Australia

It is inevitable that when representatives of nations come to this rostrum their minds go back to the foundations of the Charter, the beliefs of those who framed the Charter and of the millions of people who applauded it. Our minds go back to the fact that we believed in those days that all the nations which subscribed to the Charter would indeed attempt to carry it out. But five years have established, unfortunately, how ill-founded this hope was. 77. Today we are obliged to face the fact that one of the most important assumptions on which the United Nations was planned and has attempted to operate, has been proved false by actual experience. The whole conception of the United Nations, and the procedures laid down for its operations, depend on the Member States being determined, in the words of the Preamble of the Charter, “to practice tolerance and live together in peace with one another as good neighbours” and to unite their strength “to maintain international peace and security”. 78. This has not up to the present been the policy and action of the USSR, either within the United Nations or outside. If we are facing today the greatest crisis of the modern world it is because, I regret to say, the Soviet Union has used its position as one of the permanent members of the Security Council to obstruct the efforts which the vast majority of the United Nations are making to unite their strength to maintain international peace and security. Far from practising tolerance and living in peace as good neighbours, the rulers of the Soviet Union — and I emphasize “the rulers” — have embarked upon a policy of imperialist expansion; not, it is true, through the political absorption of more territories belonging to other States, but usually by assisting efforts to overthrow the legally constituted governments of different countries and to replace them by governments that are subservient to Moscow. We have seen this process successfully applied in Eastern Europe, and we know that it is being tried in many other parts of the world. It is this consistent policy of the rulers of the Soviet Union that has sapped the faith of the ordinary man in the United Nations and has raised again the frightful spectre of world war. So long as this policy continues, it is in the view of the Australian delegation, futile, and even dangerous, for us to pretend that the United Nations can maintain the peace of the world solely through procedures that were adopted in the belief that all Member States were determined to carry out loyally their obligations under the Charter. We are forced, by the present policy of the rulers of the Soviet Union, to approach the problem of security in the knowledge that there are, within the United Nations itself, nations which are working or have at least, up to the present, been working against the Organization and seeking to destroy its effectiveness as an instrument of security. 79. It is true that the Soviet Union talks a great deal about the fight for peace, and that in many countries communist parties organize so-called peace campaigns and collect signatures for a so-called peace appeal. It is true that on many occasions, as indeed the leader of its delegation did yesterday [279th meeting], it has proclaimed and proclaimed again its desire for peace. But what constructive action has the Soviet Union taken in the past few years, in the years since together with them we fought for survival, to promote the peaceful settlement of disputes or to assist the United Nations to check aggression? 80. It affords me no satisfaction, but is indeed a cause of real regret, to be compelled to record that time after time the Soviet Union has misused its privileged position as one of the permanent members of the Security Council, to veto action, as my colleague from New Zealand said, which the majority of members considered necessary in the interests of peace. Attempts to reach international agreement for the control of atomic energy, for the reduction of conventional armaments and for the lessening of tension in the Balkans, have all met with obstruction from the Soviet group. 81. Indeed, we have today nations represented in this hall who, judged by their past actions, have been trying not to make the Organization work in accordance with the Charter but to prevent it from functioning effectively and to use it not for the maintenance of peace in the world but for the destruction of other governments represented in this General Assembly which do not subscribe to their own views. The records of the last five years show it: the continual obstruction of all efforts to conclude a treaty of peace with Austria, the blockade of Berlin, the obstruction and opposition to every move to stop aggression and bring about peace in Korea, are only three examples of a melancholy list. If this is not the true situation, it is for the Soviet Union representative here to convince us that it is not. Let him tell us what his delegation has done or is doing today to secure co-operation and to maintain peace in the world. 