For, indeed, will the establishment of enduring peace in
-Europe be promoted by postponing, for a further term the
decision of important problems of the peace treaties? Is it
in the interest of the democratic states that questions which
have already been settled between the Allied countries and
Germany's former satellites should now be left open,
and that decisions previously adopted be annulled? Can
anyone who wants lasting peace in Europe support such
proposals?
No. Such proposals can have the support only of those
who do not desire enduring peace, in Europe. He who has
the interests of peace at heart, he who really wants stable
peace in Europe, cannot make such proposals, once he real-
izes what they will lead to.
It has already been proposed at the Conference to post-
pone the consideration of certain important matters for one
year. This is exactly the course the Australian delegation is
taking. What would it mean if the Peace Conference were
to leave question after question open, and entrust it to com-
missions of one sort or another to settle them some time or
other after the Conference? Would the decision of some
chance commission be more authoritative than the opinion of
the Conference, or the decision of the Council of Foreign
Ministers? No one can agree with that.
In practice, the acceptance of such a proposal would only
result in undermining the authority of the Peace Conference
and in prejudicing the cause of peace in Europe. If we fol-
low the Australian delegation, which has proposed that the
question of reparations in all the peace treaties be referred to
some unhappy commission for six months, and, consequent-
ly, be left open, we shall be farthering a multitude of un-
solved questions—and then this whole Peace Conference will
have no serious meaning. Under no conditions can the So-
viet delegation agree with such an attitude.