The Wilmington morning star., 1946-08-10
The Paris Debate
By ANNE O,HARE MCCORMICK

Inc angry debate that 1lafed up IN farlS
yesterday began in Saa Francisco and has
been going on in international meetings ever
since. O~ver-simplified end boiled down to its
essence, it is another -gumen between Rus
STA and the Western Powers on the meaning
OF words. Just as the Russians use terms like
democracy, free elections and liberty of the
press in a sense that does not translate into
our language, so as time goes on and their
actions make their meaning clearer it de-
velops that even their definition of the word
international is quite different from theirs.
The difference came out first in drafting the
United Nations Charter. Mr.. Byrnes charged
yesterday that ever since Potsdam the Soviet
Union has sought to restrict the participants
IN the peace conference to the smallest pos
sible number. But in 5a1 Francisco Mr.. Molo-
TOW fought hard to limit the small nations
right OF discussion, and his prompt support of
discussion. and his prompt support of this right
in Paris represents a distinct advance.
The never-ending debate on the veto is Just
a continuation OF the argument, for whereas
the United States is just as keen on its veto
power as the Soviet Union. there is a wide
divergence between the two countries on
whether il applies only to ultimate decisions
for the use of force. Thst is how we under
stand it, but the Russians have demonstrated
that they const1ue it as something that can
be invoked on any question, however trivial,
vi WILL O Dig 1CWGT wants 10 nave It's own
way.
Mr.. By1nes challenged Mr.. Molotov to ''se-
cure or permit publication in the Soviet
Union OF the statement in reply to the Russian
delegates charges the day before. Mr.. Molo-
TOW promptly accepted the challenge, thereby
admitting that he had power to do in Russia
what Mr.. Byrnes could not promise for the
American press. The American delegate could
assume, as he did, that since America has a
rnn = In 1ffrn1r ,iy,{ L.~a l. A. 80
representative would be published in the Unit
ed States, but he could not order the papers
to publish it.
MI. MoJctov was frank to admit that he can.
He had something to say about the free press
in America. He asserted that it was a trust,
which ne had heard was controlled by 'two
or three bosses" He eoded that the press
should net only be free hut objective and hon
est. Then he illustrated the Soviet conception
of a free press by declaring that he accepted
MIR. Byrnes' suggestion to publish his speech
in the Russian papers.
The assumption that a press admittedly un-
der one supreme boss constitutes a free hon
est and objective press underlines the differ
ence in definitions. The same difference re-
veals itself in the opposing views of what con-
stitutes international ORDER and international
decisions. The Russian idea is that the Big
Minority rules. In this conception, the terms
OIL lG tGSdlleS 10 De reviewed IN PdrlS, Tor
instance can be determined only by the Big
Four of the Big Three. In a final analysis this
is true. Under any system Of voting the Great
Powers Will have the final word. There is
little question that on all important issues
their agreements will stand. Therefore all the
impassioncd discussion about majority votes
and tWo-thirds votes is not about the details
Of the treaties. 1t is not over Trieste, repara-
tions, the control of the Danube, but over
5000 49,
to be organized and run.
What do you mean BY international CO.
operation:' asks the seventeen Of the Four
in Paris. And the Four do not agree. The de-
clslon on Trieste is a case in point. The For
elgn Ministers decided to set up an interna-
tional regime over a free territory. But it ap-
pears now that neither international nor
free territory means the same thing to all,
and that there is no agreement as to just
what they do mean in q concrete instance.
The United States insists on the International.
cation Of the Danube ana Russia says yes, but
with an entirely different connotation.
The Soviet Government consistently opposes
every move to broaden the base of power in
the world and the small nations instinctively
fight every restriction of their limited rights.
knowing that they gain ground every time they
are heard, even L they do not change the Big
Power verdicts. The same lineup appears in
Paris that shows itself in the United Nations.
1t is not against Russia, although the Rus.
ians are undoubtedly sincere in thinking so.
Nor is it against communism as a philosophy.
1t is against the Soviet conception Of minority
rule. Mr. Molotov is afraid of the majority
vote because Russia, despite her power. her
satellites, the parties supporting her aims in
nearly every country, is the minority. This is
the striking fact brought out in Paris as in
New Yor1. the classic conception OF demo-
cratic pl oeedure, in peacemaking as in world
organization, is more popular than the Soviet
definition. When Russia realizes that this is
SO, she may decide to join the majority. New
York Times.