Evening star., 1946-10-20


last Tuesday is that 1t ended-and that,
although tha angry Yugoslavs walked
/, out few hours before final adjourn
ment, 1t managed to do so with the
traditional round of polite speeches with
which such q conference is supposed
to end.
Whatever historys Judgment may be-.
1t is safe to say that this will be remem-
bered as one of the most extraordinary
peace gatherings of all times. Practi-
cally speaking, as things turned out, its
main function was to provide medium
for the public exchange of some OF the
toughest and bitterest words ever used
bv nations not at war with one another.
Yet one major truth must be borne in
mind in assessing the conference. Good
or bad, 1t had to be held. No amount OF
critical hindsight can get around the
fact that however great may be the dis
appointment over what happened here,
the reaction quite properly would have
been even greater If try had not even
been made.
Differ on Success.
There has been lot of discussion as
to whether the conference was failure.
Secretary of State Byrnes says it was
not The majority of correspondents
who watched it from the beginning think
it was. Most delegates, as they head
home or for New York, probably feel
as. the newsmen do. But on the whole
it has been a futile sort Of argument.
The judgment depends entirely on what
one expected of the conference in the
first place AS to what has been achieved,
and what has not, there Is little dis
agreement.
On the credit side, 1t cannot be. denied
that the small nations have been given
a chance to speak their pieces and that
the views expressed have been recorded
for the guidance OF the Foreign Min
listers when they start putting the
treaties into final shape in New York
on November 4.
1t has also been shown-for whatever
it is worth-that majority of the war
time Allies side with us against the
Russians-that the only real support for
the Soviet views comes from her Central
European satellites and puppets.
Finds no Solutions.
Clearly these are limited achievements
for peace conference. But Mr.. Byrnes,
who sponsored the gathering, has made
it plain all along that his objectives
were equally limited. He can therefore,
with perfect sincerity, declare that he
has not been disappointed by the results.
On the other hand, there are couple
have done but did not do, and this has
been q disappointment to many of us
who could perhaps afford more hopeful
illusions than the Secretary of State
was able to permit himself.
For one thing, the conference by no
means led to better or more cordial
understanding among nations.
For another, it was unable to develop
solutions to any of the problems which
divided, and still divide, Russia and the
west.
The real question is whether the con-
ference hurt international relations and
whether as result the Foreign Minis
agreement on disputed portions Of the
treaties than they would otherwise
have had.
Mr.. Byrnes answers in the negative.
With remarkable frankness he told a
press conference before leaving Paris
that the only difference between what
happened at the Luxembourg Palace
and what has been going on all along
behind closed doors was that, this time,
the whole world heard what was said.
Relations Worse Than Supposed.
His assurances, OF course, do not mean
that relations between the Russian
world and the rest of the world are in
good shape, but only that these relations
were worse than most people thought
before the conference started.
Two things are obvious in this con-
nection: In the first place, anxious as
he is to justify the conference and to
clear it of blame, Mr.. Byrnes would
have to admit that something said
behind closed doors becomes something
else again when it Is said for the world
to hear.
For surely the essence of our problem
today is how to find way to a COM
promise solution which will let every
body save face. And surely, even if they
should want to, the Russians will have
a hard time abandoning with dignity
the dramatically defiant postures they
have assumed at Paris.
In the second place, whether or not
the conference helped create division
between Russia and the West, it has
revealed division of alarming propor-
tons. The mood of suspicion and fear
which prevailed here throughout was
much more important than the specific
points at issue.
Because of this mood, and despite Mr.
Byrnes' carefully moderated optimism, it
is impossible to look forward to the For
eign Ministers New York session with
any feeling of enthusiasm or confidence.
1t will start off deadlocked on all the
issues on which it was deadIocked when
it ended last spring. If there is way
out Of that deadlock it will be long and
hard.
Mr.. Byrnes has often spoken Of his
confidence that recommendations of the
conference particularly those backed by
two-thirds majority-will be indorsed
eventually and unanimously by the
Council Of Foreign Ministers. That
would be nice. No one has gone further
out 81 his way to discourage optimism
on this score, however, than the man
who will be sitting across the table from
Mr. Byrnes in New York-Molotov, the