76. I want first to congratulate our President on his election, to wish him success and to express our goodwill and our support. I would want also to express our gratitude. to the retiring President, Mr. Manescu, the Foreign Minister of Romania, whose country I had the honour to visit recently. I believe that the way he handled our affairs earned the admiration of us all.
77. The President in his opening address to this Assembly reminded us that the United Nations is not a separate body with an existence of its own from its Members. If in what I have to say I use the words “United Nations", I shall try to keep in mind, as I think we ought all to do, that that is simply a way of saying “we ourselves acting in and through the United Nations". Its successes are our successes, and its failures are our failures. It is ourselves.
78. It is not possible at this Assembly to make a complacent speech, because we all know that we meet in an atmosphere of frustration, a frustration not confined to us but felt by citizens and peoples all over the world, a frustration which is in part the cause of the unrest we find among the younger generation in almost every country in the world.
79. We have therefore to ask ourselves certain fundamental questions. First of all, what is the United Nations for? What are we here for? First among its purposes, I suppose, is the prevention of armed conflict. And that means preventing it, not merely in the way in which a policeman may stop a brawl in the street, but going further than that and getting to the causes of conflict. The United Nations should not exclusively and does not mainly act as a policeman; it must also try to act as a conciliator. But beyond the task of preventing conflict and making it possible for people to live, there is the further task of making, life worth living. And that we endeavour to do in our social, our humanitarian and our economic activities.
80. If that is the answer to the question “What are we here for?”, we have to admit that we have had, so far, only very limited success. We can mark some successes, but we are conscious all the time of great problems where we have not fulfilled yet either of those purposes: either to make life safe or to make it worth living. So a further question we have to ask is: What are the conditions of successful action, what in fact do we have to do?
81. Now those are questions that face all of us, but they face with particular intensity those who are permanent members of the Security Council. For this Organization has to work on the assumption that its real effectiveness depends on a considerable measure of agreement among those permanent members. Do we do enough to make a systematic attempt to see that that agreement, necessary to the work of the United Nations, is forthcoming? The Secretary-General has addressed a letter to four of us which suggests ways in which we could get somewhat nearer to the answer to this problem. I believe that letter deserves from all those to whom it is addressed sympathetic and constructive attention, and that is the spirit in which our Government will approach it.
82. But the permanent members cannot have that degree of unity necessary to the success of this Organization unless there is a measure of confidence among them. And we must say straight away that that confidence, which many of us had hoped was growing, which we had some reason to believe was growing, has been sadly shaken by events in Czechoslovakia. For the conscience of the whole world was affronted by that invasion and an indignant world made its feelings plain here in the United Nations.
83. The representative who was at this rostrum before me took a rather different view. I ask him to notice that what I say now is not just some prejudice of the British representative; it expresses, as we know from proceedings in the Security Council, the overwhelming view of mankind — for the Security Council’s resolution would have been overwhelmingly adopted but for the Soviet veto.
84. We in Britain respect and admire the Government and people of Czechoslovakia in this tragic and testing time and we assure them of our sympathy and goodwill.
85. I said that hope had been growing of progress, progress in relations between States and progress in meeting some of the new challenges posed by scientific development and discoveries; say, in outer space or on the sea-bed. But this progress can best be founded on a wider respect for international law based on the principles of the Charter of the United Nations. It is here that the effect of what happened in Czechoslovakia is most disturbing. It is clear from the Charter that Members of the United Nations are required to oppose aggression; to promote respect for human rights and fundamental freedoms; to recognize the sovereign equality of all Member States; to refrain from the threat or use of force against the territorial integrity or political independence of any State.
86. Those words are familiar to us all because they come from the first two Articles of the Charter. But almost equally familiar are repeated protestations of the representatives of the Soviet Union, and of Bulgaria, Hungary and Poland, of their devotion to these objectives. Let me quote one example. In his speech to the Assembly on 23 September 1966, the Foreign Minister of the Soviet Union, Mr, Gromyko, said:
“Acts of interference in the domestic affairs of independent States, wherever they are committed, are a threat to peace and to the security of all peoples...