82. Mr. Vyshinsky must not be surprised if we from Australia are not over-impressed by his protestations of peace and the proposals he put forward yesterday for the reduction of armaments [A/1376], After all, it is very easy for a nation that has built up massive armed forces, bigger perhaps than anything the world has ever seen, to propose to nations which have not taken the same line that each should reduce its forces by a third. We live in a real world, and such a proposal could only recommend itself to those who had stepped out of the world in which we live into a realm of academic discussion. The world should take note of this. It should also take note of the fact that Mr. Vyshinsky did not suggest that his country should disarm completely. No, he was desirous of keeping the great advantage which war production and war organization have achieved for his country today. If everyone desired peace and their protestations could be relied upon, there would be no need for anyone to have an army except for police purposes. Let me say this to Mr. Vyshinsky: if his country desires peace, the surest way to secure it is to break down the barriers which keep our peoples apart. It is not without significance that such proposals have been put up whilst at the same time they have been belied by the course of action that the Soviet Union has pursued. And we ask ourselves this question: does the bear speak now with the voice of a dove, or is it really a dove that is speaking? 83. We in Australia are a pragmatic people. We are less impressed by declarations and propaganda than by actions. As the people in our country have followed with growing anxiety the course of international events, it has become more and more difficult for them to accept the assurances of Soviet Union spokesmen that the rulers of their country are devoted to the cause of peace. Whatever we think of Soviet Union spokesmen, however, it is the belief of all Australians that the people of the USSR desire peace just as our people do. 84. We, on our side, do not for a moment accept the view that it is not possible for those who hold the Soviet Union creed and those who believe as we do, to live beside one another in peace and work together. We believe that in the present and in the future, as in the past, it is possible for states to live and work together in peace although their fundamental views on religion, politics and economics may be completely different. We, as people from British stock, do not speak without experience. We have had in the past, and have no doubt that we will have in the future, the most loyal cooperation from men of faiths entirely the opposite of our own, and in times of stress we have found that men of opposite political views could work together, We believe that if it is possible inside a country it is possible between countries. 85. From what I have said I believe that we can propound four basic propositions, which I think is necessary if we are going to understand the problems that confront us. The first proposition is that experience has proved false, at least to date, one of the fundamental assumptions on which the United Nations is based. The question is: will the future change our opinion? The assumption is that all the Member States are equally determined to preserve peace and security. Australia believes whole-heartedly in the purposes and principles set out in the Charter of the United Nations, and by providing forces in Korea it has shown that it is prepared to stand up for those purposes and principles. The majority of the other Members of the United Nations have also demonstrated that they too are loyal to the Charter. But if they are to be judged by their actions, the Soviet Union and the countries which are tightly bound to it have shown little if any regard for the Solemn declaration to which they pledged their word five years ago. 86. Up to the present, accordingly, we cannot approach our problem on the assumption that the Soviet Union’s main objective in the United Nations is to preserve the peace. Up to now the United Nations has presented to the world a picture not of co-operation among all its Member States but of a persistent conflict between the Soviet Union and associated countries, on the one hand, and the vast majority of the Members of the Organization on the other. Instead of the one world we looked for, there have been two worlds, and one so far has refused to co-operate with the other except upon its own terms. 87. This conflict has divided Europe and Asia in such a way as to prevent instead of assist the establishment of peace and stability throughout the world. There is no free passage of persons and ideas from one side of the iron curtain to the other and none of that constant contact which exists on the Western side of the curtain and which, I believe, goes so far and is so valuable in removing doubts and misunderstandings. Or, perhaps, it is truer to say that there is no circulation from the West to the East for we in the West, in spite of the attitude of the East, do not prevent its inhabitants from coming across to see how we live and how we think. Rather it is their own governments which prevent them. Are they afraid that their people would see our way of life or hear our ideas? Are they afraid that they should discover that there is a healthier, happier existence beyond their iron curtain? These are questions which they frankly ought to answer. 88. So the new-laid foundations of the United Nations have been undermined and the early promise of cooperation of all nations in the practical task of improving human welfare has failed. One of the most striking features of the United Nations at the present time is the failure of the Soviet Union and its associated communist countries to co-operate with the other Members in the constructive work of this Organization and its specialized agencies to improve, for example, economic and social conditions throughout the world. 