37. Mr. President, I should like to offer you my hearty congratulations on your election. It is good to see the representative of one of the oldest independent countries of Asia presiding over our debates. In particular, I am pleased to see someone of your profound experience in United Nations affairs in that seat of great responsibility. I should like to join others in paying my tribute to Foreign Minister Amintore Fanfani, for what my colleagues tell me was his wise, effective and courteous presidency of the previous session.
38. There is perhaps little I can add to the expressions of deep appreciation of the dedicated work of our Secretary-General. For our part, the British Government welcomes the decision of the Secretary-General to offer to remain in office until the end of this session. We add our heartfelt wish that, in spite of the great burden that this will impose upon him, U Thant will decide to continue in office. The United Nations needs him, and the world needs him.
39. In the British House of Commons a new member making his first speech asks for, and is accorded, special consideration. I now ask you for the same. This is my first appearance on the international stage as the Foreign Minister of my country and I approach the task with both humility and confidence: the humility, which any human being must feel in addressing this world Assembly, which it is my profound hope may one day become an effective part of a world Government; confidence, because I know that my country stands for and personifies the ideals of freedom of the individual and international co-operation, and as such has always offered and will continue to offer its whole-hearted are indeed passionate support for the ideals and practical work of this Organization.
40. I speak to you as a .socialist and hence as an internationalist. I have breathed, lived and worked for social democracy from my early youth and I have been inspired by the international ideals of my faith. The principles of freedom, of equality and the importance of the individual which lie at the base of our philosophy of democratic socialism are not circumscribed by national boundaries. They are not limited in their application to certain places or countries or races. They apply universally throughout the world. Thus, I deem it a great honour, as a culmination of all that I have worked for, to be able to address you today and to be able to play some part on this world stage in bringing about the ideals which have meant so much to me for so long. I. do this without illusions, and without over-estimation of what the United Nations can achieve, but I should like to proclaim the faith of my country and myself in the United Nations and all that it stands for, and our determination to work in the most practical way for the fulfilment of its aims and its ideals.
41. I have read, as you too will have done, the Secretary- General’s annual report [A/6301]. He is acting as the keeper of our conscience, recalling us to our duty and pointing out the tasks ahead. The report he makes is a disturbing one, but I believe he was right to make it. No one can honestly challenge the correctness of his diagnosis.
42. For my part I approach the United Nations in a mood of constructive discontent. The Secretary-General and I fairly clearly have been thinking along the same lines.
43. We today face problems of appalling gravity, but it would be strange if it were otherwise. For the United Nations is seldom called upon to intervene before a situation has proved to be beyond the resources of conventional diplomacy and beyond the wit of national statesmen. Had an effective United Nations existed in the past, it might have avoided many senseless conflicts and the insane massacres of two world wars. War has never been and never will be a solution; there are no victors in war. But no one of us seems ready yet to accept the logical consequences of this. For what do we see around us? The deep tragedy of the war in Viet-Nam; less publicized battles in Africa and Asia; tyrannies based on race, ideology or sheer lust for power, which deny the most basic human freedoms and the whole concept of the United Nations Charter. The pitifully slow progress towards peace-making and peacekeeping; the failure of the nations of the world to disarm; the contamination of underground tests and whole areas of the Pacific Ocean blanketed off for experiments with rockets and bombs; and, perhaps in its way most terrifying of all, the grinding and degrading misery of poverty, hunger, disease and ignorance. I was recently given a statistic, which I pass on to you, showing that there are about 250 million children of school age in the world today who get no education at all.
44. All this — and I do not mince my words — is to the shame of the human race. I know that had it not been for the infant United Nations, conflicts that have been contained would have spread with unforeseeable consequences; and the consciences of the more fortunate nations and peoples of the world might never have been awakened to their duty towards the whole of mankind. We have at least diagnosed the disease. We have even cured some of its serious symptoms, but we are still at the beginning of the beginning and we must recognize that brutal fact.
