19. It is my honour and pleasure to convey to my fellow representatives the cordial greetings of the President of the United States, and his best wishes for the success of this twenty-third session of the General Assembly of the United Nations.
20. And to you, Mr. President, | am happy to extend, on President Johnson’s behalf as well as that of my delegation, hearty congratulations on your election to the Presidency of the General Assembly, an office for which you are exceptionally qualified by your outstanding record in international diplomacy. We are happy to have your guidance in our deliberations in the cause of peace.
21. These deliberations will not be easy. For the General Assembly has for many years borne a significant share of that transcendent duty imposed by the peoples of the world upon the United Nations: the duty “to save succeeding generations from the scourge of war.” And, as we meet today, our world in too many places is still painfully afflicted by war, by the wrongs and quarrels that can endanger peace, and by the lawless use of armed force among nations.
22. In the heart of Europe, armies of the Soviet Union and certain of its Warsaw Pact partners have invaded and occupied their own ally, Czechoslovakia, an independent State which threatened nobody. This act has sent a Shock-wave of indignation and apprehension around the world and has shaken hopes for better East-West relations.
23. In South-East Asia, the tragic struggle in South Viet-Nam continues in full fury and still engages the anxious attention of the world, while, in the Paris talks, my Government still presses for a constructive North Viet-Namese response to our proposals for peace.
24. In the Middle East, the cease-fire of 1967 is in serious jeopardy; the chasm between the parties remains wide; and the hope for a just and lasting peace hangs in precarious balance.
25. All these distressing and explosive issues are sure to be discussed in this world assembly of nations. Indeed, the Assembly’s concerns inevitably include the greatest troubles and greatest needs of the world community. They include the suffering in Nigeria, where, despite dedicated efforts within Africa and elsewhere, civil conflict continues to bring death by war and starvation to uncounted thousands. They include the manifold problems of southern Africa, where, in defiance of the United Nations, ruling minorities still unlawfully suppress the rights of the African population. They include the Korean people’s twenty-year search for peace and unity in freedom—a search still blocked by North Korean lawlessness. They include the perennial demand of Communist China to expel from the United Nations the Republic of China, a Charter Member, and to sit in its place.
26. Finally, the Assembly’s concerns include all of humanity’s pressing material and social needs.
27. Most recent among these concerns is the invasion of Czechoslovakia. Czechoslovakia today is an occupied country. Six weeks ago, in the middle of the night, suddenly and without warning, that small independent State was invaded by a massive army led by the Soviet Union. Thus a world which had begun to speak of a thaw in the cold war feels once again a chill of apprehension concerning Soviet purpose.
28. In recent months the new leaders of Czechoslovakia had set out, within the communist régime, to conduct their country’s internal affairs in accordance with new policies, more responsive to the needs and desires of the people of Czechoslovakia. The Soviet invasion was mounted in order to reverse these policies and to subject Czechoslovakia again to Moscow’s will.
29. Those are the facts, and they cannot be changed by anti-facts manufactured in Moscow. There was no attempt from the West to foment a counter-revolution. If there were signs of a desire for a little breath of freedom in Czechoslovakia, that desire arose not from any Western plot but simply from the nature of man. Nor was there an invitation or request from any Czechoslovak authority for armed forces of the Warsaw Pact to enter the country and render so-called “fraternal assistance”. I doubt that any-
body in this hall believes that there was such an invitation.
30. Yet today, six weeks later, despite repeated promises, the occupying forces remain in Czechoslovakia. We are told that the withdrawal of these forces will depend on the “normalization” of conditions in Czechoslovakia: evidently the Soviet Union will decide what constitutes “normalization”. Warnings appear in the Soviet media to get on with the job of reimposing censorship on the Press, radio and television of Czechoslovakia; to abolish this or that organization not congenial with Soviet ideas; and to get rid of this or that leader of whom Moscow disapproves. Despite Soviet assurances that their occupying forces would not intervene in internal matters, Soviet military commanders have forcibly occupied and closed certain newspapers; and that same “fraternal assistance” is now being furnished to ministries of the Czechoslovak Government.
31. These acts against Czechoslovakia, so repugnant in themselves and so dangerous to peace, have aroused the conscience of mankind. A large majority in the Security Council of the United Nations; the Governments of the great majority of the nations of the world; artists and intellectuals with a long record of friendship for the Soviet Union; even the leaders of some of the world’s largest communist parties—all have condemned the invasion and called on the invading Powers promptly to withdraw.
32. Twenty-three years ago, when the United Nations came into existence, it was hailed as the hope of the world. One main reason for that hope was the restraint which the Charter placed on the historical tendency of great Powers to abuse the rights of smaller States. This central restraint of the Charter has been brushed aside by the USSR. The United Nations has been told, in a singularly crude phrase, not to “stick its nose’’ into the affairs of any of its Members that happen to lie in Eastern Europe within reach of Soviet armies.
