Mr. President, before I embark upon my statement, I should like to tender to you the warm felicitations and congratulations of the Burmese delegation and of myself on your well- deserved election as President of the eighteenth session of the General Assembly. I am confident that this Assembly, under your wise and able guidance, will help to further develop and consolidate the moves towards a more peaceful world which have been an encouraging feature of recent weeks and months.
78. The year which has passed since we assembled here last September has been an eventful one. It may prove to be —and the speeches we have heard so far at this session give us hope that it will be— a turning-point in the history of relations between States in the modern era. Early during that year the world suddenly found itself teetering on the brink of a nuclear holocaust. Fortunately, restraint and common sense prevailed, and the ultimate disaster was narrowly averted. For a world which had become inured to the existence of nuclear and thermo-nuclear weapons, and to its use in propaganda, it was a sobering experience to awake suddenly and find that what we were witnessing was no propaganda battle but the imminent threat of irretrievable catastrophe.
79. To appreciate the nature of that catastrophe, we have only to recall the statements of the leaders of the world's two leading nuclear Powers that a full- scale nuclear exchange lasting less than sixty minutes, with the weapons now in existence, could wipe out more than 300 million Americans, Europeans and Russians, and that the survivors of a nuclear war would wish they had not survived. Brought face to face in this manner with the grim imminence of a nuclear confrontation, mankind instinctively recoiled in horror. Responsive to the feelings of mankind, the leaders of the two main nuclear Powers decided that they had no alternative to seeking a settlement of the immediate crisis by peaceful means, and they have since then moved further away from the brink of world-wide disaster.
80. Thus the confrontation in the Caribbean may have ushered in a new era, given birth to a new set of values in relations between States and peoples. Ever since the advent of the hydrogen bomb, we have heard it said that there was no alternative to peaceful coexistence. We have no reason to doubt that all those in high places and in a position to influence events really believed this. But such was the state of mistrust and suspicion in the world that the logical conclusions remained undrawn. Instead there came into existence a form of "coexistence" based on the balance of terror. Peace, it was said, would be kept only if each side in the cold war was known by the other side to be in a position to deliver immediately a retaliatory blow inflicting "unacceptable" damage. Thus was developed the concept of the "great deterrent" based on the paradoxical premise that the more modern and potent the means of waging war, the better became the prospects of maintaining peace. The Caribbean confrontation disproved that. The world was lucky indeed to have "got away with it" on that occasion; but it was a close thing, and altogether too dangerous to be repeated at any time in the future. The Caribbean confrontation exploded the myth that in this nuclear age a nation's security depends on armaments. It showed that the security of all nations depends, in the final analysis, on common sense and good will. It showed that in the modern world there is indeed no alternative to peaceful coexistence, and that coexistence based on balance of terror was a false coexistence.
81. It is therefore no accident that the period immediately following on the Caribbean confrontation should have been a period of intense diplomatic activity, especially among the great Powers, and particularly between the two main nuclear Powers. My delegation, which has been convinced of the virtues and absolute necessity of peaceful coexistence for a decade, heartily welcomes this new development which has led to the first two agreements to be reached between the great Powers in eighteen years of almost continuous negotiations on disarmament. I refer, of course, to the agreement to establish a direct communications link between the Heads of the Governments of the Soviet Union and the United States, the need for which was clearly demonstrated during the Caribbean confrontation, and to the recently signed limited nuclear test ban treaty. We congratulate the Powers on these agreements. We appreciate that they constitute first steps and that the road ahead, before we reach the goal of genuine world peace, is still a long and difficult one. Nevertheless, we are aware that these are very essential first steps which will lead, we hope and trust, to the eventual goal of complete and general disarmament among nations. It Is with this hope that we welcome both these agreements, and with which Burma, though not a nuclear Power or even a potential nuclear Power; put its signature to the limited test ban treaty. Though this treaty has no practical effect so far as Burma is concerned, we, in common with most countries similarly placed, felt that it was important for political, moral and psychological reasons that Burma should sign the treaty. The new era which we hope these agreements herald is the concern not only of the great Powers but also of all of humanity, and we consider that we have a duty to humanity to give maximum impetus to this breakthrough in the cold war.