89. The Soviet Union has resigned from the World Health Organization, although it has become commonplace that disease knows no frontiers. The Soviet Union has never participated in the work of the Food and Agriculture Organization, although we know that the majority of the world’s population is under-nourished and that the most urgent task in economic development today is to increase the world’s food production. The Soviet Union does not yet contribute to the expanded programme of technical assistance for economic development set up by resolution 200 (III) of the General Assembly. One can only conclude that the absence of the Soviet Union from these joint enterprises of the United Nations has reflected the unwillingness of the Soviet Union — and I use the words of the Preamble of the Charter, to which the Soviet Union pledged its word — “to employ international machinery for the promotion of the economic and social advancement of all peoples”. Is there any ground to believe, despite Mr. Vyshinsky’s protestations, that the Soviet Union really desires — and I quote from Article 1 of the Charter — “to achieve international co-operation in solving international problems of an economic, social, cultural, or humanitarian character, and in promoting and encouraging respect for human rights and for fundamental freedoms for all”? For our part, speaking for Australia, we shall want more than words, for nations can be judged only by their actions. 90. When we consider the record of the Soviet Union and the course of its foreign policy since the war, we are bound to ask ourselves — and we have the right to ask the Soviet Union — what are the purposes which it is seeking to achieve through its membership in the United Nations. 91. The second proposition that I advance is that I believe firmly that this conflict between the communist countries, led by the Soviet Union, and the other Members of the Organization is not inevitable, that it is possible for countries with different political and economic systems to live side by side in peace and to co-operate with each other in the positive task of maintaining security and progress for all peoples of the world. This principle is implicit in the Charter itself, and we attach great importance to it. It will bear repetition again to assert that we and the States which see the situation in the same way as we do find it possible to work with States whose ideas on religion and politics and economics are different from our own. The Soviet Union and its satellites, on the other hand, appear from their actions to insist that co-operation is possible only if we are prepared to surrender our ideals. 92. My third proposition is that it is within the power of the rulers of the Soviet Union to change the whole situation within the United Nations as well as the whole world outlook. The tremendous choice, affecting as it will the lives of millions of people everywhere in the world, lies with them. The course they have pursued to date, if, pursued to its end, can only have consequences which everyone in this Assembly knows only too well. But there is nothing to prevent them from changing their course if it is peace they desire and returning to co-operation with all the other nations of the world. If they really desire peace all that we can say is that, somewhere along the line, they took the wrong turning and they have been on the wrong road ever since. 93. Full co-operation is still possible if the Soviet Union will accept the responsibilities inherent in membership of the United Nations and substitute for its present policy one of friendly association with other nations; if it will accept the point of view that, although our basic ideas on domestic policy may be different, that fact should not prevent us from working together for one purpose, which the Soviet Union spokesmen say is a purpose to which they are dedicated: that of peace. What is it that prevents them? Nothing that any of us does. Let the Soviet Union state clearly what it is. Let it say why it is it quarantines its own people away from other peoples of the world, as if we or they were diseased. Why does it prevent the free interchange of information and knowledge and the movement of the peoples? Why should it continue to keep its own people in a national strait-jacket? 94. If the Soviet Union seeks peace let it state clearly what it is it fears. Does it not believe it possible for communist countries to co-operate with countries that have a different economic system? I can assure the Soviet Union that if it is genuine and sincere in putting forward a programme which is not a specious but a real one, which is consistent with the maintenance of the national integrity of each of us, and which is consistent with our right to develop our own countries in our own way, it will not find us lacking in responsiveness to a new approach once — and I repeat, once — we are satisfied of its sincerity. A new road would, in those circumstances, be opened up, a road to peace and better living conditions for all men and women everywhere throughout the world, a road along which Australia and all other nations here would, I hope, be prepared to march. 