45. Even though the concept “United Nations” has a certain mystique, a certain intangible supra-national moral strength, and is the symbol of a great hope for a better future, it remains an Assembly of nation States. All those States pursue what they consider to be in their individual national interest. It would perhaps be vain to expect anything else at this stage. But there has so far been little or no inclination on the part of Member States to recognize that their national interest, indeed their greatest national interest, is in fact the strengthening of this Organization. Many are still prepared to act in pursuit of what they consider to be their- immediate aims. They do not even seem to mind if that leads to a weakening of this Organization. But the United Nations is vital to all of us. Without it we shall all go under. Thus its strengthening must be the supreme national interest, and the realization of this in a small way would be the beginning of wisdom for all Member States and could bring about a wondrous change in the prospects for world peace,
46. That change could be immediately effective in the peace-keeping and peace-making capability of the Organization. I greatly regret that the Special Committee on Peace-keeping Operations has failed to reach any conclusions concerning the organization and authorization of peace-keeping operations in the future. Here we are not doing our job. We hare failed to provide the sinews of peace. There is clearly a fundamental difference of view between Member States on this question; between those, among whom my country is proud to stand, who see an essential task of tire United Nations as “keeping the peace” and are determined to get on with this, come what may, and those, on the other hand, who seem to wish that the United Nations should remain carefully circumscribed in its vital peace-keeping role. Clearly those differences of view cannot be quickly or easily removed. That is a fact of life, regrettable but true. The Secretary-General has reminded us that this present situation has the most serious implications for the United Nations and for its effectiveness as an instrument for peace in the world. It is indeed a near miracle that the Organization has been able to carry out a number of peace-keeping operations as effectively as it has. These have all been organized and financed on an entirely ad hoc basis which has placed a great burden on the Secretary-General and on those few who have contributed to the successful carrying out of the operations. While I share the Secretary-General’s faith that the United Nations would in fact never find itself totally unable to respond to a need for peace-keeping, I also agree with his view that it might respond only haltingly and hesitatingly when matters had reached a grave and advanced state of crisis.
47. I submit that this is a situation that we cannot allow to continue. I have noted the wise words of Mr. Paul Martin [1413th meeting] and the suggestions he has made. Would it not be simple common sense and prudence to concentrate in tire first place on giving the Organization an effective peace-keeping capability and take the necessary steps to that end? What is required? First, that Governments must earmark contingents; second, that a common military doctrine is required so that the earmarked forces can work together; third, a planning organization here in New York at the centre; fourth, more countries coming forward with voluntary financial contributions. I would earnestly ask those who oppose those steps to take another long hard searching look at the problem. For our part we shall continue to do all that we can to try to ensure that the United Nations really can keep the peace and be ready to meet the crises before they are about to overwhelm us.
48. Just as important as peace-keeping is peace-making — that is, the settlement of disputes before they reach the stage of armed conflict, or the removal of the cause of conflict once it has broken out. This Organization has some achievements to its credit, but not enough. We want to Find out why. It remains our conviction that a great deal more work needs to be done. We shall need to take a new and thorough look over a broad horizon at all possible means of making peace. Last year we made a proposal for a step forward. It remains on the agenda today. I ask you to look carefully at it, to banish your unjustified fears and suspicions and to take steps in accordance with the Charter which will fortify, in all our interests, the long-term strength of the United Nations and enable us to build the peace.
49. I feel, too, with the deepest conviction that all the peoples of the world should be represented here. This is not a club solely for those who think alike. This is a place where all should meet, mix and exchange their ideas and bring them ultimately to some kind of harmony and agreement, I recognize that universality of membership may slow the pace of progress, but the progress will be surer, the foundations of peace will be firmer, if all the nations of the world are represented here. I welcome most heartily the return of Indonesia. One hundred million gifted people, commanding great natural resources, should not lie outside our membership. Equally, a way must be found, and found urgently, in my view, to seat the representative of the People’s Republic of China so that the voice of 700 million Chinese may be heard in our counsels. There are, of course, other absentees who cannot be amongst us. As a European, I regret that a reunited Germany cannot yet add its political and economic strength to our Organization.
