136. My country has not participated in the general debate during the past few years. We have listened with interest to all those who have had anything to offer towards the solution of any of our many world problems or had some guidance to give to a bewildered and frightened world. Our delegation has generally chosen to make its voice heard during the handling of the different problems in the committees, well knowing that a small nation like ours has little to contribute to the actual and factual disposal of the world's troubles and to the elimination of the great and imminent dangers hanging like the sword of Damocles over all mankind. Such great problems are for the biggest Powers to settle. They are often caused by the great Powers, and they alone can and must solve them. All the world, all the peoples of the world, look to the great Powers and demand that they settle their differences so that men can live and breathe peacefully and enjoy freedom from fear of annihilation.
137. This year Iceland has an urgent need to make Its voice heard immediately during the general debate and I shall revert to that later. But let me first glance at a few of the seventy-two items on the agenda of this General Assembly. Some are old friends which have been discussed at many past sessions and are equally unsolved and insoluble today as they were years ago. This refers in particular to such items as the "Treatment of people of Indian origin in the Union of South Africa", which question has been before the General Assembly since 1946, and the item called "Question of race conflict in South Africa resulting from the policies of apartheid of the Government of the Union of South Africa", which has been before the Assembly since 1952. The Icelandic delegation has always held the view that the General Assembly is entitled to handle these questions, and we must endeavour to find a solution in compliance with Article 55, paragraph c, of our Charter, where all Members pledge themselves to promote "universal respect for, and observance of, human rights and fundamental freedoms for all without distinction as to race, sex, language or religion".
138. The Icelandic people, who are all of one race, have difficulty in understanding any policy or practice of discrimination on account of race. We desire to stand on the side of humanity and we still hope the Government of the Union of South Africa will see the wisdom of revising its policy to the effect of eliminating injustice in order to avoid grave consequences and dangerous conflicts.
139. As in previous sessions, the question of disarmament will this year be the main problem in our deliberations. Since the beginning of the United Nations activities in 1946, the United Nations has always been greatly concerned about the question of disarmament, or — more correctly expressed — the question of reduction of armaments. This matter has been on the agenda of each of the twelve previous sessions of the General Assembly. It has been discussed here for months. A total period of more than a year must have been devoted to its handling in the General Assembly alone during these twelve years, not counting all the months in the various disarmament committees. A whole bunch of resolutions expressing pious and well- meaning desires for reduction of armaments, for the lessening of world tension and for peaceful coexistence and friendly, neighbourly relations, have been passed year after year — a whole bible of good intentions. But no result has yet been seen. The armaments race has continued and has been intensified and accelerated. New and constantly more effective means of destruction have been invented. We are told that during 1948 to 1956 the nations of the world spent about $420,000 million on armaments, and in 1957 alone the military expenditure amounted to well over $100,000 million. Now all the world wonders where we are being led, where we are going, what comes next.
140. Let me, however, admit with a feeling of relief and satisfaction that during the last few months some progress on the road to understanding and co-operation between the big Powers has been made. I refer to three points. Number one is the recent meeting in Geneva of experts from eight countries, Including the United States and the Soviet Union, to study the technical possibility of detecting violations of an eventual agreement to suspend nuclear weapons tests. The experts reached unanimous conclusions on what would he needed technically and they expressed the opinion that control over nuclear tests was possible and feasible. This should augur well for further steps along this road in the future. Point number two is that the big Powers have agreed to meet in Geneva on 31 October 1958 to consider the suspension of nuclear weapons tests. It is to be hoped that no political manoeuvring will hinder this conference from taking place and that the negotiators will arrive at a successful result. The third ray of hope is due to the fact that the big Powers have further agreed to send technical experts to Geneva on 10 November for discussions on the ways of preventing a surprise attack. All these are steps in the right direction and seem to guide the way for the future. It seems that the most likely method of achieving understanding and removing the political hindrances is for the international scientists and experts first to scrutinize the matters between themselves and prepare the ground for the statesmen to meet to proceed further.
141. It was regrettable that the twelfth session of the General Assembly ended in a deadlock on the work of the Disarmament Commission. Every effort should be made during our deliberation of the all important disarmament question at this session to take measures to enable the Disarmament Commission to resume its meetings which could only have any meaning or purpose if all the major Powers are present, assisted and possibly guided by several other Powers. All the preparatory work on disarmament may at a later stage lead to the great summit conference where the leaders of the world finally would give the world assurance of a peaceful future and friendly relations between all nations, large and small. My nation follows with anxiety all negotiations for disarmament, and has only one wish in this respect: that stage by stage, and as soon as possible, mankind may be led away from the armament race to a future of security and freedom from fear and anxiety.
