter were that there were no sanctions, that there were difficulties v revolving around the veto clause, and that as with all agreements it depended on the capacity of Governments to work together to carry out its provisions. The 'success that would attach to the Charter depended on the ability of Britain and America to work with Russia. He felt it was not too early for the Government to make a declaration in general terms as to what its plans were for carrying out the obligations under the Charter and the Canberra Agreement. Mr. W T. Anderton (Government, Eden) said he believed the great Powers had so much power in the Security Council because past" events had forced them to realise that unless there was the necessary machinery to act and act quickly, and the necessary power to use force, the same humbug would go on in the future as had gone on since 1920. It was far better to give the five great Powers the greater responsibility within the new world organisation than for some to be inside and some outside, the position to which the League of Nations was subjected.