N.Z. PROPOSAL GUIDES POWERS ON ATOMIC ISSUE

Grey River Argus, 11 October 1948, Page 5

N.Z. PROPOSAL GUIDES POWERS ON ATOMIC ISSUE

Resumption of Negotiations with the Soviet PARIS, Oct. 9 The decision of the western Powers to resume direct negotiations witn pussia on atomic energy toilowed a New Zealand proposal tor such a course. ivir James Thorn, the New Zealand delegate, introduced the proposal in the united Nations’ Assembly. He said that he was opposed to shutting the door to discussions. United Nations’ members would assume very serious lesponsibilities if they rejected any means of keeping the discussions open.

rhe New Zealand proposals requests:— (1) The six permanent members of the Atomic Energy Commision to consult aiter this Assembly to determine whether there exists a basis for agreement on international control ot atomic energy. (2) Suggests that if such a basis is found a six-member sub-commit-tee should reconvene the Atomic Energy Commission. (3) In any event, order the six permanent members of the Atomic Energy Commission to report on their consultations to the 1949 Assembly session.

The New Zealand resolution was carried by 47 votes to nil. It will keep negotiations with the Russians going for another year.

Some delegates said that the NewZealand proposal would mean the same thing al lover again. The Russian delegate (M. Malik) said: “Well, what’s wrong with that? Why should the Atomic Energy Commission consider that it is so tired from two years of work that it should shrink from considering the atomic problem from the beginning? It must start all over again. This will bring a breath of fresh air to the world.” ATOMIC SUB-COMMITTEE IN DISAGREEMENT When the United Nations Sub-com-mittee on Atomic Energy Control adjourned it was still bogged down on the first paragraph of the Canadian resolution. The sub-committee is composed oi India (chairman), Britain, Russia, the United States, Canada, France, Sweden, Brazil, China the Ukraine and Ecuador. It had a discussion on whether New Zealand would be allowed to incorporate her resolution in Canada’s. The Soviet and the Ukraine objected to this. . ... M. Jacob Malik (Russia) said. “There is only one resolution wnicn nowhere has aroused controversy—the Soviet proposal. Let us discuss lt; Mr St ’ Frederic Osborne (United States) retorted: “We all know that the Soviet proposal was made purely P loud ß burs a t of laughter from M. Malik and M. ManunsKy (Ukraine) greeted this remark. When the sub-committee agreed on its agenda, the chairman Sir Bengal Narsinga Rau, ruled that the subcommittee should consider the resolutions in'their order of submission. General McNaughton (Canada) said any resolution agreed on should endorse the views of the Western majority on the Atomic Energy Commission. M Man" lisky said that this wouM d iS e He aSS W‘“he "sub-com-to consider immediately the Soviet proposal, ‘‘which had introducatmosphere.”