Evening star., 1945-10-03
Failure in London

Failure IN London
The first meeting of thesC Council OF
Foreign Ministers, which was to
begin the task Of drafting a peace
settlement for Europe, has ended in
utter failure. There has been no
attempt to gloss over this result and
that is all to the good, for If any
peace settlement is to be salvaged
from this futile initial meeting there
must be full understanding both OF
the fact that the first attempt has
failed and of the reasons for the
failure.
1t is possible that, fundamentally,
the inability of the ministers to
agree grew out of basic and vital
conflicts Of national interests be-
tween two or more of the partici-
pating countries. But If this be so,
no hint Of 1t has appeared in the
news reports nor in the statement
made by Secretary OF State Byrnes
after the meeting had broken UP.
So far as all published information
reveals, the meeting ended in failure
because Foreign Commissar Molotov,
representing the Soviet Union, dis
played q measure of intransigence
that precluded any possibility OF
honorable or worthwhile agreement.
When the conference convened on
September II, the representatives of
the Big Three agreed to invite France
and China to participate in all
discussions. Thereafter, for several
days, the discussions proceeded, and
there was, in Mr.. Byrnes' words, a
considerable area Of agreement"
But on September % Mr.. Molotoy
unexpectedly demanded that the
original agreement be rescinded and
that France and China be excluded
from the discussions. He contended
that this exclusion was proper under
one section Of the Potsdam agree
ment, although other sections per-
nit OF different Interpretation,
and, furthermore, he is reported to
have insisted that Russia had the
right unilaterally to abrogate the
September II agreement.
MIR. Byrnes and Britain's FOREIGN
Secretary Bevin refused to yield on
the basic issue Of principle involved,
and the remainder of the unhappy
meeting was devoted to repeated but
wholly futile efforts to persuade the
implacable Mr.. Molotov to accept
some suitable compromise. To all
OF these suggestions, his invariable
reply was that he remained bound
by his instructions from Moscow,
and 1t was on that rock that the
meeting finally was wrecked.
What this may imply for the
future is any ones guess. It Ger
tainly casts grave doubt on the
feasibility Of the principle of unani-
NOUS agreement, as incorporated in
the United Nations Charter, and it
is possible to infer from 1t that
the Russians prefer international
turmoil to international peace. Yet,
despite the seeming triviality Of the
issue which wrecked the London
conference, the logic of the situa-
ton warrants a more optimistic
view OF the future. It Is hard to
believe that the long-range inter-
ests OF Russia would be served by
a break with the western powers.
On the contrary, it is reasonable to
suppose that Z stable peace would
be as beneficial to the Russians as
to the rest Of US, and it is toward
this ultimate goal that all of us
must aim.
1t remains true, however, that as
an essential preliminary to this
there must be the fullest and widest
understanding Of the reasons for the
failure in London. If there Is more
to that story than has appeared in
print, 1t is imperative that Mr..
Byrnes I'LL in the missing chapters
when he returns to this country.