26. I am going to make a few very brief remarks concerning some items on our agenda. Before doing so, however, I must express my deep regret that the deliberations of this Assembly on 30 September should have caused the declaration made by Mr. Pinay on behalf of the French Government [530th meeting]. I am sure we unanimously agree that the participation of France as one of the leading Powers in the United Nations General Assembly is of vital importance to this Organization, and I feel we all hope that an issue will soon be found to this abnormal situation.
27. As to the general debate that has been going on during the first two weeks of the session, I want to join in what seems to be a generally accepted view about the international situation. When the United Nations celebrated its tenth anniversary in San Francisco, many speakers referred with satisfaction to the marked trend towards a relaxation of tension in the international field.
28. Since then, important developments which are manifestations of the same trend have taken place. I am thinking, of course, of the Geneva meeting “at the summit”. I am also referring to the International Conference on the Peaceful Uses of Atomic Energy, at Geneva, which led to the unveiling of the enormous achievements in the peaceful fields of atomic science and atomic technology which so far had been kept as State secrets. Finally, I am thinking of the agreement recently concluded between the Soviet Union and Finland for the return to Finland of the Porkkala area, where the Soviet Union had established a naval base. As the representative of Sweden, I may be permitted to give expression here to the joy and satisfaction felt by the Swedish nation that our neighbour has been relieved of this foreign enclave on its territory through the generous relinquishment by the Government of the Soviet Union of the naval base long before the termination of the lease.
29. Now I should like first to deal with the plan to call a conference for the purpose of reviewing the Charter.
30. There appears to be a wide-spread opinion against holding such a conference as early as next year. But it has been proposed that the General Assembly should decide in principle that a conference should be held, without now setting a specific date. This would be left to a future session of the Assembly, which might then call the conference in 1957, or even later.
31. This proposal would have much to commend itself if the Charter prescribed that amendments could be considered only every ten years. If that were the case, a decision in principle in 1955 to hold a conference might be necessary in order not to prevent the General Assembly from dealing with proposed amendments within the next ten years. But, as is well known, the situation is different. There is nothing in the Charter to prevent the General Assembly from considering proposed amendments at any time during the next few years. It therefore seems unnecessary now to take such a decision in principle, and then to implement it a few years later.
32. I permit myself to quote from an interim report by the Sub-Committee which was charged by the United States Senate to study the question of a review of the United Nations Charter. This report reads in part as follows: “The Sub-Committee notes that amendments to the Charter can be adopted at any time, not merely at a review conference. Furthermore, the process to be followed in either case is substantially the same. It is no easier to amend the Charter at a review conference than at any other time under the regular amending process contained in Article 108.”
33. If I may then say a few words about the motives for a review conference, my impression is that the attention focuses upon the question of the veto. Now it is common knowledge that all the permanent members of the Security Council support the veto rule as regards questions of vital interest. I quote again from the report of the Sub-Committee just mentioned, which presumably represents a wide-spread opinion in the United States Senate: “The United States, as a permanent member of the Security Council, therefore, cannot be bound by any Charter amendment unless it is acceptable to the President of the United States and approved by a two-thirds vote of the Senate. The Sub-Committee believes that these requirements provide adequate safeguards against any amendment to the Charter, not compatible with the interests of the United States, which might originate at a review conference.” The veto right is thus labelled an adequate safeguard against such amendments to the Charter as would not be acceptable from the United States point of view.
34. Experience has shown that the veto has been frequently used when applications for membership have been dealt with. As my personal opinion, I would say that it would have been preferable that the General Assembly alone should decide on the admission of new Members. Now, however, we have the rule that the Security Council’s opinion is required, and that the concurring votes of the permanent members of the Council are necessary for a positive decision. Thus the admission of new Members has hitherto been extremely difficult. By all appearances, however, the principle of universality will soon be accepted, and applied in practice. It may even be assumed that most of the States which still remain outside the United Nations will have been admitted to the Organization before a review conference has had time to meet. The question of the veto in the Security Council in so far as the admission of new Members is concerned will then have lost its practical importance.
35. It is easy to mention other stipulations of the Charter which my Government would wish to have framed in a more satisfactory way. We feel, for instance, that the right of veto of the great Powers is too extensive, because it applies also to the peaceful settlement of international disputes.
