THE BERLIN BLOCKADE U.N.O. COUNCIL DEBATE

Grey River Argus, 6 October 1948, Page 5

THE BERLIN BLOCKADE U.N.O. COUNCIL DEBATE

BRITISH AND AMERICAN REPLIES TO SOVIET (Receievd October 5, at 9.55-p.m.)

LONDON, October 5.

The United Nations Security Council on Mon day debated the Western Powers’ complaint that Russia’s action at Berlin has created a threat to world peace.

M. Vyshinsky objected to the matter comingbefore the Council and denied there was a blockade at Berlin. He said the matter could, and should, be dealt with only by the Foreign Ministers of the four Occupying Powers.

Dr. Jessup, U.S.A., affirmed the existence of a blockade and said the question was whether the only existing general international machinery for the preservation of peace could be used to ‘remove the threat to peace or whether the Soviet Government intended that the world be thrown back on an unorganised world community, with all that that implies. The British delegate, Sir Alexander Cadogan, said Article 107, under which M. Vyshinsky declared that the U.N.O. Security Council was not competent to deal with the Berlin dispute, was only designed to leave the Allies’ hands free in relation to any 'action they might wish to take with regard to an enemy State during or after the late war. The only case that could come under Article 107 was action taken in relation to an enemy State. Sir A. Cadogan pointed out that the Soviet action had not been taken in relation to Germany, but had been taken essentially against the Western Powers, by cutting off their communications with Berlin.

Sir A. Cadogan said that it could be claimed that the Soviet action in Berlin escaped the Charter, or that it was taken out of it by Article 107.

(Rec. 9.30). PARIS, October 5. Many oi the United Nations delegates interpret Russia’s declaration mat the Security council’s hearing oi tne iseriin dispute is "illegal', as oemg a mreat .tu walic out oi the Council meeting ii by a majority vote the Coun'cil uecides to hear the Berlin case. * on Monday afternoon the United Nations security Council opened its discussions on tne Berlin dispute. Mr Warren Austin (America) formally declared proceedings open and passed the chair to Dr Juan Bremugna (Argentina). As soon as the president put up the agenda tor adoption, M. Vyshinsky calmly raised his hand and began reading objections, the complaint of Britain, France and America against the Soviet being piaced on the Council’s agenda. He said it was artificial to separate Berlin from the whole of the German problem and the Council could not deal with that. He declared that the three-Power complaint to the Security Council was “devoid of any ground." it was not wfithin the competence of the Council to discuss it. .■niy attempt to separate Berlin from the whole of the German problem would be "artificial” and a direct violation of Article 107 oi the United Nations Charter. He argued that the whole question of Germany was governed by international treaties; therefore, it should be settled by the four occupying Powers. “Control of Germany, including the situation in Berlin, can only be settled.by direct negotiations between the four Powers,” M. Vyshin'sky said. "No blockade exists in Benin.”

Referring io the latest Russian Note, which asks ror a conference of the* Council or r’oieign Ministers, he asked: “isn’t it strange that when action is required oy this body it rinds itself irozen out.” rie saia no blockade existed, because the Soviet Government nau onereu to supply food and coal to tne Vv estern zones. “All rumours aoout oad conditions in Berlin are spread with the object ol deepening fear and war hysteria,” he saiu. He rejected categorically the Allied charges that the Russian authorities in Berlin encouraged the recent Communist action in the German capital. He called this charge “ludicrous.” , M. Vyshinsky concluded that the United Nations Charter forbade the Security Council from discussing anything concerining Germany until the four occupying Powers had written the peace treaty. The Foreign Ministers' Council offered the only legal way of settling the problem oi . Germany, including Berlin.

AMERICAN REPLY Dr Philip Jessup, replying for the United btaces, saiu the lacesc itussian Note ala nut c-nange me situation, because tne ,'soviet still reiusea to Im the Berlin blocxade and thus remove the threat to peace, which was now tne issue beiore the security Council —not the whole German problem. He said that alter direct negotiations with the Soviet had failed the Western Powers had only three alternatives —to have oowea to the Soviet threat of force, used force in return, or recognised their obligation under the United Nations’ Charter and resort to the United Nations. "The Soviet repudiated the machinery 01 peaceful settlement. If the Soviet still wants peace, then let it welcome the resort to this great peace organisation.” THE ISSUn Dr Jessup said the issue before the Council was that the Soviet Government was attempting, by illegal and coercive measures in disregard of its obligations, to secure political objectives to which it was not entitled and which it could not achieve by peaceful means. “The real question is whether in the present situation, which I don’t attempt to minimise, the only existing general international machinery for the preservation of peace can be used to remove the threat to peace or whether the Soviet Government intndS that the world be thrown back on an unorganised world community, with all that that implies.” Dr Jessup rejected the Russian argument that Article 107 prevented the United Nations from dealing with Berlin. Nothing in it prevented any of th Q Allies from appealing to the Security Council when they consideref< ; h ore was a threat to peace. “The Soviet actions in Berlin are not directed against Germany. They are directed against Britain, France and the United States,” Dr Jessun said The Soviet should have wel-

corned the opportunity for the Security Council to terminate the present serious situation, but instead the Soviet repudiated the machinery of pacific settlement established by the United Nations. It was trying to secure unilateral freedom to resort to force.

Sir Alexander Cadogan has expressed Britain’s agreement with the Unified States.

The debate was adjourned till Tuesday.