50. Having said that, may I turn for a moment to the economic and social aspects of our work. Having just ceased to be Minister of Economic Affairs in my own country, I clearly take a particular interest in the economic role of the United Nations.
51. We in the United Kingdom recognize that we have a moral responsibility, shared with other industrial countries, to help the new nations. We recognize also that it is in our own material interest to do so. We want their standards of living to rise and their trade to expand, because that will stimulate world prosperity, and also because we cannot accept or tolerate poverty in large areas of the world side by side with affluence in others, If we want to avoid the worst of all conflicts, the conflict between the haves and the have-nots — a conflict which would inevitably also be racial — we must make it possible for aid to be received with dignity and to be given without patronage. But we also have to find the means from which such aid can be given. Frankly, at the present time, our own economic situation does not permit us to do as much as we should like. But, in July, Her Majesty’s Government took drastic measures to restore our economy. These measures are already having good effect. Our capacity to assist developing countries in the future must depend on the strength of our recovery. Our record to date has been a good one, and we shall make every effort to maintain the present level of our contributions to multilateral aid programmes. It is our determination that, at the proper time, we shall increase our assistance to developing countries.
52. I am strongly in favour of multilateral aid, The extent to which aid is channelled through the United Nations and associated organizations will depend partly on the degree of confidence which their staffs can create amongst donor countries. The taxpayer who provides the money is entitled to be satisfied that that money is well spent. Public support from democratic countries will depend on this. I thought that on this point there was much that was positive and encouraging in the Secretary-General’s report. The recommendations of the Committee of Fourteen [A/6343] wisely set up at the initiative of the French Government, can help further, and we hope to see them put into effect.
53. This is not the time for me to attempt to cover the whole field of international endeavour in the economic and social field. But so important is that endeavour that there are some main principles and purposes to which I should like to give special emphasis.
54. I pay tribute to the effective work done and to be done by the Economic and Social Council and the Department of Economic and Social Affairs of the Secretariat.
55. We support and we have made our contribution to the new United Nations enterprise now to be launched in the field of industrialization.
56. We trust that the United Nations Conference on Trade and Development (UNCTAD) can play a progressively constructive role in the whole field of trade and aid and development, and we shall play our full part in the UNCTAD Conference in New Delhi next year. In particular, we hope that progress will be possible in working out proposals for supplementary financial measures which the United Kingdom joined in putting forward at the 1964 Conference, and in international commodity agreements leading both to an increase in consumption and a rise in living standards.
57. We wish too to see more vigorous action in the field of human rights. We have a duty to complete the long-awaited draft convenants of human rights. Most of all we welcome and support the United Nations fight against the evil of racial discrimination. A vital advance in this fight was the adoption by the General Assembly last year of the International Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Racial Discrimination [resolution 2106 A (XX)]. I am glad to have the privilege of being able to say from this rostrum that the British Government warmly welcomes this Convention and will be signing it today.
58. In his annual report [A/6301], the Secretary-General rightly speaks of colonialism and points a finger at the colonial Powers. I share his views; I share his impatience. All my political life I have fought, against colonialism, and I am proud of the part that we have played in the peaceful transition from dependence to independence and from Empire to Commonwealth. I hope that no one will try to reverse this process, and that there will be no “neo-colonialism” or interference with hard-won independence. For its part, the British Government is guided and will continue to be guided by the principle that the interests of the inhabitants of the territories for which it still has responsibility are paramount. Britain stands ready to give independence to territories that want it and can sustain it. But certain problems of decolonization remain. It is inevitable that these are some of the most difficult. They cannot be settled by a mixture of theory and enthusiasm. They are practical problems which need practical solutions. We are happy to have your help, provided it is offered impartially in the true interest of the people concerned. Judge the problems impartially and objectively. It may be thought in some sectors that because our approach is liberal and humanitarian we can be forced into hasty and partisan solutions. That is not so. Our objective is clear, and we intend to reach it in an orderly and fair-minded way. Let this indeed be, as our President asked, the “Assembly of Reason”.