82. As you are no doubt aware, Burma is a member of the Eighteen-Nation Committee on Disarmament which has been meeting in Geneva since March 1962. In practice it has been a committee of seventeen only due to France's refusal, to participate. During the Committee meetings we regretted seeing the vacant seat which was reserved for France. It is our sincere hope that France will yet be able to reconsider its position, and that we shall be able to welcome it at the Committee table in the near future.
83. While speaking of the Eighteen-Nation Committee on Disarmament, it would be unwise and unrealistic for us to ignore another glaring omission. I refer, of course, to the absence of the People's Republic of China from the negotiating table. It has been said that no disarmament treaty would be meaningful in today's circumstances unless it bears the signature of the People's Republic of China, If that is true today, it would become even more true with the passage of time. Consequently, my delegation feels that the time has come for us in the Assembly to be giving some thought to this matter. To allow matters to drift would, in our judgement, only create more and greater problems in the future. The fact that the People's Republic of China continues, to our regret and concern, to be deprived of its rightful seat in the United Nations need not, in our judgement, bar it from the disarmament negotiations. After all, the People's Republic of China participated in the Conference on Laos on an equal footing with all the other great Powers.
84. I know I express the views and feelings of a great many nations —nay, the majority of the nations whose representatives are here in this Assembly— that the continued enforced absence of the People's Republic of China from many forums of international discussion violates the norms of universality and mutuality which regulate relations between nations in the present day. Even more, the fact that a quarter of the world's population continues unheard in important international forums is a veritable abandonment of that same common sense which was made so manifest at the time of the Caribbean confrontation, and without which the concept of sovereign nationhood among the diverse communities that make up mankind becomes both farcical and futile. Speaking specifically of the United Nations, we believe that the strength and effectiveness of the Organization depend to a very great degree on the extent to which it reflects the world as it really is. An organization which refuses to face the facts of international life to the extent of ignoring the existence of a Government which has so clearly established itself as the effective Government of China imposes a severe handicap on itself. We believe that this ostrich-like behaviour of burying its head in the sand can only harm the United Nations, and that the development of this world body will remain seriously retarded until this glaring anomaly has been removed.
85. I would like here to refer also to the apparent existence of dual standards under which nations are admitted or denied admittance to many forums of international discussion and negotiation, and to the many conventions and agreements formulated at these forums. It would appear to my delegation that in the international community, universality rather than selectivity should be the guiding principle in regulating attendance and membership at international forums held under United Nations auspices, or under the auspices of specialized or related agencies. However, our experience shows that where the separate Governments of a divided nation seek to gain admission to an international forum, it invariably happens that one Government gains admission to the exclusion of the other. Again, accession to certain international conventions is limited to the Government of one half of a nation and denied to the Government of the other half. That there is no justification for such a discriminatory practice will be apparent to all delegations when it is seen that discrimination and restrictions have been applied to conventions intended to secure highly humanitarian objectives and to other conventions which, for effectiveness, should be adhered to universally.
86. I would not wish to cite examples of such discriminatory practices, but a rather obvious example which will spring readily to the minds of delegations is the refusal to extend the Vienna Conventions on Diplomatic and Consular Relations to the People's Republic of China and to other States which are still not Members of the United Nations or members of its specialized agencies. My delegation strongly believes that such discriminatory practices are in the long run not merely self-defeating, but tend to dissipate the beneficial effects of those regulations devised for the honourable discourse of nation with nation and man with man.