“The Soviet Union, a firm adherent of the principle of non-interference ... vigorously opposes those who disregard the sovereign rights of peoples and seek to implant lawlessness... in international relations,” [1413th meeting, paras. 125 and 126.]
87. Now, I should like to ask, how can this be reconciled with some other words used by the Foreign Minister of the Soviet Union in this Assembly on 3 October 1968, and again I quote:
“The Soviet Union deems it necessary to proclaim from this rostrum... that the socialist States cannot and will not allow a situation where the vital interests of socialism are infringed upon and encroachments are made on the inviolability of the boundaries of the socialist commonwealth...” [1679th meeting, para. 78.]
88. Set those words side by side with what has been done in Czechoslovakia and we see that this doctrine of a so-called “socialist commonwealth” is an assertion that the Soviet Union will judge for itself what the interests of certain other States may be, and will, if it sees fit, take military action outside its own territory in accordance with its judgement of what the interests of other States may be. That is wholly repugnant to the Charter, Speaking as a socialist and representing a country which belongs to a real
Commonwealth, I reject both the doctrine and the perversion of language in which it was expressed.
89. However, the United Kingdom still earnestly seeks to develop understanding with. the nations of Eastern Europe, as with all others. We must hope that the Soviet Union and the other Governments concerned in the invasion will come to realize and to repair the harm they have done to the authority of international law and order. By far the most significant step they could take would be to withdraw their troops from Czechoslovakia. There is no external threat to Czechoslovakia and there never has been except from its allies in the East.
90. Despite this tragic setback to all our efforts to bring understanding between East and West, the United Kingdom Government remains convinced that this is the path — the continued search for détente — which we must still try to follow. We in the West have helped to arrest conflict in recent years through a collective defence organization which is within the terms of Article $1 of the Charter. This has preserved peace in Europe and the North Atlantic area for twenty years. But it is not enough to prevent conflict;
we must also work to relax tension and work for a lasting security, That is one of the reasons why the British Government has repeatedly made clear that we remain dedicated to the aim of closer integration in Western Europe. However, this movement towards closer integration in Western Europe — although it has the support of almost all the Governments and the great majority of the peoples of Western Europe — has so far been frustrated. We all know why, and we deplore the fact.
91. Meanwhile the people of Germany remain divided and unrepresented in the United Nations, and the efforts of the Federal Republic to develop a new relationship with its neighbours in the East have been rebuffed and misrepresented. It is symptomatic of the bankruptcy of Soviet policy that Moscow should have embarked on the clumsy diversion of threatening West Germany with articles of the United Nations Charter framed in completely different circumstances. I wish to say one other thing on Germany. I repeat here once again the solemn commitments undertaken by the British Government with its allies to uphold the security of the Federal Republic and of West Berlin.
92. Now I have said that about Czechoslovakia and its effects upon the European scene. But, even now, there is some work that it is possible to do to try to recreate confidence and that can be done particularly in the field of disarmament. Here I would say that I welcome the emphasis given to disarmament by many speakers, including the speaker for the Soviet Union and the speaker for the Ukraine who preceded me here. The signing of the
non-proliferation treaty was an important step forward, but it is a step that will rapidly lose its value if it is not followed by further measures in the disarmament field.
93. Our aim is general and complete disarmament. We know by experience that if we are to get there we have to seize hold, one after another, of the steps to disarmament that can practically be taken now. It was because we approached the problem in that way that we obtained agreement on a draft and got the Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons [see resolution 2373(XXII)] signed. Where do we go next? My own country has put forward proposals at Geneva for making the test ban treaty comprehensive. There have been difficulties in this. We have put forward a proposal which we believe finds a way through those difficulties. We have also put forward proposals with regard to chemical and biological warfare. My country is in a position to claim that a substantial number of the ideas now before the eighteen nations in Geneva have been brought forward by the British Government.
94. If, then, we can get as far as the withdrawal of troops from Czechoslovakia and if we can proceed to make workmanlike progress on disarmament, we can still promote that confidence which is needed if there is to be some measure of agreement between the permanent members and if in consequence the United Nations is to be able to get on with its work. I said that its work was in the first place concerned with preventing conflict. I want to look at some particular problems, to try to chalk up where we have been successful and where we have not and see whether we can draw from that some conclusion concerning what the conditions of success are and how, therefore, we ought to approach our problems in the future.
