71. It has been only on rare occasions that my delegation has participated in the general debate ever since my country, Iceland, entered the United Nations in 1946. In many previous years, the general debate, at the commencement of each annual session, has primarily been dominated by the big Powers and this may even be considered natural since the greatest problems of our Organization and of our times in general, are for the big Powers to solve and settle. These serious problems are often caused by the greatest Powers, and they alone can and must find a solution to them. However, every nation represented in the United Nations has its responsibility and its duties to endeavour to enhance and serve the ideals and aims of our Charter. Thus in the general debate in 1956, the Icelandic delegation presented its worried views on the world situation, which was certainly very grave at that time.
72. At the thirteenth session of the General Assembly, our Foreign Minister, Mr. Gudmundur I. Gudmundsson, delivered a speech and then stated, "This year Iceland has an urgent need to make its voice heard... during the general debate,” [759th meeting, para. 137]. This same urgency, most unfortunately, still remains and I shall revert to that later.
73. The Icelandic delegation has during the past weeks listened with interest to the many speeches of all those who have had anything to offer toward the solution of any of our diversified world problems. Some speakers have also referred to the status of our Organization of the United Nations, and to its future prospects. Let me only mention the difficulties and embarrassment caused by the tardiness of many delegations to pay their annual and approved contributions to the Organization to enable it to run efficiently its detailed work on a financially sound basis. However, it is gratifying to note that we all seem agreed in our unflinching trust in our wise, well-advised and energetic Secretary-General and in our highest officials, including all His Under-Secretaries, as well as the members of the Secretariat in general and the staff. We have in fact to be thankful for all the information, statistical data, scholarly and even scientific reports with which the Secretariat treats us all the year round, although some of us are obliged to feel occasionally that we have more documents than there is time to read them. All these reports have great statistical and educational value, and our government offices could hardly function satisfactorily without these reports.
74. In the general debate we have also heard the voices of those delegations that have been obliged to report to us on their grievances and frictions with other Member nations, and the general debate from this forum, in the presence of the whole world, is the right place to launch our complaints in the hope that our adversary will be influenced by sound world opinion and guided by good intentions.
75. One of the most striking features of our Organization during the last few years has been the steadily increasing number of new Members, many of which are nations that have emerged as sovereign States from the rule of colonialism, often under the auspices of Governments seated in faraway lands, which did not always understand the problems of the people in the colonies, nor their fight for independence. My country, Iceland, has lived under colonialism, and we are with heart and mind on the side of those new nations who want their full freedom and sovereignly. It Is, therefore, with gratification that we have recently seen more and more countries from Africa come here and take their seat amidst us. We have welcomed the new States of Ghana and Guinea to our Organization and we are happy that four other nations of Africa will in the next year or immediately thereafter emerge to full freedom and sovereignty. We must all admit that this is the evolution of the twentieth century. The days of colonialism are over and onward march the newly independent nations of the world.
76. There is one omen that forebodes danger and disruption in the fruitful, fair and realistic work of our Organization. It is the division and encirclement of delegations into blocs which vote together, act together, and jointly claim benefits, privileges and positions for their members. This has become an ever-increasing characteristic of our daily affairs and activities. These blocs, which in more polite but Superficial language, are called groups, are known to us under various names such as the Commonwealth group, the Latin American group, the African-Asian group, the NATO group, the Communist group and even the European group, which seems to be the vaguest one since Europe is strictly divided. The Strengthening of these blocs bears a certain danger in itself. We must avoid letting them develop to the extent that all decisions here in our Organization are reached inside the blocs, but not by the nations individually. According to our Charter, we are here, each delegation, to represent the Government of our sovereign nation and act in that capacity guided by the ideals and principles of our Charter.
