As one who had the inestimable privilege of working alongside him for a considerable period of time, I desire to associate myself, my delegation and my country with the very moving tribute that was paid this morning to Fiorello La Guardia. He was a great man, a good man, a great American, and a distinguished citizen of the world in the truest sense of that term. The world is the poorer for his passing, and his memory will not die among the suffering peoples of Europe and other portions of this world.
This General Assembly meets in the shadow of grave and widespread disillusionment. There can be no doubt whatever — and it is clearly necessary that the Members of this Organization should recognize and appreciate this fact — that the activities of the United Nations up to this point have fallen short, far short, of the high hopes of mankind which were so abundantly evident when the Organization was established. This meeting may well prove to be a turning point in the development of this effort, the latest in a long series of efforts, to preserve the world from the horrors of armed conflict. Indeed, the future usefulness of this great and noble enterprise may depend upon the deliberations of this Assembly. Indeed, the fate of mankind may depend on them.
A high and onerous responsibility lies upon each and every representative. They must, soberly and earnestly, approach the difficulties which have beset the path of the United Nations — many of them created by the terms of the Charter upon which the great Powers insisted against the considered judgment of the great majority of the nations represented at San Francisco. They must approach these difficulties in the fervent trust that this great Organization, which carries with it the highest hopes of mankind, may, given time and honesty and patience, achieve the object for which it was established.
Having said this, it is obviously necessary to call to the attention of the Assembly that the record of the United Nations achievements is not entirely, or indeed primarily, a record of failure. Only one organ of the United Nations, the Security Council, has so far failed. There is much that is encouraging and much that is inspiring — and never let us forget those facts — in the success of other organs in the important work they are attempting and, indeed, in the results they have achieved.
This body, the General Assembly, has unquestionably strengthened its position. It has proved itself entirely worthy of the broad and fundamental tasks entrusted to it. It has shown itself competent to discuss the affairs of the world in an atmosphere of international co-operation. It has, indeed, become the town meeting pf the world. It does offer a forum for the expression of the views, the apprehensions, and the aspirations of all sections of mankind. It has asserted itself to be what, in fact, it is — the supreme organ of the United Nations.
Men of good will throughout the world can justly be confident that in this Assembly they have an organ of international, discussion and co-operation which is effective, and they may confidently be expected to continue so to think.
The Economic and Social Council is initiating widespread activities with a view to the betterment of conditions of human life throughout the world, and much may be expected from this great experiment in human relations, The Economic and Social Council may indeed prove, in the course of time, to be one of the most effective instruments that history has devised for laying the foundation for a free and generous life for all, irrespective of race, colour or creed, and for providing an equitable distribution of the good things of life which this world can so abundantly provide.
However, if it were necessary, and I believe it is, to sound one note of caution and of warning in this connexion, I would point out that care must be taken, in the throng and the press of desirable enterprises, to take first things first and not to undertake simultaneously more than can be dealt with successfully. There is, I believe, a serious risk that, by spreading activities too widely, we should be jeopardizing the ultimate success of all our work. There am both physical and financial limitations to what can be done at once. If too many international meetings, however important their object, are undertaken at one and the same time, it may well be found that the immediate costs, especially in dollars, may be prohibitive. It may well be found impossible to man adequately more than a certain number of concurrent international conferences, the proliferation of which has become such a marked feature of International life today. In other words, I submit it would be wise to establish an effective system of priority, while never losing sight of the desirability and the inevitability of dealing with secondary matters only when it is abundantly dear that their consideration is within the immediate resources of the United Nations.
Another organ of the United Nations which offers great promise of good and lasting achievement is the International Court of Justice. However, it is the view of the New Zealand Government that insufficient use has so far been made of this Court. As a conspicuous example, and only as an example, there have been from time to time a number of subjects discussed in this Assembly which have raked difficult questions of legal construction inducting some fundamental questions — some very fundamental questions — as to the effect of the Charter, My delegation feds, and feds strongly, that it would be proper and prudent for the Assembly to see to it that all doubts as to such legal aspects should be clarified without delay by reference to the International Court of Justice before any decision of substance is taken by the Assembly.
Another organ of the United Nations is the Trusteeship Council. It has made an inspiring beginning in its work. As a member of that body I can bear personal witness that the tone, the atmosphere, the earnestness, and the responsibility of the deliberations of this Council are of the very highest order. I have no doubt whatever that this Council will do great and lasting weak on behalf of the peoples of the Trust Territories and we supervise their steady and orderly progress towards self-government.
