DOUBTS OF RESPONSE TO EVATT’S LEAD

Grey River Argus, 16 November 1948, Page 5

DOUBTS OF RESPONSE TO EVATT’S LEAD

On Question of Berlin Negotiations (Rec. 11.10) LONDON, Nov. 15 There continues to be wide comment on the letter which the Australian Minister of External Affairs, Rt. Hon. Dr H. V. Evatt (President or the United Nations Assembly) has sent to the heads of the Big Four states on the matter of a settlement of the Berlin problem. “The Times” says: The Western Powers, have so far, shown a cautious attitude to the letter of Dr Evatt and M. Lie, urging the settlement of the Berlin dispute, and it has been pointed out that the responsibility for the piolongatlon of the dispute has lain, with the Soviet Government. Ibe British Foreign Office is studying the letter It will be discussed with the United States Government and the French Government, and also with Doctor Bramuglia as the President or the Security Council. It is also emphasised that it is somewhat unrealistic to suppose that the Berlin dispute is the only obstacle to peace. There are other questions, such as Austria and disarmament, which undermine confidence. SOVIET ATTITUDE UNCHANGED The Berlin corerspondent of “The Times” says: “Even before the initiative of Dr Evatt and M. Lie had been announced, the Soviet licensed newspapers, at Berlin, were speculating on the possibility of negotiation over Berlin being resumed. It was made clear, however, that there had een no change in the Soviet attitude. WESTERN VIEW OF APPEAL IS UNFAVOURABLE It is understood that rD Evatt has sent private telegrams to Mr Attlee, M Stalin, President Truman and Dr Queuille, reinforcing his and M. Lie s appeal for four-Power talks to seek a settlement of the Berlin dispute. Britain will propose to-morrow that the three Western Powers should meet on Tuesday to discuss the appeal made by the Australian Minister of External Affairs, Dr Evatt, who is president of the U.N.O. General Assembly, and Mr Trygve Lie (U.N.O. Secretary-General) to the leaders of the Bier Four Governments to settle the Berlin dispute. Mr Hector McNeil (British delegate to the U.N. Assembly) is expected to confer with Mr Ernest Bevin in London on the question on Monday. He is returning to Pans to represent Mr Bevin at the meeting with General Marshall and M. Schuman. The United States Ambassador in Britain, Mr Lewis Douglas, has arrived in Paris to see General Marshall. It is believed they will discuss the question. It is understood that the British view, that the Berlin matter is one for the Security Council, still stands. Western diplomatic quarters still consider that no further direct negotiations on the Berlin issue can take place as long as the three parties are under the duress of the Berlin blockade. The Western Powers believe they are not being unreasonable when they suggest it lies only in the Kremlin power to restart negotiations at any time as soon as the blockade is lifted. AMERICAN CRITICISM OF APPEAL

A message from Washington says that official study there is now concentrating.- on the means whereby the fillip the appeal gave to the current Russian “peace offensive” can be lessened and the Western prestige not weakened by being put in the position of having to rebuff such a highly-placed suggestion for “immediate conversation.” Recent vigorous expressions of Russian ’ anxiety to have a fourPower conference are viewed with scepticism and it is feared the Russians would use such an occasion for aiming further “propaganda shafts” at the Western Allies, such as the withdrawal of all the occupying troops from Germany, which the Allies would be compelled to refuse in view of the strong armed German police in the Russian zorte. The aim in the United States is to retain a united Western front in the reply that must be developed in the General Assembly. Officials in Washington do not doubt the good intentions underlying the appeal. They feel, however, that it constitutes a rebuff for the Western Allies. They also consider the appeal is particularly ill-timed . in view of the fact that it coincides with the Soviet peace offensive, which General Marshall considers a purely propaganda inspiration, and the serious dispute between the Western Allies over the disposition of the Ruhr, which may tend to weaken their united front on the larger Berlin issues. United States officials say that,_ in referring to the need for removing threats to peace, the appeal ignores the fact that America, Britain and France first submitted the Berlin issue to the Security Council because it regarded it as a threat to peace. Secondly, the appeal implies that all four nations are to blame, thereby ignoring the fact that the overwhelming majority of th e United Nations have supported the Western stand and were critical of the Soviet for resorting to the veto.