77. If this tendency should further develop, we might come to the conclusion that it would be sufficient to have one representative for each bloc attending the meetings here and the rest of us could pack up and go home. My delegation is not a member of any bloc and is not supported by any of them. Naturally, however, being one of the Western democracies, our course most frequently runs parallel with other democratic countries by reason of common ideals, common heritage and similar ways of thinking, similar desires and aspirations of our peoples, similar outlook on life and the same love for freedom. This is particularly the case in our relations with the other Nordic countries. It is to be avoided that the wrangling for positions and influence tie the delegations into tight blocs. The freedom of thought and action of each nation must be preserved. Then we may have the hope that the small nations also can have some mission inside the United Nations,
78. This is the fourteenth General Assembly in which Iceland participates. In our opinion, it commences in a more auspicious atmosphere than many of our previous sessions, and I shall revert to that later. This Assembly also promises to be an efficient one, and there are signs that our deliberations will not be unduly or hopelessly retarded. We must all feel relieved and satisfied that the question of Cyprus, which in previous years has taken up much of our time, has now been solved by the parties immediately concerned, and the present Greek and Turkish Governments are to be congratulated and praised for their Statesmanship and wisdom in reaching an agreement on a basis of a compromise that was acceptable to the people of Cyprus. Let us all hope that the future of the people of that beautiful island will be blessed with progress and prosperity which has its roots in common efforts and brotherly, neighbourly feelings.
79. We hope that the difficult Algerian question now for this first time seems to offer the prospect of a fair solution. As yet, we are not fully aware of all the details by which to judge the outlook, but my delegation finds that the courageous speech by General de Gaulle, the President of the French Republic, which he delivered on 16 September 1959, was a great step forward, and we hope it may lead to the road of find, settlement. We, the people of Iceland, finally attained our independence by exercising our right of sell-’ determination. However, we waited for twenty-five years before we took the last step and decided to sever our political ties with Denmark with the result that the relations between Iceland and Denmark have never been as friendly and brotherly as now, when both nations can associate as independent brothers. If the Algerian people have to wait only four years to decide themselves whether they want full independence or federal autonomy, or integration into the French Republic, then certainly we are inclined to think that they should have patience and calmly and peacefully prepare for the great decision. We most sincerely hope that an end can be brought to this tragic struggle so expensive in the loss of human life and so disturbing to peace in Africa and in the world in general.
80. I now come to the question of disarmament, which has been before us at all our previous sessions since 1946, when the ice-cold winds of the cold war began blowing. We have discussed this matter and debated for months, year after year, and an infinite number of resolutions have been passed, but none of them has led to any remarkable results. In the meantime, the armaments race has continued at an ever-increasing pace until now the armaments production seems to have reached the saturation point. The big Powers are actually in a position to annihilate, with one single bomb, the most populated places on earth anywhere on the globe and there is no spot in the world today inaccessible to nuclear and rocket weapons. We are told that the explosion of one hydrogen bomb releases a greater energy than all explosions set off by all countries in all wars in the history of mankind. We are also aware that over one hundred million people have been moved from their peaceful occupations and into the production of arms and military activities, and that the military expenditures of all States at the present time amount to more than $100,000 million annually. Has not the time come to halt this diabolic and dangerous trend?
81. In our opinion, it was a happy day in the history of the United Nations when, on 10 September 1959, the Disarmament Commission, which is composed of all the Member States of the United Nations, was convened. We were then Informed that the Foreign Ministers of France, the United Kingdom, the United States and the Soviet Union had all agreed to establish a committee of ten States to take up serious discussions about the disarmament problem and we ventured to hope that at long last a serious and definite effort was to be made. It was the intention that this ten-Power committee should convene in Geneva in January of 1960, and we were given to understand that a report might come before the Disarmament Commission as a whole before the convening of the General Assembly in September 1960. We will not relinquish this hope.
82. The Foreign Ministers of the United States [797th meeting], the United Kingdom [798th meeting] and France [814th meeting] have in their elaborate speeches here during the general debate outlined their proposals and offers for gradual disarmament stage by stage. And certainly we were all most interested to hear the extensive and eloquent speech by the Chairman of the USSR Council of Ministers, Mr. Nikita Khrushchev, on 18 September 1959 [799th meeting]. The offer of the Soviet Premier of general and complete disarmament in the course of four years might become an epoch-making statement. Although the statesmen of the world have been faced with similar offers of complete disarmament before, this suggestion 4s enormously more important today when the armaments race and war potentialities have reached such monstrous dimensions. It is gratifying to note that all responsible statesmen are anxious to give this proposal the most serious consideration. We can only hope that this grandiose suggestion can pave the way for an agreement, even if it has to come stage by stage. As Winston Churchill said in the House of Commons in May 1953: "It would, I think, be a mistake to assume that nothing can be settled with Soviet Russia unless or until everything is settled."