95. To take a first example, I believe one could say, on the question of Cyprus, that, although it still remains unsolved, the United Nations is entitled to feel that it has made real progress and that it is not foolish or over-optimistic to hope for real settlement. We have got that far partly because there was an efficient United Nations force to help in the immediate task of keeping the peace. One of the lessons we must draw — a very homely one — is that, if we want to do our job properly, we have to have efficient administration. I would say this particularly applies in those circumstances,
limited in number but important, where it is desirable that a United Nations force be organized. Going beyond that — as I put it earlier, beyond the work of the policeman to the work of the conciliator — I think we have noticed with gratification the way in which the parties concerned have engaged in serious discussion of the dispute. By so doing, they have shown respect for the principles of the Charter and for the work of the United Nations, and I wish them success in those discussions. There are two conclusions to be drawn: if we want the United Nations to be successful, it has to be efficient administratively, and its Members have to mean what they say and they have to show respect for those parts of the Charter that require all nations to seek peaceful methods of solving disputes.
96. I turn next to the Middle East, where we cannot congratulate ourselves, at least not as much as we might be entitled to in the example of Cyprus. We have not got so far. Last year the United Nations was unable to keep the peace. Nor so far have we succeeded in creating the conditions of peace, and when many of us came to New York for this Assembly we were greatly concerned by the outlook. Without greater readiness of the parties to enter into substantial discussions on the basis of the unanimously approved resolution, there seemed no hope of avoiding a further drift to disaster. Dr. Jarring’s skill and persistence have earned the admiration of all, but no one would expect him to continue his efforts if there were not a new readiness on all sides to enable him to go forward. Dr. Jarring is in the position of a man asked to solve a jigsaw puzzle - a hard enough thing to do at any time; but if people do not give you the pieces of the puzzle to start on, it becomes harder still.
97. At this critical point, however, the means for a solution are available. The Security Council resolution deals with everything that must accompany a lasting settlement, and Dr. Jarring is still here to assist in working out how the resolution is to be put into effect.
98. There are so many complicated matters to be settled that it would be unrealistic to regard that resolution as self-implementing. But it would be equally unrealistic to be dogmatic about the way agreement should be hammered out, and unreasonable and dogmatic to preclude any one method of hammering out agreement.
99. The parties concerned have accepted the resolution. We understand that they are ready to continue to discuss with Dr. Jarring the means of carrying it out. It is recognized that all aspects of the resolution must be accepted and that there should be agreement on all of them and on the programme under which all of them will be put into effect. But in the work which will be necessary, I believe much emphasis must be laid on the problem of the refugees. I am glad to note that the Israel Government intends to introduce new measures to hasten the return to their homes of those who fled during the fighting last year. I very much hope those new measures will lead to the speedy return, before the rigours of the winter, of all those who wish to go back.
100. But the greater task is to help the large body of refugees who have suffered so tragically for the last twenty years; to give them again the opportunity to live in the dignity which should be the right of every human being. The task, in which Her Majesty’s Government will be ready to assist, will inevitably take long to complete. But I believe that if an early agreement could be reached about how this problem should be tackled, this could transform the atmosphere. We cannot see the end of the problem all at once. If we had the conviction that there was going to be a real beginning in solving it, that would transform the atmosphere and we should be in sight of that real, just and lasting peace that ail in the Middle East so urgently need. But there must be no more delay. I see no effective alternative to Dr. Jarring’s work. It is for the countries directly concerned to move from words to action, to lay proposals before Dr. Jarring and to seek, with him, to
bridge the differences between their proposals and to widen the area of the agreement. It is the duty of all Members of the United Nations to use whatever influence they possess, not as partisans of one side or the other, but as partisans of peace and in support of Dr. Jarring’s mission. In anything that the British Government has been able to contribute, this has been its consistent purpose.