59. I should like to go on from that to say a word about South Arabia. We have undertaken that South Arabia will become totally independent by 1968. If it is then to go forward into independence in a united and viable condition, fortified by international goodwill, it is essential that, in the meantime, the present dissensions should be ended and that its peoples should be brought to agree upon the ways in which they can peaceably settle amongst themselves the shape of their own future. It is, I believe, within the power of the United Nations to make a decisive contribution to the achievement of these aims.
60. Early this year we announced that we would be withdrawing our military base in Aden at the same time as South Arabia became independent. More recently we have announced our acceptance of the 1963 and 1965 General Assembly resolutions on Aden [resolutions 1949 (XVIII) and 2023 (XX) - which, inter alia, called for our withdrawal from the base -and we have told the Secretary-General that we shall be glad to co-operate with a special mission from the United Nations to recommend practical steps for the full implementation of those resolutions. We hope it will soon be possible for the Secretary-General to find the right men to serve on this mission and that the mission’s work will help not only to produce constructive results as South Arabia moves to independence but also to bring about a fuller understanding in the United Nations as a whole of the true state of affairs in that area of the Arabian Peninsula.
61. It would, I think, be natural for me to turn now to the question of Rhodesia. In our view, the meeting of Commonwealth leaders in London in September was of cardinal importance. We were united in reaffirming our determination to bring the rebellion to an end. We were united on the fundamental principles of non-discrimination between the races and the building of a just society based on equality for all.
62. The British Government made clear that the illegal regime must be replaced by a broadly based and representative legal government appointed by the Governor. That legal government would administer the country on an interim basis and would negotiate with the British Government a constitutional settlement directed to achieving the objective of majority rule on the basis of the six declared principles. That settlement would then be submitted for acceptance to the people of Rhodesia as a whole by appropriate democratic means. This test of opinion must be fair and free; and I must make it crystal clear that the British Government will not consent to independence before majority rule unless the people of Rhodesia as a whole are shown to be in favour of it. Meanwhile there must be freedom of expression. Political detainees must be released, and normal political activities permitted, provided that they are conducted peacefully and democratically without intimidation from any quarter. Meanwhile, too, the armed forces and the police would be responsible to the Governor.
63. The purpose of the recent visit which my colleagues, the Commonwealth Secretary and the Attorney-General, paid to Salisbury was to make those decisions known to all in Rhodesia.
64. My colleagues also made clear that, unless the illegal regime in Rhodesia was prepared to take the initial and indispensable steps whereby the rebellion would be brought to an end and executive authority vested in the Governor, certain related consequences would ensue. Given the full support or the Commonwealth representatives at the United Nations, the British Government would be prepared to join in sponsoring in the Security Council before the end of this year a resolution providing for effective and selective mandatory economic sanctions against Rhodesia, would withdraw all previous proposals for a constitutional settlement and, in particular, would not be prepared to submit to the British Parliament any settlement which involved independence before majority rule. One thing is quite clear. Britain and the Commonwealth are together determined to see this issue resolved on a basis which is both just and honourable to all. But time is running out.
65. In the same way, we seek such a solution for South West Africa. The debate on this issue is now proceeding in this Assembly. We are following it closely and will be ready in the course of it, very soon now, to make known our position.
66. I now come to the issue which troubles us all very much: Viet-Nam. Her Majesty’s Government has watched the deepening conflict in Viet-Nam with the utmost concern. In my own case, as in the case of Mr. Gromyko, there is a further reason for personal concern in that we are the two Co-Chairmen of the 1954 Geneva Conference, which was meant to resolve the problems of Indo-China twelve years ago.
