A Canadian statement in the general discussion at the opening of the Assembly should, I think, give an account of our stewardship as a Member of the United Nations, and our view on whether the Organization is fulfilling the high purposes and noble ideals which, inspired its creation.
As to the former, Canada has endeavoured to discharge both its formal and implied obligations as a Member State. Our Parliament has passed legislation necessary for this purpose, including an appropriation of 20 million dollars for post-UNRRA international relief. We have also carried out our duty in implementing a resolution of the Assembly which was passed by a substantial majority and was in accord with the Charter, even though we opposed it unsuccessfully when it was introduced.
We do not, of course, feel that we are entitled to any particular credit for the discharge of obligations which we have undertaken by signing the Charter of the United Nations. I hope that we, and all the other Members of the Organization, take these obligations seriously. The proof of this, however, in our case, and in the case of other Members, will be found in deeds, not words. So nothing more need be said on that point.
Canada also believed that in signing the Charter, together with all other Member States, it accepted an obligation to reconcile views and policies concerning national welfare with those concerning the needs of mankind as a whole. In the light of recent developments, it is perhaps not superfluous to reassert this obligation. It is a mandate to guide ourselves by the principle that in the long run each nation can benefit most from those measures which benefit all nations. It is a commitment constantly to scrutinize our domestic and foreign policies on the national level so that we may be certain of bringing them into harmony with the high purposes to which this Organization is dedicated.
My second purpose is to give you, in a few words, the view of my Government on the present position of our world Organization. There is a growing feeling in my country, as in other countries, that the United Nations, because of the experience of the Security Council, is not showing itself equal to the discharge of its primary task of promoting international confidence and ensuring national security. The Economic and Social Council is functioning fairly successfully. The specialized agencies are doing good work. But the Security Council, founded on what is called the unanimity of its permanent members, has done little to strengthen the hopes of those who saw in it the keystone of the structure of peace. It has done much to deepen the fears of those who felt that, with the veto, it could not operate effectively in an international atmosphere of fear and suspicion, where pride is often allowed to take precedence over peace, and power over reason.
This veto privilege, attacked and defended with equal vigour, if it continues to be abused, may well destroy the United Nations, because it will destroy confidence in the ability of the Security Council to act internationally, to act effectively, and to act in time. There is no point in deceiving ourselves. Our peoples cannot be expected to accept indefinitely and without alteration, voting procedures and practices which, in the name of unanimity, underline disunity, and which reduce agreement to a lowest common denominator of action that in practice often means inaction. For this reason, the Canadian delegation warmly supports the United States suggestions concerning voting procedure in the Security Council.
Our delegation also supports the United States proposal designed to extend the usefulness of the Assembly. We think that its acceptance would infuse new life and vigour into our whole Organization. While we are concentrating our attention on the vital role of the Security Council, it should not be forgotten that the Assembly, or a continuing committee of the Assembly, can do many of the things for which the Security Council was intended to take primary responsibility. It can discuss a dispute or situation at open meetings and at small private committee meetings. It can investigate by calling witnesses and by sending out commissions of inquiry. It can publish the findings of its committees as soon as the Security Council ceases to deal with a dispute or situation. The General Assembly can make recommendations and can send these recommendations to the Security Council or to the nations concerned, or to both. The Canadian delegation sees no reason, therefore, why these functions of the Assembly should not be put to greater use for the solution of problems when they are not being solved elsewhere.
The fact remains, however, that these problems must be solved, and that procedures and practices which obstruct such solutions must be changed. This can be done by the voluntary abandonment of these practices; by agreed conventions or understandings which will regulate them; or, if necessary, by amendments to the Charter. We hope that no member of the Security Council will flout clearly expressed world opinion by obstinately preventing change, and thus become responsible for prejudicing, and possibly destroying, the Organization which is now man’s greatest hope for the future.
Nations, in their search for peace and co-operation, will not and cannot accept indefinitely an unaltered council which was set up to ensure their security, and which, so many feel, has become frozen in futility and divided by dissension. If forced, they may seek greater safety in an association of democratic and peace-loving States willing to accept more specific international obligations in return for a greater measure of national security. Such associations, it has already been pointed out, if consistent with the principles and purposes of the Charter, can be formed within the United Nations.
It is to be hoped that such a development will not be necessary. If it is necessary, it will be most undesirable, If, however, it is made necessary, it will have to take place. Let us not forget that the provisions of the Charter arc a floor under, rather than a ceiling over, the responsibilities of Member States. If some prefer to go even below that floor, others need not be prevented from moving upwards. Two or more apartments in the structure of peace are undoubtedly less desirable than one family of nations dwelling together in amity, undivided by curtains or even more substantial pieces of political furniture. They arc, however, to be preferred to the alternative of wholly separate structures.
This, you may say, is defeatism of the worst kind. It is not. It is merely sober realism. It would be folly to deny that certain events of the last twelve months have weakened the position of our Organization. It would be folly not to admit that a continuation of this trend may cause it ultimately to collapse.
Our delegation, our Government, and the Canadian people are determined to do everything they can to prevent this tragic development. Our faith and hope still shine, though now through an overcast of anxiety. The work of this Assembly, to which we pledge our contribution, will, we trust, remove that anxiety, justify that faith, and heighten that hope.