During the recent war, many of the nations represented in this Assembly sacrificed their blood and treasure for a common cause. There was a spirit of co-operation and a desire to meet one another’s difficulties with understanding and sympathy, even if it meant making greater sacrifices.
For some time the outlook was grim for those who were opposing the forces of nazism and fascism. Many nations were inadequately mobilized for total war; others had optimistically hoped that they would not be drawn into the vortex of bloodshed and economic impoverishment. For more than a year the British Commonwealth stood alone, and then, for a time, alone with gallant Greece, against the onslaught of mighty and ruthless foes. At a dreadful price to themselves, they purchased the time needed by. other nations to mobilize and take up their share of the burdens of war.
Ultimately, when the end of this great human conflict was in sight, plans were drawn up by which brotherhood and tolerance among the nations and world peace might become attainable objectives.
Let us look back this afternoon and see what has been achieved during this transition period from a wartime to a peacetime economy.
In the first place, a great humanitarian undertaking, UNRRA, was established. Many countries represented in this Assembly contributed from their shrunken means as much as, and more than, they could afford. Many countries represented in this Assembly received the benefits which their fellow nations, not without sacrifice, placed at the disposal of UNRRA. That organization well deserves the tribute paid to it this week by the Minister of Foreign Affairs of Poland.
Secondly, we have on record the establishment of organizations to regulate relationships in the monetary field, to provide loans for reconstruction, to regulate the supply of food and agricultural produce, to regulate air traffic and similar matters of international concern.
Thirdly, at San Francisco, in an atmosphere of practical idealism, the United Nations was created. One of its architects was that great world statesman, Field Marshal Smuts, in whose Cabinet in South Africa I have the honour to serve. But the Charter was not a perfect instrument and inevitably contained provisions based on compromise. The small nations and the larger Powers, whose responsibilities in regard to the maintenance and the restoration of peace do not fall far short of those of the great Powers, performed an act of faith when they agreed to the veto provisions of the Charter. South Africa, together with the other nations, believed that it would serve the interests of peace and world stability if the continued cooperation of the great Powers could be maintained in the years of peace to come, and, if the power of the veto could serve that end, those nations were prepared, not without misgivings, to accept those Charter provisions in good faith.
They naturally expected the veto to be used wisely and sparingly by the great Powers as trustees for all, and in the interests of justice and peace. They never contemplated that that power would be used arbitrarily and selfishly to further purely national or group interests. It is not therefore surprising to have heard the Secretary of State of the United States of America declare, in the Assembly this week, that a liberalization of the voting procedure in the Security Council is required.
May I say, when referring to the United States of America, that this is the first occasion I have had the privilege of coming to this great country, and I find myself overwhelmed by its hospitality and friendliness.
In other ways acceptance of the Charter demanded from all nations, but more particularly from all those nations which were not protected by the power of veto, the sacrifice of some share of their national sovereignty. Again these nations performed an act of faith. As the objective of the United Nations is to substitute the rule of law for jungle rule, they could legitimately expect that the United Nations Organization itself would apply the rule of law when the relations of Member nations under the Charter had to be determined, and that a request at any time for a legal determination of a nation’s rights and duties under the Charter should not be denied; in other words, that the right to approach the International Court would be considered as a fundamental human right.
We lived in high hopes when we formed the Organization under the Charter, and we started with enthusiasm on a road to co-operation, mutual understanding and acceptance of the rule of law. But we must record the fact that, somewhere along the way, we have strayed from the path. We see all around us today a disillusioned world. The people are losing faith in the United Nations. Not always is a spirit of tolerance and understanding shown and a just regard of the rights of others. Propaganda and the pursuit of ideologies are all too often the keynotes of our debates. The good feeling and comradeship engendered by service in the war and the tonic effect of common perils are being frittered away. The help which has been freely given to save the famished and the sick and to reconstruct devastated lands and destroyed industries has, in many instances, appeared to be forgotten. Instead of good will and good feeling in the United Nations Organization, and despite the oft-spoken smooth word, there are signs of antagonism, of division.
It was the hope of all of us that the United Nations would become a meeting ground where nations would come together and learn to know each other in a mutual effort to promote international understanding.
Can we honestly say that this hope is being fulfilled?
The growth of international understanding and co-operation has been handicapped by a tendency to use the Assembly as a forum for the furtherance of national or group policies and ideologies. Too often, instead of placing the main emphasis on smoothing the way towards amicable negotiation of difficulties, the debates have taken a turn where recrimination and counter-recrimination between differing parties have so exacerbated feelings as to make compromise and agreement almost impossible.
There is a malaise in the Organization which is spreading to our peoples. Surely in such an atmosphere little progress can be made in the settlement of grave international problems, or in the creation of that new spirit among the nations which alone can lead to the building of a better world.