83. My delegation trusts that, after balanced and moderate debate in our present General Assembly, the disarmament question as a whole will be referred to the ten-Power committee, from which we hope for a constructive report before our next Assembly. In the meantime, let the cannons remain silent all over the world and the dangerous bombs be carefully guarded in their arsenals, until the happy time has come to destroy them totally,
84. At the General Assembly in 1958, we had for the first time before us the question of the peaceful use of outer space by humanity. My delegation was pleased last year to vote for a resolution which stated that the General Assembly recognizes the common interest of mankind in outer space and that it is the common aim that outer space should be used for peaceful purposes only [resolution 1348 (XIII)]. Since man's penetration into outer space, it has become of utmost importance to secure international co-operation for peaceful uses of the cosmic space. The Icelandic delegation, therefore, endeavoured to the utmost at the last session to bring about full agreement on the composition of an ad hoc Committee on the Peaceful Uses of Outer Space. That was hot obtained and it was regrettable that the delegations of the Soviet Union, Czechoslovakia, India and the United Arab Republic did not find it possible to join in the work of this Committee. We hope that these delegations will see fit to co-operate in the future work for this purpose, and the ad hoc Committee is to be complimented for the most valuable spade work already done.
85. The situation in the Middle East, which was fraught with dangers and threatening clouds last year, has now, fortunately, somewhat calmed down, although not completely, as we have all heard this morning. There still remain many unsolved problems in that area. The whole question of the Middle East has to be treated on a broad basis, and It is to be hoped that the far-sighted and thorough suggestions by the Secretary-General regarding the Palestine refugees will receive adequate and deserved consideration. We also trust that we can see the freedom of navigation in the Suez Canal re-established in our opinion according to international law, and the 1888 Constantinople Convention which guaranteed that: "The Suez Maritime Canal shall always be free and open, in time of war as in time of peace, to every vessel of commerce or of war, without distinction of flag. "The canal shall never be subjected to the exercise of the right of blockade."
86. This principle was confirmed by the resolution of the Security Council [743rd meeting] on 13 October 1956. It is our opinion that the problems of the Middle East will never be solved unless the Arab States themselves show their willingness to solve them together and agree to live together as good neighbours with all the countries in that region.
87. As a European nation, the Icelandic people feel greatly concerned about the future of the more than 2 million people who live in West Berlin and who have shown great courage in expressing and maintaining their heartfelt desire to be allowed to continue to live as a free democracy. Any agreement about the problems of Central Europe, which we hope will be reached at some level, must safeguard the future of West Berlin and the freedom of the people.
88. Turning to the situation in the world in general, it is horrifying to note that more than 1,500 million people in our world society today live in hunger, want and even misery and ignorance. We can never expect to build up a lasting peace and security in the world unless we continue and greatly intensify our fight against poverty, malnutrition, illiteracy and disease in various areas of the globe. Any step in this direction we therefore welcome.
89. We have been happy to note the rich benefits which have accrued all over the world, to many nations, in numerous fields, from the technical assistance, which the United Nations has rendered jointly, as well as that which many nations have provided separately. It is a noble goal to raise the Special Fund to $100 million, and the Expanded Programme to an equal amount. It is, however, needless to say that the contribution of. a small nation like Iceland to these and other progressive and beneficial projects can only be on a minimal scale. But we want to do our little Share and we have agreed to increase our subscriptions to EBRD and to IMF by 50 per cent. We also registered our approval of the establishment of an International Development Association, which was decided on at the meeting of the Governors of IBRD which was held in Washington on 30 September 1959. This organization should provide new means of financing more useful projects in less-developed countries. Furthermore, let us not forget UNICEF, which has done such marvelous work all around the world since its establishment in 1948. This magnanimous enterprise was received in Iceland with great enthusiasm in the beginning, and its work is cherished and heartily appreciated by my people.