All these things are good and we must never forget them. All these things are extremely good, and they offer and will continue to offer high hopes to all right-thinking people. But they are not good enough.
Only when the world considers the activities of the Security Council does the record become one of substantial failure. But I must remind the representatives here that the Security Council is the very centre and arch of the structure of the United Nations; its primary purpose is — and it is stated in the Charter — the preservation and, if necessary, the enforcement of peace.
If the Organization that we have established for that purpose should fail in that purpose, then all its other activities must go for nought. Indeed, if the world cannot preserve peace, then nothing that has been attempted will be of any avail. If we cannot preserve the peace we shall witness the destruction of all that man has attempted to do for man’s good throughout the ages. We may indeed sec the end of civilization as we know it today. We may see the disintegration of mankind and, perhaps, of the world. If we do not solve that problem, we can in the long run solve no problem.
It is in this, the most vital, fundamental of all the objectives of the United Nations that the record, up to this point, has indeed been one of substantial failure. Why? Obviously, because of the veto. I have no intention, though I am sorely tempted, of repeating at this time what I said in this connexion from this rostrum at the last regular session of the General Assembly, though I wish to make it dear that I have not one word to retract, not one word to alter.
It is the duty of all right-thinking people to consider, and to consider with anxious and earnest care the situation in which we find ourselves today and its causes. I agreed once that what was achieved at San Francisco, inadequate as many of us believed and believe it to be, was in fact the best that could have been achieved at that time in the circumstances. It may well be that this, unhappily, may also prove to be the best that can be achieved now. I have no suggestions to make at present as to how to overcome the stultification which has arisen as the result of the provisions of the Charter prescribing the voting powers in the Security Council. In fact, it was at San Francisco, and it appears to be a fact now, that certain of the five great Powers and not only one of them — not only one of them — insisted and insist on their right of veto. They are dearly within their rights, if they choose to exercise them, in insisting upon maintaining the arrangements that were agreed to — agreed to because nothing better could be achieved at San Francisco.
But while the great Powers, or any of them, continue to insist upon their power of veto — and the General Assembly has already heard with deep appreciation the offer of one great Power to forego at least a portion of that right — there is little that can be done to better the unhappy position in which the Security Council finds itself today.
To the great Powers I say that in insisting upon the right of veto, and so long as they continue to insist upon it, they are rendering it completely impossible for the world to achieve its highest objective, namely, an effective system of collective security against war.
I must not be misunderstood. Clearly, no charter even in the most perfect form can, of itself, create an effective system of preventing war. That must depend in the final result upon the determination of all to do the right and unitedly to defeat the wrong. It is a matter of spirit. But the fact is true that the Charter as it operates at present does in effect prohibit any such possibility.
There can be no effective system of collective security while each of five great Powers retains the right of vetoing any action. The utmost the world can expect from an organization so afflicted is on the one hand a mechanism for suppressing small uprisings against the peace — for which purpose an organization such as this would of course be unnecessary if the only contingency upon which the United Nations can operate the Charter is that the five great Powers are in unanimous agreement — on the other hand, a means of discussing situations as they arise and of endeavouring by the use of reason and discussion to prevent the outbreak of conflict.
Such a means we certainly have — if not in the Security Council, then, at any rate, in this body. And those who believe that such limited measures are adequate to prevent war will no doubt consider them sufficient. But I assert that those who believe in the adequacy of words and words alone to prevent war are hiding their heads in the sand. They are flying in the face of history — and of recent history at that — history that has been and, God forbid, may again be. Indeed, let us not lose sight of the fact that those people were not among the authors of the Charter.
The Charter is based on the completely impregnable principle that we cannot permanently insure the peace of the world unless and until we are unitedly prepared to enforce it That is the principle upon which the Charter is built. The veto power is destructive of that principle. Again I say the great Powers cannot have their cake and eat it, too. They cannot retain their to follow their own course in all circumstances against the public conscience of mankind and at the same time expect the United Nations as established at the present time to be competent to enforce peace. The two propositions are mutually exclusive,
The great Powers or the small Powers cannot obtain insurance against war. Right-minded people the world over are thirsting for insurance against war. No Power, great or small, can obtain insurance against war without paying the inescapable premium. That premium is submission in the last resort to the combined judgment and conscience of the world, I will agree at once that the great Powers who played such a predominant part in winning the war must be allowed, indeed assisted and encouraged, to play a predominant part in winning the peace. There must be some means established of giving to those great Powers their proportionate voice in the great and age-long struggle of mankind.