33. True, in recent years, especially in the 1960’s, signs slowly appeared that Moscow was beginning to permit its neighbours in Eastern Europe to enjoy some measure of independence. The idea of “different roads to socialism” became respectable in discussions between the Soviet Union and its Warsaw Pact allies. Even as late as 3 August, they joined in a communiqué at Bratislava declaring that co-operation among them would be based on “equality, respect for sovereignty and national independence, [and] territorial integrity”. Along with this trend were other developments equally hopeful for the cause of peace. These included notable agreements in the field of arms control, as well as a new willingness by the Soviet Union to allow its people a degree of contact with the outside world.
34. Now the subjugation of Czechoslovakia has raised doubt and discouragement about many a hopeful venture. President Johnson’s diligent efforts to build bridges of common interest and contact between East and West have been attacked and misrepresented. Policies initiated by the Federal Republic of Germany to improve its relations with Eastern Europe have likewise been condemned.
35. One might think that to devise a justification for such gross violations of the first principles of the Charter would be an impossible task. But last week this task was attempted in an article in Moscow’s most authoritative organ, Pravda. Therein we read that, contrary to the general impression, the foreign occupying armies in Czechoslovakia are actually “fighting for the principle of self-determination of the peoples of Czechoslovakia’. We read further that to condemn the invasion, as a violation of sovereignty and national self-determination betrays “an abstract and non-class approach” to the subject, because “in a class society there is not and there cannot be non-class laws”. And still further we read that “laws and legal norms are subjected to the laws of the class struggle ...’’.
36. Finally, in the same article, we read that “the sovereignty of each socialist country cannot be opposed to the interests of the world of socialism, of the world revolutionary movement”. And as if to make sure that this instruction from the largest communist country is fully understood by citizens of smaller communist countries, the writer adds this reminder: “Lenin demanded that all communists fight against small-nation narrow-mindedness”’.
37. Such are some highlights of this new contribution from Moscow to the discussion of international law—a contribution which does not once mention the Charter of the United Nations. In the light of recent events, this Assembly is entitled to know what the Soviet leaders mean by this doctrine of theirs. Does it mean that among the States allied with the Soviet Union the “non-class” laws of the United Nations Charter are mere abstract principles, subordinate to whatever Moscow determines to be the laws of the “class struggle’? Does it mean that the Charter’s laws of sovereign equality of States, and of national self-determination, are powerless to shield smaller States within the communist bloc from invasion and domination by the Soviet Union in the name of the “class struggle’’? Does it mean that the Charter’s law prohibiting the threat or use of force against other States will be dismissed as a mere “abstraction” whenever the Soviet Union finds it in conflict with the laws of the “class struggle’? Does it mean that the Soviet Union’s doctrine of “peaceful coexistence”’ does not apply to its own allies or those with the same social system? Finally: when will the Soviet Union, whose international relations are subject to the United Nations Charter, make good on its own repeated promise by removing its occupying forces from Czechoslovakia?
38. The nations of the world will look to the Soviet Union for answers to these questions, and for assurance that it is not seeking to place itself above the law of the Charter. Le us say very plainly and simply to the Soviet Union: the road to détente is the road of the Charter.
39. There are other problems affecting international peace in Europe. We have recently heard assertions by the Soviet Union that it has a right, based on certain language of the Charter, to intervene by force in the Federal Republic of Germany. Neither Article 107 nor Article 53 of the Charter, nor the two Articles together, gives the Soviet Union or other Warsaw Pact members any right to intervene by force unilaterally in the Federal Republic of Germany. Any such action would lead immediately to self-defence measures pursuant to the North Atlantic Treaty, a treaty whose validity under the United Nations Charter is unquestionable.
40. Recently there has also been a renewal of pressures on the freedom of West Berlin. The Western allies have borne for many years a common responsibility for the freedom of West Berlin. As the President of the United States has recently stated with unmistakable clarity, we who bear that responsibility will not tolerate the threat or use of force against West Berlin.
41. The United States and its allies have certain solemn defensive commitments in Europe which are known to the world and to the United Nations and which no law-abiding nation need fear. These include commitments to uphold the security of the Federal Republic of Germany and of West Berlin until the day comes when the German nation can be reunified in peace and freedom in a secure Europe. We shall be faithful to our commitments.
42. I turn now to the strife in South-East Asia, where our duty—and our fervent desire—is to seek an end to the violence with its tragic suffering and its risks of larger war.
We must do all we can to turn from war to the works of peace.