In the course of this general debate there has been some plain speaking on occasions, and even wild discourses such as that of yesterday afternoon.
Such declarations have been “full of sound and fury”, though not necessarily “signifying nothing”. Even South Africa has not escaped the forensic lash of the Deputy Foreign Minister of the Soviet Union.
I regret Mr. Vishinsky’s hasty and premature denunciation of South Africa, for we in the southern end of the African continent have no feelings of animosity towards the Soviet Union whose vast war effort played so vital a part in the defeat of nazism. We do not subscribe to her ideology, but we do remember her magnificent recoil from the onslaught against Stalingrad, and we have looked to her, in conjunction and cooperation with the other great Powers, to play a positive part in shaping and colouring the peace. At the same time we have turned a blind eye to some of those somewhat unorthodox post-war territorial acquisitions of the Soviet Union which did not, so far as I am aware, fall within the category of non-self-governing territories.
I would therefore suggest with respect that the Soviet Union might similarly refrain from butting in on our domestic affairs in South Africa. In any event, during the course of this debate, both the representative of the Soviet Union and the representative of the Byelorussian Soviet Socialist Republic, in their attacks on South Africa for having, as they assert, ignored the resolution of the General Assembly regarding the treatment of Indians in South Africa, have proved that they have not even attempted to read or understand South Africa’s statements concerning that resolution.
This, of course, is nothing unusual. Last year in the General Committee the representative of the Byelorussian Soviet Socialist Republic as well as the representatives of the Soviet Union and the Ukrainian Soviet Socialist Republic, publicly and openly condemned South Africa even before one word on the merits of the case had been said by the South African delegation. It would appear, therefore, that so far as justice is concerned, with them the heavens may fall.
It is no use whatsoever merely to pay lip service to the cause of peace. It is necessary to make positive and concerted efforts to ensure that that cause is safeguarded. Let us, therefore, recapture the spirit of goodwill and understanding in which the United Nations was founded in San Francisco. Let us also be realistic. Idealism is good if tempered by a realistic appreciation of facts and the difficulties which face every nation in the world today.
National rivalries and suspicions, and religious and racial feelings are facts which must be faced — and which must be faced in the right spirit. The removal of the former requires an atmosphere of patience and understanding, not one of hostility and intolerance in which the bitterness of attack may serve only to exacerbate feelings; and where the scoring of points off each other and the snatching of victories by the mere counting of votes may cause bitterness here and greater ill feeling among our peoples.
What, then, is the function of the Organization if it is unable to settle disputes out of hand? Surely it has to strive always to harmonize existing differences; to create unity out of diversity; to emphasize the extent of our agreement rather than the extent of disagreement; to refrain from hasty action or ill-informed expressions of opinion which magnify a situation of difficulty and tension; and, above all, to be chary of pronouncing judgment until problems have been objectively and impartially studied by the experts or pronounced upon by the Court. Only thus will the Assembly build for itself the reputation — which it should deserve to hold — of being an impartial conciliator and arbitrator whose findings and recommendations carry the full weight and authority of organized international opinion.
We shall have many grave problems to consider at this session. We shall need wisdom and patience to find their solutions. It is for this reason, particularly, that I regret that the distinguished leader of the Indian delegation, Mrs. Pandit, should have referred in her speech today to the Indian-South African dispute, and apart from uttering warnings to this General Assembly, have commented at this stage on. documents which are due for consideration by the appropriate Committee.
I do not propose to follow her example. She herself, in connexion with India’s neighbour State, within the past twenty-four hours, in a statement to the Press, pointed out that recrimination is not the way to peace. I would rather content myself this afternoon with offering South Africa’s congratulations to the new India and to the new Pakistan on the achievement of their full status of freedom and sovereignty. I wish them well in the constitutional course which they are now taking. I give to them every good wish in the resolving of those problems which are peculiar to their country and which we hope they will settle to their satisfaction. These new constitutional developments are a fresh and inspiring example of the genius of British statesmanship, whose generosity has left a permanent mark on my own country. In South Africa, which was given its freedom by the United Kingdom, multi-racial groups are working out their destinies in peace and harmony as part of an unfettered, autonomous nation, conscious of its great role in the African continent.
South Africa has placed its faith in the United Nations; and it will continue to do so. The South African delegation, for its part, will endeavour to approach all problems in that spirit. Situated as our country is, at a point of contact between diverse races, cultures and civilizations, it has to face problems which, in one form or another, affect all mankind; it can therefore appreciate the difficulties which confront the United Nations.
Young though we in South Africa may be, we are rapidly gaining knowledge through the hard way of experience. We do not claim to have reached utopian standards, but we march on amidst the encircling gloom of post-war crises, anxious to make our contribution towards bringing the world back to sanity and to peace.