113. It is my great pleasure and privilege at the outset of my statement to tender to you, Sir, my delegation's congratulations on your election as President. Our sincere good wishes go out to you in the execution of the onerous responsibilities attaching to the high office to which you have been elected unanimously by the Member States of this Organization.
114. You have been called upon, Sir, to preside over the Assembly at a time when high hopes are being entertained by all the peoples of the world that the tensions and anxieties which have been such a marked feature of the post-war world will steadily and progressively give way to an era, if not yet of peace and stability, then at least of relaxation which can be the beginning of such an era.
115. Indeed, if one has in mind the atmosphere at our recent commemorative session at San Francisco, so clearly marked by a desire to return to the original spirit of San Francisco, there is every reason to hope that one of the essentials postulated at that time for a successful functioning of the United Nations can now perhaps gradually come into fulfilment. This condition was that there would be co-operation between the great Powers — a co-operation which has been absent during this past decade of the Organization’s existence.
116. Perhaps, in all the circumstances, it would be as well not to hark back too much or too often to the bickerings and discords of these years but to assign to them their proper place in the perspective of time, while at the same time drawing upon these formative years, for the wisdom which experience — and painful experience especially — brings.
117. In this context, many speakers have referred, and rightly so, to the advances in international understanding made at Geneva, and which have since continued. My delegation joins with them in sharing the hope that San Francisco and Geneva together will inaugurate the beginning of a period in history which will be marked, if unfortunately not yet by those conditions of stability so heartily desired by the common man all over the world, then at least by a willingness amongst nations to show understanding of one another’s problems and difficulties. In seeking measures for the solution of those problems and difficulties, let us avoid the negative and destructive approach which cannot make any contribution at all unless it be a contribution towards greater confusion and greater mistrust.
118. My delegation, too, joined with our fellow representatives at the commemorative session in expressing the hope that, in our future deliberations and actions, there would be a return to the spirit which had animated the founders of our Organization in 1945. But the leader of the South African delegation, stressed on that occasion, as I stress now — and as we shall continue to stress in future — that a return to the spirit of San Francisco of 1945 must also mean that full recognition is given in word and in deed to a basic factor governing friendly relations between States, namely, non-intervention in one another’s domestic affairs. I have no doubt that all delegations attach the greatest importance to the strict observance of that basic condition, as they must if they honestly desire peace and tranquillity.
119. We all realize that the world consists of States and of groups of States whose social and economic systems differ markedly from each other. Several delegations in this general debate have pointed out that it is essential for the future of the United Nations — for the future peace of mankind — that these States should learn to live in peace together, no matter how much they may differ in their ways of life. As we have learned over the centuries, and especially since the war, there can be no peace unless all States respect each others’ sovereign rights and refrain from intervening directly, or indirectly, in each others’ domestic affairs. This is surely the meaning of “peaceful coexistence”.
120. But it is very evident, not only from the debates in the years that have gone by, but also from the debates of this present session, that Member States are still far from being in agreement on what constitutes intervention and what does not. The clear wording of Article 2, paragraph 7, of the Charter, is all too frequently misconstrued to suit the particular circumstances or designs of individual Member States.
121. All who listened to the debate on the meaning and purpose of Article 2, paragraph 7, of the Charter, during the initial stages of our present session, must agree that those who argued for the right of intervention were fairly consistent in one thing, and that was in ignoring the clearly expressed intention of the authors of the Charter.
122. Those who founded this Organization suffered from no confusion. No doubt anticipating the emotional upheavals which could be expected in a world shaken to its core by the strife and bitterness of a global war, they devoted particular attention to this problem. They recognized that if it was not clarified beyond any question right at the outset, it could continue to poison international relations and so frustrate one of the principal purposes of this Organization, namely, the maintenance of international peace and security and the creation of harmony and friendly relations amongst nations.
123. Article 2, paragraph 7, has since been invoked before the United Nations on many occasions by many countries, including my own. Every occasion has provided a test for Members of the Organization regarding the respect in which they hold the Charter.
