Sir Carl Berendsen said he had not intended to take part in the general debate. An annual stock-taking, however, was of immense value to the millions of right-thinking men and women who pinned their highest hopes on the success of the United Nations. He felt, therefore, that it was his duty to give a brief outline of the New Zealand delegation’s views on the progress of the United Nations, its successes, its failures and its prospects for the future.
58. There was much — and it was well to place that fact in the foreground of any appraisal of the work of the United Nations — on which Members could congratulate themselves, much for which the world should be truly thankful. That the United Nations existed at all was in itself a matter of great and happy moment to mankind; whatever its merits and defects, there should be such an organization if man was to discuss man’s problems in a manly and sensible way. And even in the matter of achievement there was much that was gratifying, much without which the world would be less happy, less secure and less hopeful.
59. All agreed, for instance, that peace would be greatly strengthened by the removal or alleviation of the admitted economic and social injustices and inequalities which were so prevalent throughout the world; and that if the United Nations could make a determined, enduring and successful effort in the international field to ensure greater equality in the distribution of the material resources and amenities of life which were possessed in such full measure by the more fortunate nations, then one potential cause of conflict would be removed or greatly reduced. It was to rectify or alleviate that sort of injustice — and that was indeed within the power of man — that the Economic and Social Council had been established. There was very much in the work of that Council which gave ground for encouragement, and the New Zealand Government felt that the steady and consistent work of international cooperation in the economic and social field was one of the most hopeful measures of the success of the United Nations.
60. New Zealand had had a very special interest in the Economic and Social Council during the current year — its final year as a member of that body — because one of its representatives had held the office of President of the Council. The work of Mr. Thom in that office had been a matter of great pride and satisfaction to the people of his country. Another New Zealander, Mr. Sutch, had been chairman of the Council’s Social Commission.
61. Those intimately associated with the Council’s proceedings would agree that it was overcoming many of the weaknesses apparent in its early stages, and in particular that it was endeavouring to concentrate on measures of a constructive character.
62. In that connexion Sir Carl Berendsen had to point out a very serious difficulty. Members should not allow their hearts to run away with their heads; they should not allow their anxiety to achieve results, as quickly as possible over as wide a field as possible, to lead them too far and too fast. There was a danger that they might so dissipate their energies and their resources by endeavouring to do too much too soon that in the long run they might fail to do enough. All had probably been shocked and astonished by the figures quoted by the Brazilian representative (222nd meeting) as to the number of meetings held under the aegis of the United Nations alone, namely between 3,000 and 4,000 meetings annually. One wondered how such meetings could possibly be adequately maimed and how the cost of such meetings could possibly be met. Clearly, if meetings went on multiplying at that rate, many Members, and certainly the smaller States, would be unable effectively to cope with those demands. The United Nations must see to it that first things came first.
63. The ninth session of the Economic and Social Council, held during July and August 1949 in Geneva, had been distinguished by the consideration given to the highly important question of technical assistance to under-developed countries. Hundreds of millions of people did not have enough to eat and to wear, and had neither the tools nor the skills which could help them to improve their living standards. Those people were mainly in the under-developed countries and they could be assisted by the nations which were fortunate enough to have more fully developed economies. The New Zealand Government firmly believed that the economically strong should assist the economically weak and, as its delegation had already announced in the Economic and Social Council, when the scheme of technical assistance for economic development came into operation, New Zealand would make a full contribution to that inspiring means of international co-operation.
64. Sir Carl Berendsen expressed his Government’s earnest hope that the scheme for technical assistance for economic and social development would be quickly worked out and put into practice. In fact, to the extent of its capacity, New Zealand had already been assisting in international work for economic and social development. It had, of course, contributed to UNRRA and to the International Children’s Emergency Fund. In addition, it shared other work with countries which had interests in the South Pacific. He referred particularly to the South Pacific Commission, where the countries concerned had adopted a joint programme designed to raise the economic and social standards of the islands of the Pacific under their care. His Government had already undertaken substantial obligations in that field of international assistance. He thought it proper in that connexion to pay tribute to the spirit animating President Truman’s “fourth point” and to the activity of the United States Government, which was endeavouring so strenuously to give effect to the proposals under consideration. That, indeed, was one way in which the sufferings of a large proportion of mankind could be relieved, provided — and that condition applied to many of the matters discussed in the United Nations and its subsidiary bodies — that activities were not confined to words but were translated into deeds. Words, however noble, were not enough. One of the greatest and most common fallacies was the apparently unshakable belief that when people had passed a resolution they had done something. That belief in words, and words alone, could bring to naught the noblest of intentions. The aim of the United Nations should be words which were followed by deeds.
65. The New Zealand Government noted with interest and warm approval the importance attached by the Economic and Social Council, and by very many Members of the United Nations, to the adoption of policies calculated to lead to full employment everywhere. That was a fundamental requirement and it had been an essential policy of the New Zealand Government even before the establishment of the United Nations. Success would require co-operative action in many spheres and by many of the specialized agencies, and all that work had to be co-ordinated by the Economic and Social Council in the first place, and supervised by the General Assembly itself. That was most important and urgent, and New Zealand hoped to play a full part in committee discussions on that subject. The emphasis, however, should be put upon the examination of the numerous problems to be solved before full employment policies on an international level could be made effective.