95. At the 277th meeting, when we were discussing the problem of Chinese representation in the Assembly, the representative of the Ukrainian SSR made the outrageous suggestion that Australia was opposed to the admission to the United Nations of countries having a different economic system from its own. He gave to the Assembly, I regret to say, a flagrantly false account of the views that I had expressed on behalf of my Government only a few minutes earlier. I said in my speech on that occasion that Australia believed it was an essential condition of membership that a government should desire to use its membership in the United Nations to promote international peace; and I said that we were not convinced that the Chinese Communist Government had this purpose in view in seeking to enter the Organization. I at no time said that the economic system which the Chinese communists favoured was any obstacle to membership or any barrier to co-operation with the other Members of the Organization. Nor, indeed, did I say anything even remotely resembling it. It is this kind of distorted argument which is confusing an already confused and anxious world. It is this kind of false and pernicious verbal distortion that is destroying steadily our hopes of peace. By all means let us speak our minds frankly and fearlessly, but let us not make mutual understanding more difficult by misrepresenting each others’ statements for the purposes of debate or of scoring a point of propaganda. The principle of co-operation among nations, as I have said, is implicit in our Charter, and if we did not believe it we from Australia would have no place in the Assembly. 96. Australia has no quarrel with communist China because it is communist. We would be able to co-operate with communist China if it were prepared to behave like a truly sovereign state and to follow independently — and I repeat independently — a policy of tolerance and good neighbourliness, in accordance with the spirit and the letter of the Charter. Communist China should by now have realized that its recognition or its admission to the United Nations have both been prejudiced by its ill-inspired actions and words in recent months. What, I ask, could be less calculated to facilitate its wider international recognition than the intransigent course that has been followed by communist China? What less auspicious approach could be made to the United Nations by a prospective Member than the official statements of the Peking Government attacking the present action of the United Nations to check aggression in Korea? Nor could the provocative language used by the Chinese communists in their past references to the United Nations be expected to produce a warm welcome from this Assembly. But the past must not be allowed to determine the future. 97. Communist China has its destiny in its own hands. It can subordinate itself to the rulers of the Soviet Union or it can pursue an independent course, and be prepared to deal with all nations on an equal basis of international law and respect. It must choose its own course of action. If there is forthcoming a substantial, real endeavour that it is prepared to co-operate genuinely with us and other nations in the maintenance of peace and in the other tasks of the United Nations, the whole question of its admission to the Organization can be considered in an entirely new light. We all desire to have the great Chinese people as partners in the constructive work of the United Nations. 98. This, indeed, is equally true of the Soviet Union and the other communist countries. The choice is theirs. If they feel that it is impossible for them, in view of the difference between their economic system and ours, to co-operate with us in the preservation of international peace through the United Nations, they will no doubt continue the policy they have so far pursued of obstructing the work of the Organization and, by their attitude, force the other Members of the United Nations to adopt a policy based on the assumption of a continuously hostile attitude on the part of the Soviet group. On the other hand, the rulers of the USSR can, if they wish, alter the whole situation and make the United Nations an effective instrument for international peace. If the Soviet Union believes, as we do, that it is possible for countries with different economic systems “to practise tolerance and live together in peace with one another as good neighbours” let it say so now, so that we may together in this Assembly seek to work out a way of co-operating. Here again, being a practical people, Australians would expect more than mere protestations. We would expect to look for practical steps by the Soviet Union to join with us in putting an end to the aggression against Korea. We would expect the Soviet Union to abandon her present policy of obstruction in the Security Council. We would expect the Soviet Union and other communist countries to turn their energies towards the great constructive tasks which the United Nations and the specialized agencies are undertaking in the economic and social fields. We would expect the Soviet Union to join with us in facilitating the economic development of under-developed countries and to withdraw her support from those who are trying to exploit the economic and political difficulties of less fortunate countries than our own. 99. If only the Soviet Union will join with us in the tasks to which we are all equally committed by the Charter of the United Nations, we can together not only remove fear of war but also lay the foundations of a new era of peaceful progress for the whole world. This grave and tremendous choice lies, as I have said, with the rulers of the Soviet Union. If they are unable or unwilling to interpret the obligations of membership in the United Nations in this light, we shall be forced to_ draw the inescapable conclusions from the situation with which we are confronted. 