101. I have spoken of Cyprus and of the Middle East. I turn now to the problem of Viet-Nam. Here we have to say that, not only has the United Nations made no progress in solving this problem, but, also, that all important discussion about it has been outside the framework of the United Nations. Eyes are turned now, if they look for hope, not here but to the talks in Paris.
102. I would say one word about the talks in Paris. Some months ago, the United States took action which removed something like 80 per cent of the territory of North Viet-Nam from the dread of attack and war. I should have thought it reasonable that the Government in Hanoi should be prepared to take at least some measure to reduce the scale of the war. And — whatever may be thought of the rest of the dispute — if anyone says in these circumstances that he thinks the Government of Hanoi is entitled to continue the war with unabated ferocity, I cannot see how he can claim that he really wants peace in the matter.
103. But why is our attention turned to Paris and not here, in the matter of Viet-Nam? Why has the United Nations not been able to handle it? One reason, certainly, is that the People’s Republic of China is not represented in this Organization. From this I draw another conclusion as to the conditions for the success of our work: that we must seek to be a universal Organization, not excluding particular States or Governments, provided they are genuine States, on the ground that we do not happen to like their régimes.
104. I move from that problem to one which goes to the heart of the United Nations Charter and which, I believe, very many of us here have been following with acute interest in the last week. I refer to Rhodesia, and I want to say this. The talks which took place in Gibraltar between the Prime Minister and the leaders of the illegal régime have ended — I regret to say that they have ended — because of fundamental disagreements on major issues. A wide gulf between the two positions remains. But I am sure it was right that this attempt should have been made at the highest level in order to discover whether a settlement could be achieved. We should not have wanted this dispute to continue merely because the British Government had not made every reasonable effort to get a settlement, but throughout the talks Mr.Wilson made it plain that a settlement would have to be a settlement on the basis of the six principles which were, and are, the basis of our policy. In the absence of such a settlement, it is important that all of us here should continue resolutely with our policy, with the ‘mandatory sanctions on which we are agreed. When a settlement which the world can accept is reached, it will be that policy which has played a great part in reaching it. In the absence of a settlement, we must continue that policy.
105. And why have we an agreed policy? Not because everybody, when we first began to discuss this problem, had exactly the same view as to the best way of dealing with it, but because we were all prepared to work out the highest common factor of agreement and concentrate on getting ahead with that. I draw from that yet a further conclusion as to one of the requirements for success in the United Nations. That is to say, we must have a practical appreciation of what can be done and what cannot. We do not always remember that. We sometimes pass resolutions which quite frankly not only are of no effect in themselves, but can be dangerous to the United Nations because of their obvious impracticability — and they devalue the currency of United Nations action.
106. I am thinking, for example, of resolutions which call on us to do things that we know quite well are beyond the capacity of this Organization — such was the resolution on South West Africa — or resolutions which are in conflict with things clearly laid down in the Charter. I refer there to the resolution on Gibraltar which conflicted, in my judgement and in that of many, with the requirement in the Charter that when you are dealing with colonial or former colonial questions. the interests of the inhabitants should be paramount. We want to avoid, I think, resolutions of that kind. Not only do they not tell the world anything useful, but they damage the credibility of the United Nations. As a British Judge once said about a wildly unlikely statement by a witness: “This is like the thirteenth stroke of a clock that is out of order. It is not only incredible in itself but it discredits all previous utterances.”
107. I have spoken so far of present and past problems. But we are beginning to notice that we ought to try and seize certain problems by the forelock when they begin to appear on the world horizon. That is why it is good that we are already beginning to consider the problem of the uses of the sea-bed. There is similarly the initiative of Sweden that we ought to consider the effects of modern industrial civilization on human environment. For all any of us know, in ten years’ time, the question of the use of the sea-bed might have grown to be one of the major questions affecting either human prosperity or human security. If we do not get on with our consultations on it now, we might find that a situation had arisen when the problem had assumed great importance and when because of that, country after country in the world had already taken up fixed positions as to how it should be handled and had got vested interests in solving it one way rather than another. Once that happened, it would be very difficult to get a solution. It is important, therefore, that these problems should be seized as quickly as possible, and I am glad to see that we are doing that. I think that shows that another condition for the success of the United Nations is that it should exercise foresight.