124. The record shows that whenever Article 2, paragraph 7, has been invoked, the great majority of delegations have voted in favour of United Nations competence when their own interests or those of their friends were not affected, and against such competence whenever those interests were affected. In some cases, delegations have pointed out that the assumption of jurisdiction in a given case would be unconstitutional, yet have abstained when the question of competence was put to the vote. This very inconsistency in the voting record of the different delegations goes to prove that the Charter is not being interpreted as a legal document or as a constitution for the Organization — which it undoubtedly is — but purely in the light of the political self-interest of the chance majority at a given time. The recommendations of the General Assembly and its organs in this field are almost exclusively based on political considerations, with little regard for their legality.
125. Speaking in the General Committee [103rd meeting] on the inclusion in the agenda of the item concerning Algeria, the representative of Pakistan conceded that discussion of an item in the United Nations was tantamount to intervention within the meaning of Article 2, paragraph 7. But he then argued that the competence of the Assembly so to intervene was no longer in doubt, as evidenced by the case law of the United Nations, which he claimed had been built up over the past ten years.
126. It is very understandable that a distinguished lawyer should rely on case law, as in legal practice. But the United Nations is not a court of law, and the majority of representatives at any given time are not lawyers. The case law of the United Nations on the meaning and scope of Article 2, paragraph 7, should therefore be seen against this background. But it is clear that if case law is to have any authority at all, it has to be traced back to its very source, and that source will be found in one place and one place only, namely, the records which have been left to us by those who framed this contract on the basis of which we are united as Member States of this Organization.
127. There are many, however, who choose to ignore these records. This makes it all the more important that we who adhere to the original intentions of the Charter should not remain silent, lest by our silence we appear to acquiesce in a process of emasculation of the Charter, a process which takes the form of reinterpreting its most fundamental provision and of building up, on this basis, a body of spurious case law. It is for this reason that I shall again place on the record for this session — although I shall do so as concisely as possible — the basis on which, in regard to the question of non-intervention, we accepted membership of the United Nations and thereby the obligations resulting from such membership.
128. For this purpose I cannot do better than to quote from the speech of the Minister of External Affairs of the Union of South Africa at the recent commemorative session at San Francisco, when Mr. Louw addressed himself as follows to the assembled delegations: “It was not only at the San Francisco Conference that the principle of non-interference in the domestic affairs of Member States was insisted upon. The same principle was included in the Covenant of the League of Nations. But more important is the fact that the Dumbarton Oaks proposals expressly provided that certain provisions dealing with the pacific settlement of disputes should not apply to matters which were within the domestic jurisdiction of the States concerned. “This principle was thereafter incorporated in the Charter of the United Nations, where it is enshrined in Article 2, paragraph 7, of the Charter. It is, however, important to note that at the San Francisco Conference an amendment was adopted to transfer this provision from Chapter VIII to Chapter II, where it would become a governing, and thus an overriding, principle for the whole Organization and its Members. The transfer to Chapter II was considered to be necessary, so as to make it quite clear that the United Nations, when dealing with economic, social and cultural questions, should not intervene in the domestic affairs of the Member States. “There was a spirited debate when the proposed amendment was discussed by the appropriate committee of Commission I, and certain amendments which tended to restrict the principle of domestic jurisdiction were defeated with large majorities. It is thus clear that at the San Francisco discussions it was decided that Article 2, paragraph 7, of the Charter was to be a basic and overriding principle “But the San Francisco Conference went even further, and made it clear that no pretexts should be resorted to for the purpose of circumventing the principle laid down in Article 2, paragraph 7, relating to non-interference in the domestic affairs of Member States. “Chapter IX of the Charter deals with international co-operation in regard to social and economic affairs, fundamental human rights, and allied subjects. The discussions at San Francisco revealed two tendencies. On the one hand, there was the desire to make the United Nations an effective agency for “promoting” international co-operative action in regard to these aims. On the other hand, concern was expressed by a number of delegations that the proposed co-operative action might provide a basis, or even a pretext, for intervention by the United Nations in matters which were essentially within the domestic jurisdiction of a State, When the Drafting Sub-Committee's text was considered by Commission II, the representative of the United States proposed that the clause be redrafted, so as to ensure that there would be no interference by the Economic and Social Council in the domestic affairs of a Member State. Later, it was decided, in order to remove all possible doubt, to extend the prohibition to the United Nations itself, and to include in the records of Committee 3 the following statement concerning the interpretation or implication of Article 55, namely, “ The members of Committee 3 of Commission II are in full agreement that nothing contained in Chapter IX can be construed as giving authority to the Organization to intervene in the domestic affairs of Member States “Commission II included the same statement in its report, and it was later adopted by the plenary session of the Conference, as proof of the intentions of the founders of the United Nations.” This ends the quotation from Mr. Louw’s statement.