67. Let me try to set out clearly the essence of my Government’s policy on Viet-Nam, which I put before my party at Brighton last week and was there so overwhelmingly endorsed. There seems to me to be one fundamental and inescapable fact. There cannot be, nor should there be, a military solution to this conflict. We believe that the only feasible solution is a political settlement reached through negotiations. It is to this aim that I should now like to address myself for a few moments.
68. I do not want to delay you by going back over past history or into allegations and counter-allegations. But, all the same, let us not delude ourselves. Hanoi has in fact blocked the way to progress through negotiations and a political settlement. President Johnson recently announced in Detroit his willingness to accept a time-table for withdrawal from South Viet-Nam if North Viet-Nam would do the same. So far I know of no response. Now again, at this twenty-first session of the Assembly, Mr. Goldberg [1412th meeting] has announced the willingness of the United States Government to stop all bombing of North Viet-Nam the moment it received any assurance that the cessation would be met by a prompt reciprocal act of de-escalation from the other side. He also raised again the possibility of a time-table for a supervised phased withdrawal of all external forces from South Viet-Nam. So far we have looked in vain for a response. But, even so, I am convinced there is now common ground in the 1954 Geneva Agreements which both the North Viet-Namese and the United States have said can be a basis for a settlement. This being so, I repeat to Mr. Gromyko from this world rostrum the invitation which I made to him from the Labour Party Conference in Brighton. I invite him to join with me in reconvening the Geneva Conference and I should be glad if he were able to do so today.
69. Bearing in mind the Geneva Agreements, I believe that a settlement should be possible along the following lines:
(a) A conference of the parties to the war and other interested Governments should meet as soon as possible. I see no reason why the National Liberation Front or the Viet-Cong should not be represented at the conference, and I welcome the United States assurance that this question is “not an insurmountable problem” from its point of view.
(b) As soon as the principle of holding a conference is accepted, the following measures should be carried out:
(1) The bombing of North Viet-Nam by United States and South Viet-Namese aircraft should cease, and a pledge should be given that bombing will not be resumed unless and until the conference has met and failed and the war has restarted.
(2) The introduction of United States forces and military supplies into South Viet-Nam should cease, and there should be no further work on military bases.
(3) Equally important, the dispatch of North Viet-Nam troops and military supplies to South Viet-Nam should cease.
(c) As soon as is practicable the High Command of each side should simultaneously give orders that their forces will not initiate any new aggressive actions. This will be a preliminary to the cease-fire which it should be the first objective of the conference to achieve.
(d) While the conference is negotiating the cease-fire, it should also agree on the main principles of a political settlement for Viet-Nam. This should be based, as both the United States Government and the Hanoi Government have repeatedly insisted, on “the essentials of the Geneva Agreements of 1954”:
(1) There should be free elections held in North and South Viet-Nam within a specified period, say two years.
(2) There should be an amnesty for all Viet-Namese who have participated on either side and in any capacity, military or civil, in the war. Everyone should be guaranteed personal liberty, safety and civil rights.
(3) The Governments chosen in the elections should freely decide if, when and on what terms North and South Viet-Nam should be united as a single State. There should be no intervention by any foreign Power in that decision.
(4) North and South Viet-Nam should be neutralized and should accept obligations not to allow any foreign troops or bases on their respective territories, and not to join any military alliance.
(5) The Governments of the United States of America and North Viet-Nam should agree on a time-table for the simultaneous withdrawal of their respective forces from South Viet-Nam, and for the liquidation of any bases they may have established there. A date should be fixed by which this operation will be completed. Again, two years after the ratifications of the political settlement which the Conference draws up would seem to be a good suggestion.
(6) The armed forces of North and South Viet-Nam should be reduced and limited by the political settlement drawn up.
(e) Now all the above measures, including the elections, the evacuation of American and North Viet-Namese forces and the reduction of North and South Viet-Nam armed forces should be conducted under international inspection and control. There should be an international campaign for the economic and social rehabilitation of North and South Viet-Nam, with the purposes of repairing the ravages of war and of demonstrating the advantages of peaceful international co-operation.