90. As I remarked before, we feel that our present session is opening in a more auspicious and encouraging atmosphere than most sessions in the past. We all know the reason why we indulge in such hope and wishful thinking. The main reason is that the distance between Moscow and Washington has been shortened immensely and the Iron Curtain is no longer any hindrance, because even if it still exists today, it does not interfere with the take-off or flights of any planes whether their destination in Paris or London, New York or Washington, or vice versa. Besides, the minds and thoughts of men penetrate all curtains everywhere and distance makes no difference. We are hopeful that a meeting of the minds of people everywhere in the world is rapidly approaching and is being crystallized into one deep and sincere desire: peace.
91. The visit of the Chairman of the Council of Ministers of the Soviet Union, Mr. Khrushchev, to the United States and his association with the United States people, and the most serious and frank discussions he had with the great leader of our Western world, Mr. Eisenhower, the President of the United States, is most welcome news and is a greatly encouraging feature all over the world. The world will follow the subsequent flight of the President of the United States to visit the great Soviet people and to renew and further formalize his talks with the leader of the Communist world. These recently planned flights are borne on the wings of humanity's most heartfelt desire and we trust the result will mean an alleviation of the anxiety of our worried world. People everywhere are now beginning to hope that they will be freed from fear of war and annihilation, and at long last will be allowed to look with confidence and great expectations to the future of man everywhere and the happiness of the present and future generations. We are, however, aware that we cannot, overnight, expect a rigorous and distrustful world to be changed into a paradise of gentle wishes and brotherly coexistence.
92. We beg of our great leaders that they change the atmosphere in international relations and step by Step move onward to mutual understanding and increasing trust. Let us not ignore the fact that this calls for modifications, even radical changes, undone of the first wrongs that must be eliminated is the constant propaganda, abuse, and even the spread of hatred among nations, and inside national societies, in view of the political and ideological conquest of one or other special world system.
93. Each nation must be allowed to be free from foreign interference and to model their lives and future according to the desire of the people themselves. It strikes me that an ensuring and firm token of a better atmosphere in world affairs would be if the General Assembly were invited to hold its fifteenth session during 1960 in Moscow, where we would all be allowed to associate freely with the peace-loving and progressive people of Russia. It so happens that in the fall of 1960 there will be presidential and general elections here in the United States, and on previous occasions the Assembly has twice held its sessions. in Paris, or special arrangements had to be made to postpone the regular session of the General Assembly, as it has not been found propitious to have this international forum operate here in New York while the political internal fight, goes on all around us. In all humility, I venture to mention this idea for the consideration of those most concerned.
94. Before I leave the scene of world affairs, and the prospects for the future as we want to see it, allow me to quote encouraging statements from two of the most influential leaders of the world today.
95. On 16 April 1953, President Eisenhower said in Washington: “No people on earth can be held, as a people, to be an enemy, for all humanity shares the common hunger for peace and fellowship and justice.” He further said: “Every nation's right to a form of government and an economic system of its own choosing is inalienable ... Any nation's attempt to dictate to other nations their form of government is indefensible.” Finally, President Eisenhower stated: “A nation's hope of lasting peace cannot be firmly based upon any race in armaments, but rather upon just relations and honest understanding with all other nations ... Every gun that is made, every warship launched, every rocket fired signifies, in the final sense, a theft from those who hunger and are not fed, those who are cold and are not clothed.” These are strong, eloquent, and noble words and we all know how frequently President Eisenhower has subsequently spoken in a similar vein and to the same effect,
96. The Soviet leader said in his message to this Assembly on 18 September 1959: "Controversial problems in International affairs may be successfully solved if States concentrate on what brings them closer to one another rather than on what divides the present world” [799th meeting, para. 6.], He also said: “ ... There is every indication that the time has come to embark on a period of international negotiations, conferences and meetings of statesmen in order that, one after the other, urgent international problems may find a solution” [ibid., para. 8.]. “It is our view that, if relations between States are to be based entirely on the principles of peaceful coexistence, an end must be pat to the 'cold war'” [ibid., para. 9]. Furthermore the Soviet leader said: "The Soviet Union is convinced that the necessary conditions now exist for a radical improvement in international relations, and for the total abolition of the 'cold war' in the interests of all mankind" [ibid., para. 22].