100. And so my fourth proposition emerges, which is this: that, in the absence of such a change in Soviet policy — and I do not accept Mr. Vyshinsky’s speech of yesterday as establishing such a change — the free nations of the world must go ahead working together on a more realistic basis. 101. Those Member States — the vast majority — which are determined to make the Organization an effective instrument for security and international co-operation, must proceed along that path irrespective of the attitude of the Soviet Union. Those of us who believe in what we hold to be a democratic way of life must be prepared to defend our point of view and be ready to come to the assistance of those who are of the same view and find themselves attacked. 102. This is no time to mince words but to face facts, and the facts are stark; they are as I have stated them. If the Soviet Union is determined to maintain to the end the attitude which has in the past placed such difficulties in the way of international co-operation, then this Assembly must chart the future course of the United Nations, and the peace-loving countries must formulate their policies in the light of that situation. They must be prepared to resist aggression on every front. It is from this point of view that my Government will consider carefully the proposals which the United States Government has put forward. 103. In the absence of sincere participation by the communist countries in the work of the United Nations, which so far has not been forthcoming, but if it were would open the door to a new era of peace and progress, the most pressing need is a new and more effective policy for security against aggression. We must begin by strengthening the capacity of the United Nations themselves to discourage and check aggression wherever it may arise. We must explore the possibility of modifying the procedures of the General Assembly to ensure that the military and industrial resources of the peace-loving countries can be mobilized promptly to keep the peace in the face of aggression. We must see to it that the machinery and procedures of the United Nations are adjusted to the problem of achieving the fundamental aims and spirit of the Charter, even if one or more nations within the Organization attempt to obstruct the working of the machinery set up by it. 104. We must further face the fact that the failure of any substantial group of Members to support the Organization in this task throws upon all other Members an additional burden, that of making supplementary arrangements consistent with the Charter to carry out its principles in cases where there is effective obstruction within the Organization to the action which the vast majority of the Members believe to be necessary to arrest and prevent aggression. We have, I believe, an important example of such supplementary measures in the form of the regional arrangements under the North Atlantic Treaty. It is the view of the Australian Government that, in the existing circumstances, this method of approach should also be developed in other areas of the world, and the nations which value the free way of life must band themselves together to protect it. This course does not in any way indicate a departure from the Charter. Nothing in the Charter precludes the existence of such regional arrangements in dealing with matters relating to the maintenance of international peace and security as are appropriate for regional action. Whatever regional security arrangements are made will be solely for the maintenance of international peace and security. 105. Every such organization must of course be effective; it must be the means and it must have the means to defend its members and to help to defend others. The peace-loving nations must be so organized and prepared as to discourage any repetition of the Korean incident. This means that they must have at their disposal forces sufficiently strong so that no State will venture to attack a neighbour, for fear of the heavy retribution that would follow. This means a far greater measure of preparation than anything we have had up to date. We must never allow events to occur again as they occurred in Korea, where weak but brave forces had to meet the sudden attack of a strong and prepared enemy determined to overrun a weaker neighbour. We must in short be ready to resist aggression wherever it lifts its head. 106. We are no doubt all reluctant to assume the economic burdens which such a policy entails, but security cannot be purchased for nothing. The costs of maintaining peace will be small against the terrible costs of world conflict. 