108. I said that our job was not only to prevent conflict but to make life worth living. I think it is important for me to stress that. I have the good fortune to live in one of the richer countries of the world, a country free from internal strife, a country which, if the peace of the world is kept, can look forward to a rising standard of life year after year. It is quite easy therefore for me to say that I believe in peace, order and stability. But what about large sections of the human race to which at present peace means the continuation of poverty, the continuation of oppression, the continuation of injustice? The virtues of peace and stability will not be quite so obvious to them. If we want men to love peace, we shall want to make sure that peace means something more to them than the continuation of poverty, oppression and discrimination.
109. We try to tackle that. We try to tackle it in the field of human rights. Article 56 of the Charter makes it clear that no country can say that the human rights of its citizens are an exclusively domestic matter. A country that denies its citizens the basic human rights is by virtue of Article 56 in breach of an international obligation.
110. Human rights are many and widespread. If we set to work, I do not doubt that we could all of us point out to each other ways in which our neighbours fell short of a full realization of human rights. But it probably would be more profitable if instead of reproaching each other we asked, ourselves each one of us, the question: Is my own country doing enough to establish human rights?
111. Weil, in the United Kingdom we are trying to do so. We have enacted recently, for the first time in our history, an Act dealing with relations between people of different races in the United Kingdom. In order to establish further our regard for the whole principle of international law we shall, at the beginning of next year, withdraw most of our reservations to the jurisdiction of the International Court of Justice.
112. I sometimes think some of our discussions on human rights are spoilt by the vice of partiality, a tendency sometimes for one country to attack another for breach of human rights, without having asked itself first sufficiently what the state of affairs is in its own country. Another condition, therefore, for the success of our work is that fairness of judgement that causes a man or a nation to apply the same standards of conduct to himself as he requires of other people.
113. Further in the field of trying to make life worth living, there is relief and humanitarian work. And here we think particularly of the tragic events in Nigeria. We have the Secretary-General’s report on the work our Organization and other international organizations are doing there. My country has contributed and will contribute to that work. We have had from Mr. Arikpo the assurance of the Nigerian Government’s desire to co-operate with internationally-organized relief work. The international community, therefore must, in co-operation with Nigeria, continue this work until the need for it is at an end.
114. Among other things needed to make life worth living is to get on with the economic side of our work. For many millions the personal problems of poverty and hunger are of much greater urgency than the political problems which I have described. You have reminded us, Mr. President, that economic and social work is 85 per cent of our efforts. This is as it should be. Britain is trying to do, within its financial limitations, all it can to contribute to this work. We have increased our contribution to UNICEF; we have contributed to the Secretary-General’s Trust Fund for Population; and I am glad to say that within its existing aid ceiling the United Kingdom Government will increase its contribution to the United Nations Development Programme in 1969 by rather more than $1 million.
115. But, of course, a further cause of frustration is the slow progress in bridging the gap between the developed and developing nations of the world; and we have not yet been able to get the results through the United Nations Conference on Trade and Development that we had hoped to get. But the second session of UNCTAD did mark some useful achievements, and brought into focus the practical possibilities in the years ahead.
116. There is an increasing awareness everywhere that development is the concern of all countries—developing and developed alike — a complex joint enterprise calling for the closest co-operation of all in the patient search for agreement on what the Secretary-General of UNCTAD has called “convergent action".
117. My conclusion, therefore, is that if we are to escape from the frustration that now surrounds us and carry out the purposes for which we are supposed to be here, we must have ;regard to the universality of membership, to respect for the Charter, to efficiency of administration, to a sensible concern with what is practical, and concentration of our efforts on that; to the exercise of foresight and to the exercise of fair judgement. And we had better hurry up: every year the scientists produce some new device or idea which is either pregnant with promise of greater prosperity for mankind, or pregnant with the threat of more appalling disaster. Every year, therefore, the prize for success in our work in the United Nations is enlarged; and every year, the penalty for failure — failure to keep the peace — becomes more terrible. It is at that crisis of human affairs that we now stand.