43. In Viet-Nam, the purposes of the United States and its allies are very simple. We want no permanent military bases in Viet-Nam. We are not trying to take over any part of Viet-Nam, nor do we threaten any legitimate interests of any nation in Asia. We want no American empire in Asia. What we do want is a political solution on honourable terms—a solution consistent with the safety and national existence of all of the smaller nations of South-East Asia. We want to ensure that the people of South Viet-Nam can
decide their own destiny free of force. We believe that the question of the reunification of Viet-Nam should be decided through free choice by the peoples of North and South Viet-Nam without outside interference. We want a settlement on the basis of the 1954 and 1962 Geneva Agreements.
44. These peaceful purposes continue to guide us. Let no one mistakenly suppose that military pressure or any other kind of pressure can make us abandon our commitment to help the Republic of Viet-Nam to defeat aggression from the North and to determine its own future. But, in carrying out that commitment, we shall pursue energetically the road to an honourable peace.
45. To this end, last March, President Johnson excluded from air and naval bombardment all of North Viet-Nam north of the twentieth parallel, an area containing 78 percent of the land and an estimated 90 per cent of the population of North Viet-Nam. He took this step despite the fact that even today not one square mile of South Viet-Nam is immune from attack. This major initiative led to the opening of negotiations in Paris last May.
46. In the Paris negotiations, the United States representatives have offered a number of specific proposals for de-escalation and a political settlement of the conflict. We have proposed that the demilitarized zone be restored. We have proposed that all parties comply fully with the Geneva Agreement of 1962 on Laos. We have proposed that all concerned respect the territorial integrity and neutrality of Cambodia.
47. We have stated our belief that all the South Viet-Namese people should be allowed to participate peacefully in their country’s future, and have reaffirmed our belief in self-determination on the basis of “one man, one vote”. We have restated our intention to withdraw our forces from Viet-Nam as the other side withdraws, as infiltration stops and the level of violence thus subsides. And we have proposed a number of ways in which the level of violence in Viet-Nam could be reduced and ultimately ended.
48. But Hanoi has rejected all these and many other proposals. We look to the representatives of North Viet-Nam to indicate how they propose that the fighting be scaled down. For our part, we are prepared to stop the bombing the minute we can be confident that this will lead towards peace. But it takes two sides to make peace. The will to peace in the United States—both among its leaders and its people—is deep and abiding. An honourable settlement is possible. What remains is for Hanoi to get down to
the serious business of making peace in Paris. It will find the United States receptive and willing to negotiate in good faith.
49. I turn now to the Middle East, which has suffered so much torment and tragedy in this generation.
50. More than fifteen months have passed since the six-day war of 1967 was halted by the United Nations cease-fire. The essentials of peace have not changed since then. They were succinctly stated in an address in Washington by the President of the United States on 19 June 1967 to the National Foreign Policy Conference for Educators in the course of which he said:
“Certainly, troops must be withdrawn, but there must also be recognized rights of national life, progress in solving the refugee problem, freedom of innocent maritime passage, limitation of the arms race and respect for political independence and territorial integrity.”
51. On 22 November 1967, in harmony with these objectives, the Security Council unanimously adopted resolution 242 (1967), by which it established realistic and equitable principles for a just and lasting peace, and asked the Secretary-General to appoint a Special Representative “to promote agreement and assist efforts to achieve a peaceful and accepted settlement in accordance with the provisions and principles in this resolution”.
52. I here reaffirm the complete support of the United States for the 22 November resolution in all its parts. We will do everything we can to help Ambassador Jarring and the parties to achieve its purposes.
53. Here, as in every conflict, the first prerequisite of progress is that the parties to the conflict summon the will to settle their differences by peaceful means. If such a will exists, the parties can free themselves from sterile arguments over procedure and begin to exchange views on the issues that divide them. In the flexible spirit of true negotiation, they can find ways to accommodate their respective claims. And, what is equally vital, they can make the necessary efforts, with the help of the United Nations machinery on the spot, to avoid further incidents of violence such as those which have come before the Security Council in recent weeks, which can all too easily pass beyond control and destroy the atmosphere for negotiation.
54. The inescapable fact is, as President Johnson recently put it:
“The process of peacemaking will not begin until the leaders of the Middle East begin exchanging views on the hard issues through some agreed procedure which could permit active discussions to be pursued.”’
Therefore I renew the President’s urging to the leaders in the Middle East to maintain and accelerate exchanges on the substance of peace.
55. Today a small but precious momentum towards peace appears to exist in the diplomacy of the Middle East. Ambassador Jarring and many Foreign Ministers are present here at this General Assembly. All of us should seize this opportunity to encourage the parties to move resolutely towards a settlement. Otherwise the danger is great that the area will slip back once more towards chaos and war.