107. But we must do more than merely plan to prevent or meet aggression. We must help one another to become stronger economically and socially. We should organize a system of assistance for other nations less advanced than we are, either politically or economically, to help them along the road to the realization of their full independence and prosperity. It is not our intention to neglect the present conditions in any of the countries still to some extent under-developed politically, socially or economically. We desire to make every effort to assist them at their request to reach a higher standard of living and to do that as quickly as possible. All of us, however, must share in this task, but let us also be sure that our own house is in order. We must seek to iron out gross social injustices wherever they may exist in any country of the world. Let us pluck the beam out of our own eye before looking for the mote in our brother’s eye. 108. Although our most pressing need is for a fresh approach to the problem of security along the lines I have indicated, it must be accompanied by continued efforts through the United Nations to achieve the other objectives of the Charter, which include the promotion of higher standards of living, full employment and conditions of economic progress and development. I believe, further, that these two must go hand in hand: our military security and our plans to help other nations throughout the world economically, politically and socially. 109. This economic and social co-operation has a very special bearing upon the prospects of the new nations in Asia that have recently secured their independence. All of these new nations are wrestling with grave economic problems and will require assistance from stronger and wealthier countries if they are to maintain their independence and satisfy the legitimate aspirations of their own people. The United Nations has an enormous contribution to make to the economic development and the political integrity of Asia. 110. Indeed, the needs of the region are so great that the programmes of the United Nations must be supplemented by regional plans for economic and technical assistance, such as that now being worked out for South-East Asia by the members of the British Commonwealth. Assistance must be given only when it is sought; it must be given without any strings, and it must be governed by the two principles of respect for the political sovereignty of the assisted country and respect for its economic independence. In all such plans, whether or not under the auspices of the United Nations, our objective is only to assist the new nations to find their own feet. We do not expect them, as the Soviet Union does, to adopt our forms of economic and political organization. They are independent nations and must be free to choose their own institutions; and some of the ideas which are very important for us, such as those of free enterprise and democracy, may still convey little meaning to millions of starving people in Asia. Our task is to assist and encourage them in their struggle for nationhood and to welcome them on terms of equality into the family of nations. 111. The courses of action that I have urged in this statement are not prompted by any hostility to the Soviet Union or countries associated with it. We have no desire to force our political and economic systems on them. How they live and how they govern themselves are matters for them to decide. All we ask is that they should allow other people the same right. In particular, we in Australia desire nothing but friendship with the people and government of China, provided they are prepared to co-operate with us on terms of equality and follow the usual conventional lines of international conduct. 112. Let us not forget that the United Nations is, above all, an organization not of nations so much as of peoples. Our Charter begins with the words, “We the peoples of the United Nations... have resolved to combine our efforts to accomplish these aims”. I believe we should make a renewed attempt to bring the activities of the United Nations and the problems of the world before the peoples of all Member States by a special campaign, sponsored by this Organization. We have no reason to hide our light under a bushel, and we must find practical means of getting the facts to the human beings behind the leaders — the leaders who too often do not lead, but rather mislead the people on all these matters. 113. I have no hesitation in standing here and speaking the way I have because the country which I represent, Australia, cannot be accused by anyone of having imperialistic aims or desiring war. It desires peace so that mankind may use its great ingenuity to broaden the path of well-being everywhere in the world. But Australia is not prepared to purchase peace at any cost. We desire to make it known to the world that, although we are ready to work with any nations genuinely desirous of peace, each retaining its own ways of life, we are prepared, no matter what the cost, to oppose those who desire, through aggression, to destroy our way of life. The great majority of nations which have resisted aggression have survived. Those who have lain down under the threats of others have been destroyed. 114. But our task in this General Assembly is to combine our efforts to save our peoples, and particularly our youth, from the awful and final catastrophe of war. We know that if war comes it will bring devastation beyond the powers of imagination and that the unleashing of modern instruments of mass destruction would impose upon our own and the rising generation an indescribable burden of loss of life and human degradation. In such a war there would indeed be no victors. Civilization as we know it could well be destroyed. All the graver, therefore, is the responsibility that rests on every one of us to ensure that our presence here and our participation in the deliberations and decisions of the General Assembly make a positive contribution to the building of world peace.