36. But the deficiencies of the Charter should not be exaggerated. On the whole, in existing circumstances, the Charter is a good instrument — as I had occasion to state in greater detail during a previous general debate. With sufficient will to co-operate, the present Charter could function excellently. On the other hand, an increased will to co-operate can be created neither by amending the Charter nor by calling a review conference which adopts proposals that do not stand a chance of being ratified,
37. I mentioned the International Conference on the Peaceful Uses of Atomic Energy. Two important problems in this field will be dealt with at this session of the General Assembly.
38. One is the co-ordination of information relating to the effects of atomic radiation upon human health and safety. The Swedish Government received with great 'satisfaction the news that the Government of the United States had asked for the inclusion of this item in the agenda. Later, the Government of India put forward a similar request. The problem we have to face is the necessity not only of co-ordinating such information as is received from various countries, but also of analysing and evaluating the material, as well as of presenting the conclusions in readily accessible form. Considering in particular the concern felt both in scientific circles and among the public in regard to the risks for people’s health, and also from a genetic point of view, it is of the highest importance that an unprejudiced. scientific investigation take place as to the effects of the radiation caused by nuclear explosions,
39. The second problem in this field is the establishment of a body within the United Nations for the consideration of questions relating to the peaceful uses of atomic energy. 1 share the opinion expressed in this debate by the representative of Yugoslavia [522nd meeting], who emphasized that this body ought to be closely attached to the United Nations. Only in that way will the General Assembly have the necessary assurance that it will be able to keep the work of such a body under continuous observance. This is of importance because, for instance, of possible conflicting interests between producers and consumers. It is desirable that the General Assembly, which represents all the Member States, should be given the opportunity in such cases to issue the necessary directives.
40. Finally, a few words on disarmament. Public opinion in the world is aware that the positions taken on this question by the various Governments are on the move. The Sub-Committee of the Disarmament Commission is at present fully occupied. The four great Powers represented on the Sub-Committee have all contributed fresh approaches or new ideas.
41. The Soviet Union submitted certain interesting proposals on 10 May 1955 [A/2979]. At the “summit” conference at Geneva, the President of the United States, Mr. Eisenhower, presented his remarkable plan [DC/71, annex 17] for protection against surprise attacks. May I, in this connexion, express my sincere hope for the President’s speedy recovery from his illness and emphasize the importance of his being able to continue his efforts aiming at the realization of the bold “Eisenhower plan”. Sir Anthony Eden, Prime Minister of the United Kingdom, presented his proposal [DC/71, annex 19] for regional agreements on the establishment of a continental zone in which armaments would be limited and subject to international supervision and control. The Prime Minister of France, Mr. Faure, put forward proposals [DC/71, annex 16] for the limitation of defence budgets and for the use of savings on defence appropriations for assistance to underdeveloped countries.
42. In recent years, we have grown accustomed to a permanent deadlock in the disarmament debate. This deadlock has at last been broken and the positions have drawn closer to each other.
43. It has been generally assumed that a report on the disarmament question would not be submitted to the General Assembly until the latter part of this session. I wonder, however, whether the Sub-Committee could not consider publishing the texts of the proposals so far presented, and possibly also of the requests for clarification put to the sponsors of proposals and the replies of the latter. Such an interim document might, if found desirable, provide the basis for a preliminary debate in the First Committee of the General Assembly and, above all, would serve the purpose of supplying more ample information to the Governments not represented on the Sub-Committee and to the public.
44. Such a “white paper” published by the Sub-Committee would be of value also in that it would present a firmer basis for public debate in the various Member States. Both in the United States and in other countries, the view has been maintained, for instance, that a treaty on a general reduction of armaments is an unattainable goal. It has been said that the United Nations — and the sooner the better — ought to face realities and abandon the obsolete idea of general disarmament. In itself, there is naturally no harm in advancing and discussing such a point of view. But, if I mention it here, it is because it has been suggested that this point of view has found a certain support in the Sub-Committee. Presumably this rumour is without foundation. I refer to Mr. Dulles’ emphatic declaration in his speech the other day [518th meeting] that the United States of America maintains as a goal a general agreement on disarmament. But the opinions just mentioned might contribute to creating confusion in the public debate.
45. Should we really separate with the explanation that after, ten years of investigations and debates the problem has been found insoluble? Our generation has solved the problem of constructing the atomic bomb. How could we accept to capitulate before the difficulties we have to face when trying to control man’s use of the ' bomb? I do not believe that such a defeatist attitude towards the problem of disarmament is politically possible.