56. Once again at this session the Assembly will conduct a wide-ranging discussion of the question of disarmament. Last spring, with high hopes, the General Assembly, in its resolution 2373(XXII), overwhelmingly commended the Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons. Its action reflected the belief, widely shared throughout the world, in the constructive effects this treaty could exert in the cause of peace: that nuclear weapons need never be used in war, that, if generally ratified, the treaty would
create a powerful barrier to the spread of nuclear weapons; that it would spur the peaceful use of nuclear energy, and that it would commit all signatories to negotiate in good faith for both nuclear and general disarmament. To bolster these hopes, the treaty was accompanied by important assurances to non-nuclear Powers of security against nuclear attack and nuclear threats. Already more than eighty States have signed the treaty, but still others must sign and ratify it if its purposes are to be fully achieved.
57. My Government is well aware of the blow recent events have dealt to international confidence. But progress in nuclear arms control, to which great-Power co-operation is particularly essential, is not a narrow interest of any one Power or group of Powers, great or small; it is an urgent and overriding interest of the human race in sheer survival. No matter what our differences, we all live on the same planet and we all have certain elemental human needs—one of the greatest of which is to be freed from the waste and danger of arms races, both nuclear and conventional, throughout the world.
58. We are prepared to continue to work for a number of arms control measures now pending in the Eighteen-Nation Disarmament Committee. We would be ready to explore the feasibility of a viable and effective agreement to prevent the emplacement of weapons of mass destruction on the ocean floor. My Government, for its part, maintains great interest in the major goals we have thus far pursued in the arms control field.
59, Let me now speak briefly of the other side of the coin of peace: the creative works of international co-operation for human benefit. There is only one family of Man, and all of us, regardless of race or creed or ideology, belong to it. All of us share the common needs of the human body and spirit. It is in ministering to those needs that the United Nations has written some of its brightest pages and has won new respect for multilateral agencies as instruments of progress.
60. The United States derives genuine satisfaction from the part we have been able to play in this United Nations work—in the creation and financing of the United Nations Development Programme; in the work of the major multilateral agencies for financing development, particularly the International Bank for Reconstruction and Development and the International Development Association; in the initiation of pioneering United Nations efforts in many new fields of human endeavour, notably those of the peaceful uses of nuclear energy, of outer space and of the deep sea-beds.
61. In the same spirit, the United States hopes, at this General Assembly, to work with our colleagues in writing still brighter pages in the record of human co-operation. We hope this Assembly will draw plans for co-operation in the development of the low-income nations that will profit by the lessons of the first United Nations Development Decade and lay foundations for better success in the second.
62. We hope ways will be found to lessen the dangerous imbalance between the world’s capacity to produce food and the world’s growing population. To that end mankind should take full advantage of the recent encouraging breakthroughs in the production of food, as well as of the rapidly increasing knowledge of ways to moderate sharp
rates of population growth.
63. We hope also to see this Assembly break important new ground in a field of growing importance to mankind: the preservation of man’s natural environment. The spread of modern industrial civilization is not an unmixed blessing. It has, to be sure, produced immense liberating effects in the reduction of human toil and the manufacture of products of great practical and aesthetic value for countless millions of people; and these things it will continue to do. But this same industrial process, unless we carefully control its side-effects, can also damage our environment in many respects, some of them known today and some only suspected. This danger is becoming a world-wide phenomenon, and the sooner the international community comes to grips with it the more future generations will be grateful to us. My Government will, therefore, enthusiastically support, at this session of the General Assembly, the initiative of Sweden to make the problems of the human environment a new and major concern of the community of nations.
64. In conclusion, I ask your indulgence for a brief personal word. It has been my privilege, in one capacity or another, to participate at two-thirds of the sessions of the General Assembly of the United Nations—beginning with Hunter College and Lake Success. With others of my generation, I have felt deeply that the paramount task for all mankind is “to save succeeding generations from the scourge of war’’. Many of us in this room have seen the scourge of war and want nothing more earnestly than the promise of a secure peace.
65. Perhaps the United Nations, as some have suggested, has fallen short of the high hopes that were entertained for it at its birth. But we can remember the revered statesmen who launched this Organization upon its course. We can recall major crises of desperate danger which we have overcome. We can recall major agreements which represent giant steps towards peace. We can take deep satisfaction from the historical process of decolonization which is reflected in the rise of our membership from 51 to 125. And we can be grateful for the dedicated service which the world has received from the representatives of this Organization as they have toiled tirelessly and patiently, often in danger and without thanks or praise, to bring reason to bear in the affairs of mankind. This Organization was not created to preside over an earthly paradise; it was created to enable frail human beings to find a way to resolve their disputes by peaceful means and to join hands in conquering their difficulties, animosities, problems and fears—all in fidelity to the Charter.
66. My fellow Americans are now engaged in a great democratic process, ordained by our Constitution, to determine who shall lead us in the next four years. But of one thing you can be sure: the American people will remain faithful in support of the United Nations, their purposes will continue to be the purposes and principles inscribed in the Charter, and they will remain ready to work in this Organization for the peace and prosperity of its Members and for dignity and justice for those we represent.