Evening star., 1946-09-15

PARIS, Sept. 1.-THE Peace Con-
ference is just beginning to 60 to
work on the hardest question to
which it is supposed to suggest an
answer-the form of international
administration under which the pro-
posed Free Territory Of Trieste will
be governed.
When the special subcommittee
dealing with this question digs its
way into a labyrinth of proposals
and counterproposals far enough to
get at the heart of the issue, 1t will
find itself faced with a startling
paradox.
For the heart of the issue is not
in the free territory or in Yugo-
slavia or in Italy. 1t is at long
green table in New York-that old
chestnut, the great power veto in
the United Nations Security Council
The connection is this:
Russia wants control of the free
territory concentrated, as much as
possible, in local hands. Local hands
as viewed by the Soviets are Yugo-
slav hands and YugoSlav hands are
Russian hands.
The United States, Britain and
France, however, want control of
the free territory concentrated in
the hands of international authority.
The international authority, in this
case, is the u. N. Security Council,
whose agent on the scene would be
the governor of the territory.
Final Approval Up to Council.
Now everybody agrees that all
laws by which the free territory is
to be governed must be subject to
final approval by the Security Coun-
Gil. Everybody agrees that the laws
should be made by the territory's
elected assembly. But Russia wants
these laws to become lawS-subject
to Security Council approval-on the
say so of local authority, the presi-
dent of the assembly. The Western
powers on the other hand want the
laws to become laws-again subject
to Security Council approval-on the
say so of an international authority,
the governor of the territory.
Specifically, this may seem a
minor point of difference, but COM
pared to it, all other differences
with regard to the free territory are
mere side issues. The point is, of
course, that the Security Council
may always prove unable to take
effective action because it is ham,
strung by the great power veto.
This means to the Westerners
that if the Russian proposal were
adopted, Yugoslav dominated To-
cal assembly might vote into exist
ence a law which would be totally
unacceptable to a solid majority
on the Security Council but which
the Council could not order re-
scinded because it would be blocked
in its attempt to do so by a Rus
sian veto.
To the Russians, on the other
hand, it means that if the Western
view prevails and the governor of
the free territory has the power to
promulgate or refuse to promulgate
laws passed by the assembly of the
territory, then the impotence of the
Security Council would leave the
governor as absolute master of the
situation.
Want Firm Control.
The issue can be put another way
which is perhaps easier to under
stand:
The Western powers want the free
territory to be subject to firm in
ternational control. The Security
Council is so tied down by it's voting
rules that it cannot firmly control
anything. Therefore the Western
powers want the powers of the free
territory's governor to be such that
he can do for the Security Council,
of which he is the agent-at least
that is how Russia sees it, and the
analysis seems sound-what the
Council majority cannot do for
itself.
The Russians, conversely, want
the free territory subject to firm
local control, because they know
they will have bigger say locally
than on the Security Council. They
do not want an agent on the scene
who can do what they can keep
the Security Council from doing
They want local authorities to be
able to make and promulgate their
own laws while Russia sees to it
that the Security Council does not