66. Sir Carl Berendsen wished next to emphasize the importance of the Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide and of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. They marked a very important step forward in man’s development, but there again Members should not deceive themselves. The drafting of conventions did not in itself effect anything; it merely pointed a way. The conventions would mean little or nothing in practice unless and until the nations of the world adopted them. Even then they might be largely ineffective unless they were implemented. It could scarcely be suggested, for example, that a people which could sink to such a depth of turpitude as to be guilty of genocide was likely to attach any meticulous importance to its pledged word on a convention. The mere signing of a convention did not necessarily lead to the elimination of the horror of genocide; it must be enforced. Human rights could not be preserved for all time merely because the nations declared that they should be enforced.
67. The fundamentally important functions exercised by the United Nations in the promotion of understanding among its Members and in the field of conciliation must not be overlooked. It was of the utmost importance that the world should possess such a forum as the United Nations, where all the nations of the world could gather to discuss their mutual problems and endeavour so to adjust matters that the common welfare of all might be achieved. There had been many examples of such success.
68. The United Nations therefore deserved and might demand the fullest encouragement and support from every honest citizen in every country in the world. That support must be accorded, continued and increased.
69. The representative of New Zealand believed that unless at that very time and in the years immediately to come the United Nations was successful in preventing war, the soaring hopes of mankind would fall broken to the ground. The preservation of peace, the prevention of war, was the first and most fundamental problem on the solution of which everything else depended. The United Nations had been established to prevent the unlawful use of force in international affairs. The primary purpose of the United Nations had been the establishment of a system of collective security; in that primary purpose — and there should be no attempt to conceal the fact — it had not been successful. It was a disservice to the United Nations and to the cause of peace to pretend that the Organization represented an effective system of collective security when every informed man or woman knew by then that it was not so. It was true, as the Brazilian representative had pointed out in his opening speech, that the United Nations had been singularly unfortunate in the international climate in which it had had to operate. It was also true that the world-wide clash of ideologies between those who believed in the supremacy of the individual and those who believed in the supremacy of the State. In other words, between those who believed in democracy and those who believed in authoritarianism; between those who desired to implement the principles and objectives of the Charter of the United Nations and those who had too often appeared to desire the stultification of the Organization, had placed a strain, not clearly foreseen, on ,a young organization which had proved beyond its strength. Much of that was undoubtedly true, but the plain fact of the matter was that the structure which had been approved in San Francisco had never been adequate to support an effective system of collective security.
70. Sir Carl Berendsen did not wish to inflict upon the Assembly another exposition of his country’s views on the veto power which had so crippled the United Nations as a means of enforcing peace. Those views, however, remained unaltered. It must be emphasized once again that as long as each of the five great Powers insisted on retaining to itself not only the right to say whether it would itself take action, but also — incredible as it might sound — the right to prevent the United Nations from taking action, even if that one great Power was in a minority of one, the United Nations could not have an effective system of collective security. He did not presume to tell the five great Powers that they should relinquish that great and pregnant privilege — that was their business — but he did say that unless and until they relinquished that privilege there could never be an effective system of collective security.
71. He believed it would be generally admitted that what he had said was true. It was proved by the necessity of establishing, for purposes of self-defence, two separate and limited systems of collective security, one on the American continent and the other among the North Atlantic community. He had nothing to say against those thoroughly justifiable and non-aggressive agreements for self-defence. They were — most unhappily — essential in existing circumstances. They were indisputably justifiable if and as long as they met, as they did at that time, the following three conditions: first, that they did not represent any threat to any peace-loving State; secondly, that they constituted a real and not merely a verbal reinforcement of security for The parties thereto, for the smaller countries in the groups concerned as well as for the greater; thirdly — and that was of primary importance to a country such as New Zealand — that they were not regarded as an excuse for non-participation in more general action by the United Nations in the case of acts of aggression or threats to the peace which were not covered by the terms of the particular arrangements. But no one could possibly suggest that the peace of the world could in the long run be maintained by such limited and partial arrangements. He agreed wholeheartedly with what the representative of the United States had said in his opening address (222nd meeting) namely, that the problem of peace was a universal problem which could be solved only on a universal basis.
72. In short, while the world had in the United Nations something very precious, something, indeed, that was worthy of all support, it did not have the one thing, the means of defeating aggression, which, in the long run, man must achieve or perish.
73. He believed that if the world had the good fortune to enjoy a long enough period of peace, the United Nations would prove itself able to preserve the peace; that, if it had sufficient time, it would find means to free itself of the shackles of the veto and to establish an effective organization of all peace-loving and liberty-loving nations determined to protect themselves, all for one and one for all, against any aggression. But did it have the time? No one knew. One thing, however, was clear: the problem was not only fundamental and vital, it was pressing and insistent, it was on the very door-step of the United Nations, it was in every home. Man must solve the problem — and solve it in time — or perish.