129. If it is considered, as the delegation of Pakistan and others apparently believe, that since 1945 a body of case law has been built up in the United Nations which sets aside these clear intentions of the founders, then I say that these so-called “cases” were not based on law but on political expediency. Being in their origin unlawful and unconstitutional, they lose all validity as case law and therefore as precepts for future action.
130. During the first days of this session, my delegation has been heartened to see that there is an evergrowing realization that the discussions in the United Nations of the domestic affairs of a Member State against its wishes, far from serving any good purpose, only exacerbate feelings, increase tensions and promote the adoption of rigid attitudes.
131. I make no apology for dealing with this question at length. More than any other Member State, my country has been the victim of the subversion of this basic principle that there shall be no intervention in the affairs which are essentially within the domestic jurisdiction of any State.
132. For nine successive years, the Union of South Africa has been attacked at the United Nations oh the Indian question, the South West Africa, question, and generally on South Africa’s domestic policies. Each year the attacks have followed the same pattern, and the same arguments have been repeated ad nauseam. For nine years, leaders of Union delegations, beginning with Field Marshal Smuts, have replied with patience and forbearance to these attacks, and dealt with the arguments advanced.
133. But there is a limit to the patience of even the most reasonable of men. Our opponents must admit that South Africa has, through all these years, shown exemplary courtesy and forbearance when it has had to submit to unfair and often malicious attacks. For some delegations these annual attacks on South Africa have become a sort of Roman holiday to which they look forward with relish, and in which they engage with zest. I leave aside the fact that many of our detractors fall far short of the principles of fundamental human rights and freedoms to which they so often pay lip-service, and are guilty of racial and other forms of discrimination.
134. But, while certain delegations have pursued their vendetta against the Union of South Africa, we are glad to know that there are many others who have grown heartily tired of these annual performances. Nevertheless, should it be decided to include items 20 and 23 in the agenda, the Assembly will once again embark on a discussion of South Africa’s internal affairs.
135. I must repeat that for nine years my Government has shown great patience. But it is no longer prepared to continue replying to these attacks. I have been instructed to inform the Assembly accordingly. If certain nations wish to continue attacking the Union of South Africa they are, of course, at liberty to do so. The South African delegation for its part intends, if and when these matters are raised in the Committees, to confine itself to opening statements substantially reaffirming what I am saying here today. It will not participate further in the discussions.
136. This attitude will apply in the first instance to the item entitled “Treatment of persons of Indian origin in the Union of South Africa”, With reference to this item, it is necessary briefly to recall certain developments which have taken place since the last session of the General Assembly.
137. On 17 December 1954, the Government of the Union of South Africa took the initiative in approaching the Governments of India and Pakistan and indicated that it was prepared, without prejudice to the juridical position consistently taken up by South Africa on the subject of domestic jurisdiction, to have discussions with the two Governments with a view to seeking an acceptable solution. Although the Union Government went out of its way to seek a friendly settlement of this question, the effort unfortunately had to be abandoned as a result of attacks made on the Union by India while these telegraphic discussions were proceeding, attacks which were of such a nature that it was clear that a continuation of this attempt would be fruitless. In the circumstances, it would have served no purpose to have continued the discussions with Pakistan alone, since in any event there is only a comparatively small percentage of Indians of Pakistan origin in the Union. I wish to add that Pakistan had no part in the failure of the negotiations.