97. Moreover, at the National Press Club in Washington, on 16 September 1959, Mr. Khrushchev emphasized that he had come "with the best of intentions and with an open heart". He also stated that the barometer showed "fine".
98. We, the common people of the world, want to believe in these words and statements of the great leaders and we want to See them come true. We therefore hope that the barometer will remain on "fine" so that mankind may continue to expect and hope for a rich harvest in the field of international co-operation and march forward to a world of tranquility, mutual trust, peace and prosperity.
99. In this respect it was most encouraging to read in the joint United States-Soviet communiques issued at the conclusion of the talks between President Eisenhower and Premier Khrushchev the following statement: "It is hoped that their exchanges of views will contribute to a better understanding of the motives and position of each, and thus to the achievement of a just and lasting peace.” So be it.
100. I now am compelled to revert to a situation in which a great wrong has been committed and tell you a sad story of the relationship between a nation that claims to be called great and my small nation, Iceland. I refer to the constant threats of attack by United Kingdom warships on our small coastguard boats in the territorial waters off Iceland. As is well known to most of you from our debates during the last session of the General Assembly, my country found it of vital importance to the future of our economy and to the independence of our nation to take new measures for preserving our main source of national income, the fishery grounds around Ice land. Our economy Is completely dependent on the output of the fisheries, and products derived from the fisheries constitute about 95 to 97 per cent of our exports to foreign countries. Ever since the end of the last century, the waters off our coast have been visited by swarms of United Kingdom trawlers that have scraped the bottom of the sea almost up to the doors of our poor fishermen's humble homes. However, we were supposed to have territorial waters up to three miles, and in 1952 we extended our fishery limits up to four miles, after our Norwegian brother nation had won its case about the four-mile limit before the International Court of Justice, which move the United Kingdom had challenged. The dominant circles of Hull and Grimsby then put a ban on the landing of Icelandic fish anywhere in the United Kingdom. This can only have been intended for the purpose of forcing us into submission, but the Icelanders are, I am proud to say, an independent and persevering people, and the United Kingdom finally had to give up the ban and their frustrated efforts after four years.
101. When the United Nations Conference on the Law of the Sea, which was held in April 1958 at Geneva, did not succeed in deciding the breadth of the territorial sea and fishery limits, we again felt compelled to extend our fishery zone. We had declared years ago that our intention was to extend the fishery zone up to twelve miles. We again made that known in Geneva in the spring, of 1958, but we waited until 1 September of that year to make this decision effective, in order to explain our urgent need to take such measures. We then had prolonged talks with many nations to that effect, but no agreement seemed possible.
102. A few nations protested against our action. We were told that the twelve-mile limit did not have support in international law. To that we replied that there is no international law prevailing regarding the breadth of the territorial sea, nor coastal jurisdiction. It is now commonly recognized that the three-mile rule is a dead letter, and there are actually more than twenty-five nations that maintain twelve-mile territorial waters or more. The International Law Commission had stated in its report of 1956 that international law does not permit an extension of the territorial sea beyond twelve miles.
103. At the Geneva Conference in 1958, a steadily increasing trend had become evident to establish the twelve-mile fishery zone. I want to emphasize here most clearly that Iceland has only extended its fishery zone, not its territorial limits — which, as we all know, is another question, and of much more far-reaching scope. In Geneva thirty-six nations had voted for a proposal by Canada for a maximum of six miles for territorial waters and twelve miles for fishery limits. The United States had suggested in Geneva that in principle the twelve-mile fishery zone should prevail, but unfortunately the United States Wanted to fix unacceptable limitations on the rights of the coastal State. During the last year more and more nations have come out in favour of the twelve-mile fishery zone.
104. We have been told: ”You can not do this unilaterally.” Why cannot we do that, since about thirty nations have up to the present extended their territorial waters unilaterally? The protests we received were presented in a diplomatic and courteous manner which can be expected from nations which respect each other’s sovereignty. None of these nations deemed it necessary nor appropriate to resort to other measures with one exception? and only one exception. The United Kingdom again succumbed to behaviour which is not in conformity with our Charter, nor could such behaviour be expected from a country to which we are supposed to be allied. Now, for more than a year, since September 1, 1958, United Kingdom warships of the Royal Navy are aiming their guns at our small patrol boats in our waters off the coast of Iceland in violation of the principles of diplomacy and the rules of fair play. There have been about thirty-seven United Kingdom warships engaged in these ignoble and threatening tactics.