87. I should like to touch here on a related matter, namely, the need for a fair and equitable representation of States in the various organs of the United Nations, and the attendant issue of the rotation of this membership. As you know, a great number —in fact the overwhelming majority— of Asian and African countries emerged into sovereign nationhood only after the Charter of the United Nations had been framed. It may, therefore, be that in the early days of the United Nations it was understandable that under-representation should be our lot. But it could never have been the intention of the framers of the United Nations Charter, certainly not of the present membership of the United Nations, that this situation should go unremedied. Adequate representation, I would venture to think, is a concomitant of universal membership, and without adequate representation in the various organs of the United Nations the emerging nations of Asia and Africa are denied the right to assume their full responsibilities in this assembly of nations. Equitable geographical representation and rotation of membership is a principle which delegations assembled here readily accept. To put this principle into practice without further delay is the appeal I make to delegations which hold the key to the door that keeps us out. I am hopeful that this year the appeal of my delegation, and of other delegations, will not go unheeded.
88. I referred earlier to the two agreements concluded between the nuclear Powers during recent months. As I said then, we are happy indeed to be able to congratulate the great Powers on these achievements. At the same time, and at the risk of being accused of some immodesty, I think it is only fair to state that part of the credit for these successes —and particularly for the limited nuclear test ban Treaty— should rightly go to the Eighteen-Nation Committee on Disarmament, which laid the groundwork for the Treaty. We are happy that this has been recognized by the Secretary-General in the introduction to his annual report on the work of the Organization [A/5501/Add.1]. For its part, Burma would have preferred a comprehensive treaty covering underground tests as well, because we consider that the continuance of underground testing, especially if it is on a significant scale, would run counter to the spirit and perhaps even the purpose of the limited test ban Treaty and thus slowly undermine it. For this reason, we believe it to be essential that efforts to reach agreement on the discontinuance of underground nuclear weapon tests should be continued, and we note with satisfaction that this is expressly stated in the preamble to the limited test ban Treaty. Meanwhile, we hope to see the limited test ban Treaty —which is of significant value in and of itself— come into force at a very early date, and we hope that it will prove to be the first step towards a comprehensive test ban treaty and, beyond that, towards wider and even more significant agreements.
89. To begin with, we believe that the greatest prospects of success lie in the field of what are called collateral and partial measures of disarmament. We think that the more propitious climate resulting from the signature of the test ban Treaty should itself be used to promote and develop new agreements especially in the "ripe" areas. Among these we would include a NATO-Warsaw Treaty non-aggression pact, measures to reduce the risk of war by surprise attack, miscalculation or failure of communications, and measures to prevent the further dissemination of nuclear weapons, whether into areas of the earth's surface where they do not already exist or into new environments such as outer space. We feel that a resolution of the Assembly which, while urging the Committee of Eighteen to continue its search for an agreement on disarmament, laid special emphasis on collateral and partial measures could prove most useful in the present context.
90. In the introduction to his annual report, the Secretary-General says that:
"The achievement of disarmament continues to be the most important problem of our time," [A/5501/ Add.1, sect. II.]
With this view few would disagree. But the task is a vast and complicated one —how vast may be gathered from the fact that in their current arsenals the United States and the Soviet Union each have the capacity to kill the world's population many times over. Up to a few months ago, the absence of political will made any kind of progress towards disarmament impossible. The recent agreements, though only first steps, suggest that political will is now not altogether absent. We hope this trend will grow and develop speedily. But even if it does, we must not expect miracles, because the task of dismantling the vast and highly complicated machinery of war, under international supervision, will inevitably take time. That, however, would be an added reason for making as early a start as possible.
91. And now a few words about the problems arising out of the continuance of colonialism in certain parts of the world, particularly Africa. Having ourselves secured independence shortly after the end of the Second World War, we felt that we were under a strong moral compulsion to help all those peoples still under colonial domination to free themselves. In that spirit, we have over the years given our support to all anti-colonial struggles, and are gratified that, largely as a result of the successful outcome of these struggles, the membership of the United Nations has more than doubled during the last fifteen years. It remains our policy to continue to give all help within our capacity until colonialism has been banished from this planet. We welcome the progress towards independence made in the course of this year by a number of territories, including Northern Rhodesia, Nyasaland, Kenya and Zanzibar.