138. As to the subsequent approach to the Government of the Union of South Africa, by the Secretary-General, designating a mediator to facilitate a solution of this controversy, the Assembly is familiar enough with the South African position in regard to the domestic jurisdiction issue to appreciate that my Government was debarred from accepting mediation, as it would certainly have prejudiced that position. The Secretary-General was informed accordingly, and, in the communication addressed to him by South Africa’s Minister of External Affairs — which will no doubt become available to all delegations in due course — the history of these events is set out fully. As stated in this letter, as far as South Africa is concerned, the question of persons of Indian origin in the Union of South Africa is regarded as definitely closed,
139. Similarly, in respect of the reports of the so-called United Nations Commission on the Racial Situation in the Union of South Africa, my Government has made its position abundantly clear. There is nothing in the Charter which permits the United Nations to discuss or to adopt resolutions regarding a matter which is purely and essentially of domestic concern. In presuming to make recommendations regarding legislation passed by the Parliament of the Union, the General Assembly has gone to the utmost limit in transgressing the provisions of Article 2, paragraph 7, of the Charter. At previous sessions, and also at the recent San Francisco Conference, the Union of South Africa has clearly stated its position on this issue. There is nothing to add to what has already been said.
140. As far as South West Africa is concerned, the attitude which I have indicated my delegation will adopt in the Committees on items specially concerned with South African affairs does not apply to the constitutional aspects of the South West Africa question.
141. The Union of South Africa is a foundation Member of this Organization, as it was a foundation Member of the League of Nations. Both the Charter of the United Nations and the Covenant of the League bear the imprint of the statesmanship of the late Field Marshal Smuts. There can be little doubt that his purpose was to make the greatest possible contribution to international amity and understanding. Yet he himself became the first victim in this Assembly of the wave of emotionalism engendered by the vast changes in national structures which followed the end of the war.
142. As I stated at the outset, one is encouraged to hope, by the portents of this year, that this Organization, as a centre for harmonizing the actions of nations and for the promotion of international peace and security, will henceforth steadily and ever more rapidly discard its negative methods of approach. In the past, these negative methods have too often marred its discussions and deliberations. They have inevitably tended to undermine the confidence of many peoples in the United Nations as the most important co-ordinating instrument in international affairs.
143. Nothing has done so much to restore the belief that there is a fruitful field in which the nations of the world can meet and co-operate, not only in restoring much of the destruction wrought by the Second World War, but also in creating new conditions of well-being and happiness for all the peoples of the earth, than the action which has resulted from the initiative of the President of the United States of America in his historic “atoms for peace” proposal [470th meeting].
144. Here I wish to say, on behalf of my delegation, that our very best wishes go out to President Eisenhower in his illness. We hope that his recovery will be rapid and that he will soon be restored to complete health.
145. To those of us whose attention and energies have, of necessity, mainly to be focused on matters in the political sphere, with all the preoccupations and frustrations which are ever present in that field, it is indeed a comfort and a consolation to be able to say that an international occasion as fruitful and successful as the recent International Conference on the Peaceful Uses of Atomic Energy at Geneva was a product of our labours in this Assembly. One hopes that the success achieved in the field of common endeavour will act as a spur to all of us in our forthcoming deliberations on this subject. Time should not be lost unnecessarily in harnessing, for the benefit of all the peoples of the world, the power which scientific progress is making available for the creation of those conditions of material well-being still sadly lacking in so many countries.
146. South Africa, as one of the world’s most important producers of fissionable material, was happy last year to act as one of the sponsors of the resolution on the peaceful uses of atomic energy [resolution 810 (IX)], In the interim, South Africa has continued to co-operate with its associates in a common endeavour to give form and substance to this proposal, from which so much good can be expected.