(f) The present international Commission of Control, strengthened, if so desired, by the addition of representatives of other Powers, should be made responsible for the execution of the above measures. The Commission should have at its disposal an international peace-keeping force, similar to those in Sinai and Cyprus.
70. This is the kind of proposal I advocate. It is definite, it is specific and it is detailed. I ask that all should join together to adopt it now.
71. I come to one other major area. When we have said all about our problems, there is one outstanding question in front of us and that is the question of disarmament. In his introduction to his annual report [A/6301/Add.1], the Secretary-General has rightly stressed the great dangers which face the world at present. We have managed for twenty years to live with nuclear weapons and to avoid a world war, only because of the restraint of the two super Powers and because of their knowledge that each could destroy the other. But I think we must recognize that this situation may be changing and that new threats to the stability of the international balance are appearing on the horizon.
72. For one thing, China is developing a nuclear capacity. However limited China’s capacity may now be in nuclear weapons, it is certainly determined to match to the utmost of its ability the power of the United States and of the Soviet Union.
73. Secondly, we all recognize the serious danger that in a few years more nations may have acquired nuclear weapons, with all the consequences for peace that that would have. But perhaps we do not always understand the risks which may arise from the rate of technological advance, particularly in nuclear weapons. We cannot stop the progress of scientific thought, nor should we try to; but we can already foresee a time in which the increasing complexity of the machines associated with nuclear weapons may begin to remove that control from human influence.
74. To sum up, I think that in a world that is already bristling with weapons, and in which nationalism and mistrust are steadily increasing, the prospect is becoming more dangerous with every moment that passes.
75. This situation calls for imagination and for a readiness to take risks. Otherwise, we shall indeed soon be at the edge of the precipice. We all know that our long-term aim is that of general and complete disarmament under international control. We all want this to come about, but nobody in his senses thinks it is just around the corner. I suggest that there are three things we have to do at once. First, recognize that the most immediate risk is presented by the possible spread of nuclear weapons to countries which do not now possess them, and recognizing that, agree on the text of a non-proliferation treaty to bring that process to a halt. Secondly, extend the partial test-ban Treaty to include underground explosions as well in order to prevent the existing nuclear Powers both from developing these frightful weapons and also from devising even more dangerous systems. Thirdly, bring the Chinese People’s Republic into the international community of nations and especially into regular and effective negotiations on disarmament. Of course there are serious difficulties in the way of achieving even these limited objectives. But I am confident that, if we look at the terrible dangers which confront us, we shall reach the conclusion that we have to solve the problems; they can be solved if we are ready to take some calculated risks and give up a little of the mistrust and suspicion which has characterized international relations for so long.
76. So much of what we have discussed is a formidable and awe-inspiring story. We none of us expect that the United Nations will be able to find solutions to all these problems in the next year or even the next five years. All any of us can ask is that the Organization, and all of us who are Members of it, should go at our tasks with courage, with practical sense and with idealism, but entirely without illusions. We must see what the Organization can bear and not place intolerable burdens upon it. We must not think that a resolution which has no connexion with reality is a substitute for action. The United Nations has, of course, its role as a sounding board for world opinion, and it is in the true spirit of democracy that all should declare their beliefs here frankly and fearlessly. Let us say what we think honestly and straightforwardly, and let us proceed to solve the problems that face the world in a practical and in a humane way. Let us really try to make the United Nations a centre for harmonizing the interests of its Members. Let us discuss our differences, but let us try to see the other man’s point of view. Let us work in the lobbies and in the committee rooms to reach solutions. Let us never take up rigid public positions from which there is then no retreat. Our job is the peace of the world and the happiness of the human race. More than that, it is to save people not only from the chance of battle, but from the certainty of poverty and hunger. Our business is to bring all that to an end.