92. We regret, however, that the same cannot be said about the Portuguese African territories and South West Africa, where the Governments of Portugal and of South Africa continue to pay no heed to the aspirations of the indigenous people to Independence, or to resolutions adopted by the United Nations in repeated attempts to ease the serious situations which have arisen out of Portuguese and South African intransigence. Here I should like to stress that we fully sympathize with the position of the African States on these two issues; and short of taking extreme measures which might compromise the purposes and principles of the United Nations, and prove self-defeating, we are prepared to give them full support. We regret, too, that the situation in Southern Rhodesia —where the British administering Power, while displaying some flexibility in cooperating with the United Nations, maintains its constitutional position— continues to give rise to serious concern, To us, the outcome in all these cases is clear; they will all gain their independence. The only question is whether it will be through peaceful evolution or through violent means. We trust that the colonial Powers in all these cases will follow the path of wisdom and thus obviate, both for themselves and for the peoples of the territories concerned, the anguish, sacrifice and suffering which will otherwise become inevitable.
93. One of the most potentially dangerous situations of our present-day world arises from the policy of apartheid practised by the Government of the Union of South Africa. Universally condemned, this policy is doomed to fail in this day and age. Yet the Government of South Africa stubbornly clings to it, and to make matters worse, it seems to be determined to carry it through and to sustain it by force of arms if necessary. In common with a large number of States of like mind, Burma has severed all relations with South Africa, in a joint endeavour to prevail on its Government to abandon its policies of apartheid. We also strongly support the recent resolution of the Security Council calling for an embargo on the export of all arms and ammunition to South Africa. We hope that these measures will succeed in persuading the Government to change its attitude before time runs out.
94. Referring to another major problem of the United Nations, that of the former Belgian Congo, my delegation is happy to concur with the views expressed by the Secretary-General in the introduction to his annual report, that with the improvement in the situation,
"… the time has now come when the Congolese Government should assume full responsibility throughout the Congo for the maintenance of law and order," [A/5501/Add.1, sect. V.]
and also that:
"… the time has come when, for various reasons, it is necessary to envisage the early withdrawal and winding-up of the United Nations Force in the Congo," [Ibid.]
95. The United Nations Congo operation has lasted more than three years, and it has proved to be a heavy burden on the Organization —how heavy it is, is revealed by its present shaky financial position, Burma has loyally supported this United Nations effort from the start, and has no regrets on that score. But now that the situation in the Congo is, in our judgement, basically no worse than that obtaining in many other Member States, we feel that the reasons for terminating the United Nations military operation far outweigh those for retaining it for a further period. It is accordingly our view that the United Nations Force should be completely withdrawn by the end of this calendar year, and we trust that this will be done.
96. My delegation believes that on the whole, the year under review has been a good one for our Organization, While the major role In the Caribbean confrontation had of necessity to be played by the nuclear superpowers, no one can deny that the timely intervention of the United Nations contributed powerfully to taking the edge off the immediate crisis. We consider that this contribution is an excellent justification for the existence of the United Nations, Elsewhere, too, successes have been registered. In West Irian, a festering trouble spot has been removed thanks to the good sense and good will displayed the Governments of Indonesia and the Netherlands, and to the good offices of the United Nations. Our congratulations go to all concerned. We trust that similar beneficial results will emerge from the extension of the United Nations good offices to other areas such as Yemen and certain parts of South-East Asia. In the economic and social fields, too, the steady and usually unadvertised task of assisting developing nations to improve the lot of their peoples has been carried forward under the umbrella of the United Nations Development Decade.
97. But having said all this, it is well that we should recognize that the United Nations now lives under a shadow —the shadow of financial bankruptcy. For a variety of reasons, some Member States of our Organization have not found it possible to pay their allotted share of the costs of peace-keeping operations. Our Organization has therefore been reduced to borrowing to meet current expenditure, and is having to consider even less dignified means of raising funds. This is a very clear danger signal, and we trust that a universally acceptable solution to this problem will be found in the near future; for it would be a tragic paradox if what we hope is a major "détente" in the cold war were to be accompanied by the demise of the United Nations for lack of what, by the international standards of today, amounts to an insignificant sum of money.