147. Bearing in mind our position as a sovereign Power on the vast continent of Africa, from large parts of which the curtain of ignorance has not yet been lifted and which still remains trammelled by the fears, distrust and suspicions of primitive life, it is our hope and expectation that Africa will receive its full share of the benefits which the creation of such an international agency can bring. At the same time, it cannot be too strongly stressed that, in the manner of application, every precaution should be. taken- that the advantages which civilization can offer should be introduced to the African continent with care and circumspection, so that they can become the blessings which they should be and not the disruptive force which they so easily could be.
148. In his annual report, the Secretary-General states: “The peoples of Asia today, of Africa tomorrow, are moving towards a new relationship with what history calls the West” [A/2911, p. ix]. Later in the same report the Secretary-General says: “The great changes that are under way in Africa present a challenge to the rest of the world — a challenge to give aid in guiding the course of events in orderly and constructive channels” [ibid., p. xiv]. I am sure that, in his approach to this question, the Secretary-General will be guided in the first place by the conviction that Africa is not and should not become a field for ideological experimentation.
149. While the constructive advice of friends will always find a sympathetic hearing, the ready-made solutions of idealistic theorists, and the even more dangerous intrusion of subversive ideologies, either from the East or from the West, must always be combated by those who have responsibility for African development. I am speaking here mainly of that part of Africa in which my homeland lies, that is, Africa south of the Sahara. The “orderly and constructive channels” to which the Secretary-General refers must of necessity be channels through which the multi-racial and multilingual African life can move without impediment towards its own destined end, shaped by the forces deriving from its own being,
150. The peoples in my part of Africa know and understand one another and are steadily moving towards a solution of their common problems and difficulties in a manner which will ultimately ensure to each the conditions necessary to develop naturally and fully according to his own way of life. Progress has been far greater than may appear to those who view the scene from afar.
151. If, however, the development towards greater maturity and towards a fuller life is to be an orderly one, it must, at the same time, be accompanied by a corresponding capacity to assume responsibility. For rights, in so far as they are related to the conduct of society, can never exist in isolation, but are ever accompanied by corresponding obligations. The enjoyment of the one presupposes the observance of the other. If, therefore, the capacity to assume obligations is not yet fully present, it is a condition precedent to the acquisition of rights that such a capacity must be nurtured and fostered, if, in the words of the Secretary-General, the course of events is to be guided “in orderly and constructive channels”.
152. Perhaps it is just as well that this be said now, for it is my impression that in the United Nations too much stress has been and is being laid on rights and too little, and sometimes none at all, on the duties and responsibilities that are irrevocably attached to the enjoyment of those rights. This can have no other result than the creation of a condition of unbalance which must of necessity retard the growth towards maturity of any people who are led to believe that they can be the recipients of rights but who are not at the same time brought into a full realization of the obligations which those rights place upon them. Assistance, which is a word we so often hear, should therefore also include assistance and guidance in the capacity to assume responsibility and to exercise authority.
153. I have already spoken about the new and encouraging spirit of understanding and accommodation which now animates the conduct of official relations between the great Powers. And it is fitting that I should conclude my remarks on this hopeful note. There have been numerous references to this new spirit during the course of our general debate, a spirit which gives promise of a better appreciation of the differences which lie between us and which could well lead to a narrowing of these differences on the fundamental problems of peace and security. Faced with the awful realities of the hydrogen age, the great Powers have now begun to give a lead in the evolution of that sense of responsibility in international relations so vital to the preservation of peace and security among all nations, which is, in fact, the primary purpose of the Charter.
154. But there are still a number of other spheres in which it is almost equally important that the Members of this Organization should make a determined effort to promote a more objective and sympathetic understanding of the realities of the problems involved. It will surely not be necessary for me to list these topics here. They embrace a most extensive field of United Nations activity and have given rise to much bitter controversy in the past. It remains our hope and belief that the new and improved atmosphere which quickens the international scene will now also pervade the deliberations of this Organization on these subjects; that there will be a growing tendency here, too, to turn away from the barren and debilitating controversies of the past and to direct our energies and efforts with renewed vigour towards the real and constructive tasks which still lie ahead.