105. If the United Kingdom Government felt compelled to send their warships into Icelandic waters to maintain international law and order on the high seas, as they call it, why then, did they not send the Royal Navy into the 12-mile limit of the coasts of the Soviet Union? Why did the United Kingdom Government not move a single warship from the harbours of Hong Kong when the Peking Government extended their territorial waters on 4 September, 1958, to twelve miles? This happened right, under the noses of the United Kingdom naval forces in their colony of Hong Kong. However, no action was taken. What is the reason for this double standard? Is it because we are a small nation and the Government of Peking rules over 640 million people? Where is the sense of fair play that has been the characteristic of the United Kingdom people, and what has become of the renown and the glory of the United Kingdom Navy? Must we not say, alas, sic transit gloria mundi?
106. Her Majesty’s Government of the United Kingdom of Great Britain tried to seek refuge for their behaviour by offering to take the matter before the International Court of Justice. Why do they not ask other nations who have unilaterally extended their territorial waters to march together with them before the International Court of Justice? How can any reasonable man expect us to stand in the same courthouse with people who are aiming their guns at our countrymen? We can only hope that the United Kingdom Government, through the pressure of world opinion as well as through steadily increasing public opinion in the United Kingdom in favour of Iceland’s position, will come to reason and withdraw their warships from our waters. This world opinion became most evident during the debates in the Sixth Committee [596th meeting] during the thirteenth session, when well over forty delegations directly expressed sympathy for my country and their understanding of our problems and our actions.
107. Since then we have received many messages of encouragement and many tokens of friendship from nations far and near. We, the former friends of the United Kingdom in Iceland, and there used to be many of them, venture to believe that the United Kingdom will see fit to withdraw the warships before any serious incidents might occur and before any lives are lost,
108. I regret to report that only last week a serious incident happened. An Icelandic patrol boat caught a United Kingdom trawler illegally inside the old three-mile limit, the limit recognized by the United Kingdom. The boat was only 2,4 miles from our shore. When our coastguards tried to arrest the culprit, Her Majesty’s warship interfered and protected the sailing of the offender homewards to the land of glory. Our Foreign Minister has strongly protested this violation to the Foreign Office in London. It gives me pleasure to remind the Assembly that Prime Minister Nehru of India recently refused to negotiate with the Chinese Communist Government while their soldiers remain on Indian soil. We in Iceland reject any talks with the United Kingdom while their warships remain in our waters. We will not accept any gunpoint diplomacy,
109. At the Conference of the Foreign Ministers of Denmark, Finland, Iceland, Norway and Sweden, held in Reykjavik on 3 and 4 September 1959, this matter was discussed, and it was agreed, and I quote "to express the hope that at the forthcoming international conference in the spring of 1960, a solution to this dispute could be found”. It was simultaneously agreed “to express the wish that in the hope of such a solution incidents would be avoided in these waters”.
110. Such expressions have been repeated by the Foreign Ministers of Norway [807th meeting] and Denmark [809th meeting] here in the general debate, and we are thankful to our Mends for their concern and support. My Government will be represented at the conference and the Icelandic people hope also, for the sake of the United Kingdom itself, that it will have withdrawn its warships from our waters long before the conference is convened,
111. We are all familiar with the fable about the man who had exceeding many flocks and herds and the poor man who had nothing save one ewe lamb. When a traveller came unto the rich man, he spared to take of his own flock and of his own herd, but slaughtered and dressed the poor man’s only lamb. The United Kingdom have resources all over the world, and are fortunately a prosperous nation. At least, we hear that in the Press and in election campaigns. Fisheries are our small nation’s only lamb. We pray that the fable of the Bible will not be repeated by the rich United Kingdom subjects in their relations with our nation. We know that the public opinion of the world is on our side. This is a bitter fight because all the people of Iceland feel we have been wronged.
112. This world of ours is a strange combination of encouraging facts and features and sad stories. Let us hope that in the relations of all our nations, justice and friendship and fairness may prevail in the times to come.