But the veto, which is, and has proved itself to be, completely stultifying, is not the way. Many means of achieving this desirable objective have been suggested. A system of weighted voting, though difficult to devise, is not impossible, and it might be worthy of consideration. In the meantime a workable compromise might well consist of granting the veto power to any two, not any one, of the great Powers. My country would agree at once to eliminate the veto altogether for respect of matters of peaceful settlement of disputes. This would obviously be a most useful step forward.
It is necessary, in this connexion, to consider with the utmost care the very welcome suggestion to this effect made in the course of the debate by the representative of the United States. The New Zealand delegation most warmly welcomes this proposal, but it would unfortunately leave the veto in full operation in respect of matters of enforcement. This would fail to remove the principal check the veto exercises on action for the formation of an effective — and a fully effective — system of collective security.
Nevertheless, if that proposal could be realized, it would mark a magnificent step forward. All will recognize, of course, that if it is proposed to obtain this objective by means of an amendment to the Charter, then the crippling provision which was inserted at San Francisco requiring the ratification of all amendments by each of the five great Powers in effect, in unhappy effect, can exercise a veto on the elimination of the veto. An amendment to the effect suggested can obviously be obtained only if the five great Powers agree. And if, alternatively, it is proposed to obtain this end in accordance with the present terms of the Charter by means of a gentlemen’s agreement, then clearly such an agreement can be arrived at only if the gentlemen will agree and continue to agree.
Whatever difficulties are in the way of taking this great step forward, the fact that the United States has found it possible to make such a suggestion is of the greatest import to the world. The New Zealand delegation will support the proposal in every way it can. Of course, if, in a given case, the Security Council has found itself unable to fulfil its high functions, then it is clearly not only the right but the bounden duty of the Assembly to take that case under consideration.
What is the alternative? If, in a given case, for reasons good or bad, the Security Council is unable to settle a dispute or resolve a situation, is it suggested, and can it be suggested, that those Members of this Organization who do not hold seats on the Security Council — and they are the great majority of the Members of this body — are to stand by idly twiddling their thumbs? Nonsense.
A second proposal made by the representative of the United States might well prove of material assistance in this connexion. If the use of the veto is bad — and I assert that it is — the abuse is worse. That there has been such abuse seems unquestionably to be a fact. My country will gladly support any proposal which is calculated to eliminate or reduce the possibility of abuse of the veto power. And surely, surely no sensible person the world over can defend the contention that any one Member of the United Nations, however great, however powerful, should be able to veto the admission of a proposed new Member on grounds other than those specifically prescribed in the Charter.
Let no one imagine — let no one imagine — that the present situation can continue indefinitely. The United Nations must get better or it will get worse. What then can be done now? Obviously, having accepted the Charter as we all did, we must honestly operate it until we can improve it. We must make the best of what we have until we can make it better. We must nourish and sustain, pay for and pray for this Organization that we have established, whatever its defects. But at the same time — at the same time — we must patiently and consistently pay due and earnest regard to the weaknesses that exist today. We must endeavour, as best we can, to alter or remove those provisions of the Charter which have had such a stultifying effect. We must seize each opportunity as it arises, to improve both the constitution under which we operate and the practice and procedure that we have established.
The views of my small country on this matter have never altered. They were expressed by my Prime Minister at San Francisco. They have been expressed from time to time at the meetings of this great body, and they will continue to be expressed in the future. Realizing as we do, most fully and most regretfully, all the difficulties that must be faced and overcome before we can hope to achieve any mitigation of this crippling veto power, we shall nevertheless feel compelled to vote as we have voted in the past, with that moderation and understanding of the problems of others which is, I hope, characteristic of New Zealand. We shall support any proposal which tends toward the moderation or the elimination of the veto power, a privilege held by five of the fifty-five Members of the United Nations, which however necessary they may consider it for their own purposes, whatever their position in the world, is nevertheless, completely inconsistent with the establishment of that permanently effective system of collective security without which mankind can never be free from the nightmare of war.
There is little that the lesser Powers can do to solve this problem. The problem was created by the great Powers, and its solution lies with the great Powers and the great Powers alone. That problem, that issue, is squarely before them.