Mr. President, it is a great pleasure for me to reiterate from this rostrum my congratulations on your election. Our past experience has acquainted us with your wisdom, your fairness and your remarkable knowledge of the United Nations, and we are grateful to you for putting these eminent qualities at the disposal of the Assembly.
2. This debate has already unfolded the wide range and. the complexity of the questions to be dealt with in the course of this session of the General Assembly; it has once again demonstrated the commanding position of this Organization in the mainstream of international life. It is not my intention to attempt a comprehensive review of even the most important issues before us. I shall limit myself to making some observations on various aspects of the primary function of the United Nations —the maintenance and the strengthening of peace and security in the world.
3. We are all agreed on the paramount importance of disarmament as a means of reducing the danger of war. We are also agreed, I believe, that the task of the General Assembly is to lend all possible support to the negotiations that will be continued in the Disarmament Committee in Geneva as well as directly between the great Powers. It is generally recognized that the essential prerequisite of progress in this field is the creation of greater mutual confidence between the Powers most directly affected. The partial test ban treaty has been rightly hailed as a first step in this direction. Yet the fact that the ban remains incomplete reminds us of the continued weight of the suspicions and lack of trust that still exist between these Powers. In these circumstances both sides no doubt will want carefully to weigh the possible effects on the existing balance of forces of any further disarmament or collateral measures.
4. This applies above all to nuclear weapons. The siting and control of nuclear weapons is, after all, one of the most complex and sensitive international problems of the present time. It is understandable, therefore, that any measure that might seem to disturb the status quo in regard to nuclear weapons is likely to cause renewed tension and suspicions and thus to endanger the process of creating greater confidence between the great Powers. It would indeed hardly be realistic to expect any real progress in nuclear disarmament before the wider dissemination of these weapons has been effectively checked.
5. Success in this respect naturally depends primarily on the nuclear Powers themselves. But also the States which do not possess nuclear weapons can, of course, help in the prevention of the spreading of these weapons. The former Swedish Foreign Minister, Mr. Undén, indicated to the Assembly two years ago one way in which the non-nuclear Powers could work toward this end —by committing themselves, on a regional basis, not to acquire nuclear weapons or to allow such weapons to be stationed on their territories. The current relevance of this thinking has been demonstrated by recent events. It is today clear to all of us that the introduction of nuclear weapons to areas where none has been before is likely profoundly to disturb the present state of international relations.
6. In this connexion, I should like to refer to the idea put forward by the President of Finland, Mr. Urho Kekkonen, of establishing a nuclear-free zone consisting of the Nordic or Scandinavian States. This is, of course, a regional question which concerns the governments of that area, and I shall not detain the Assembly with any detailed analysis here. But I think I ought to refer to the well-known fact that although the five Scandinavian States have adopted different solutions for the problem of their national security, Finland and Sweden having chosen a policy of neutrality, Denmark, Iceland and Norway a policy of alliance, each of them has refrained from acquiring nuclear weapons and none has allowed the stationing of such weapons on its territory. This, I am sure, is one of the main reasons why the Scandinavian States are recognized as being one of the most peaceful areas in the world.
7. Another aspect of the general question of maintaining peace and security is the peace-keeping function of the United Nations. In spite of all the difficulties and temporary setbacks which the United Nations has experienced in this field, the Organization has proved capable of carrying out peace-keeping operations on a considerable scale and of creating and maintaining sufficient forces to this end, and I should like to take this opportunity to pay tribute to the Secretary-General for the part which he has played in making this possible.
8. It is, in our view, one of our main tasks to ensure and further to strengthen the capability of the United Nations in dealing effectively with local conflicts. The Finnish Government intends to continue to give its full support to the United Nations also in this field. The financial support which we are giving is of course well known. As a new measure to reinforce the practical ability of the United Nations to act when needed, the Finnish Government announced at the beginning of September 1963 that it had decided, as had been done previously by Denmark, Norway and Sweden, to form a standby force of one infantry battalion strength specially trained and equipped for participation in United Nations peace-keeping operations.
9. I am aware that the future ability of the United Nations to carry out its peace-keeping task would be greatly enhanced if a lasting solution were to be found to the related question of financing. The position of the Government of Finland in this matter has been stated on many occasions. I shall, therefore, limit myself to saying that Finland considers the establishment and the operations of United Nations forces as a joint undertaking for the maintenance of international peace and security, which is the main task of this Organization. Accordingly, we regard our share of the financial expenses ensuing from such undertakings as part of the responsibilities which we assumed when adopting the Charter and giving it legal force In Finland.
10. We all know that behind the financial crisis there lies a difference of opinion on how our Organization should function and that in a matter of this kind no real solution can be enforced through majority decisions. We must strive to reach a generally acceptable basis on which the activities of the United Nations could be evolved so as to enable this Organization to perform with full success its tasks in a changing world.
11. We have said in many connexions during the past years —and I wish to stress it again— that, in our view, one of the necessary conditions for the success of the United Nations is that its membership be truly universal. The many problems which we have to solve here in common, because they are the concern of all, must obviously be considered by all nations together. Only thus can we truly harmonize actions and interests for the attainment of common ends. This Organization should include all nations. All should be admitted and none excluded, and every Member properly represented.
12. Most speakers before me have already referred to the improvement that has taken place recently in international relations. There is indeed reason to believe that we are moving forward from a narrow interpretation of peaceful coexistence meaning merely the absence of hostile actions, towards active co-operation across ideological boundaries for the realization of the aims of our Charter. Such co-operation, far from preventing any one of us from remaining true to his national responsibilities, his ideals and convictions, is indeed necessary for the advancement of the national interest of each of us. In fact, never has the necessity for international co-operation been so acutely and widely felt as it is today. One of the most significant achievements of the United Nations is perhaps to have brought about this increased awareness of interdependence and a new readiness to work together in order to find ways and means for conciliating dissimilar interests.
13. This achievement tends to be overshadowed in the public mind by the failures and difficulties of international co-operation, and it seems to me that it would be useful to try to break the barrier of silence which surrounds too much of what the United Nations actually is doing. We welcome the idea of Prime Minister Nehru to designate a special year of international co-operation [1051st meeting, para. 38] in order to concentrate more attention on the co-operative achievements and activities now successfully in progress. By so doing we would, I believe, gain better understanding and greater support for the work of the United Nations and thus widen our opportunities for future action.