142. In respect of securing a more peaceful future, it is our opinion that a United Nations peace force could play a major role. We do not consider it necessary that a special United Nations force be established on a permanent international basis, and we consider that a contingent of military personnel could be kept available within many different nations, to be called upon in cases of emergency by the decision of the United Nations. Thus, the new peace force of the United Nations would function as a kind of international fire brigade to prevent minor disturbances and local fights from turning into a world conflict. We must always bear in mind that any hostilities, wherever they arise on the globe, are in our present condensed world likely to spread into a major war. In our endeavours to avoid hostilities let us not forget that many wars in the past might have been averted by patience, tolerance and extended negotiations, and that we are all bound by our Charter, as stated in Article 2, paragraphs 3 and 4, all Members have pledged themselves to "settle their international disputes by peaceful means" and to "refrain in their international relations from the threat or use of force against the territorial integrity or political independence of any States". Therefore, and in view of this solemn pledge, it seems rather Inconsistent that the great Powers, and so many other nations, have to spend the greatest amount of their budget yearly on building up forces and engaging in all kinds of military expenditures, most of which nowadays are for the devices of the utmost destruction and annihilation.
143. It seems so evident how enormously beneficial it would be for all mankind if the burden of armaments could be reduced and part of the military expenditures diverted to pacific and humanitarian projects all over the world. In tint way the standard of living could be raised, particularly where people are deprived of so many of the good things in life in the under-developed countries, employment could be increased, education tremendously increased, and the general well-being of people secured. Here in the United Nations, my country has always expressed its fervent adherence to such high ideals, although we have little to offer to others. But every country, large and small, has the primary duty to keep its own house clean and to give a fair share in life to each of its individuals, and in that way also the small nations can, separately and for themselves, contribute to the general welfare of the world. We are mindful that the small nations also have their duties, that they cannot shirk their responsibilities in international affairs, and that their conduct can also lead to great events, both for good or for ill.
144. As regards some of the specific matters on the agenda of our Assembly, may I make further mention of a few. The third emergency special session was convened only last month because of the dangerous situation in the Middle East, Fortunately, that session succeeded in adopting a unanimous resolution [1237 (ES-III)], thanks largely to the understanding and the intelligent approach of all the Arab States. We now await with great interest the report of the Secretary-General, to whom the Assembly entrusted the task of trying to make arrangements for a prompt settlement. The Near Eastern countries have presented many varied problems in the past, and most of them are still unsolved. Some of them are highly political, others are economic oi humanitarian, and until the whole question of the Middle East is treated on a broad basis, additional difficulties will arise, and threatening clouds will remain over our heads. In the opinion of my delegation, the problems of the Middle East will never be solved unless the people there show their willingness to solve them together and agree to live together as good neighbours with all the countries in that region.
145. Regarding the question of Algeria, my delegation also stands for the principle of the right of self- determination, and has always maintained that in the United Nations debates. Thus we firmly supported the pleas for the independence of Tunisia and Morocco, which at one time was strongly contested during our considerations of those problems here. If the great majority of people of Algeria are desirous of claiming their independence, no continued fighting will in the long run hinder them from achieving it. The first sensible step should be to bring about a cease-fire and to renew negotiations. In this case, as in so many others where tension and fighting have existed, it is wise to allow time to pass before fruitful negotiations can be expected. It should also be recognized that full independence does not have to come all at once, and even if it is desired by the majority of the people, it takes time to build up a new State with all Its functional organizations, and to safely bring about necessary adjustments.
146. We once more have the controversial and, as yet, insoluble question of Cyprus. Hero again, my delegation has always favoured the principle of self-determination, and we also think that some time should elapse before the last steps are taken. But we must bear in mind that although there are some 400,000 people of Greek descent on Cyprus, there is a large minority of approximately 100,000 people of Turkish descent.
147. Allow me to mention a matter that my Government, as all other Governments of Western Europe, views with great concern, and that Is the question of the unification of Germany. So long as Germany remains divided, this situation presents a serious threat to the security of Europe and to the peace of the world In general. Here we feel that the principle of self- determination should be applied and that all the German people should be given the opportunity to conduct free elections in both parts of the country. Germany should be given the right of self-determination and in free elections to decide on the future fate of this highly developed and intelligent nation. We express this without prejudice towards anyone, and only with the conviction that the German people are one nation, strongly united by ties of brotherhood and blood. The unified German nation should be welcomed within the United Nations.
148. As I mentioned previously, we can never build a peaceful and secure world unless we continue and Intensify our fight against poverty, malnutrition and disease in vast areas of the globe. Any step in this direction, we therefore welcome. We are convinced that the establishment of the Special Fund marks a milestone in this direction and can have highly beneficial effects in various parts of the world. The programme of technical assistance has spread its blessings and benefits to more and more lands and is to be increased and strengthened.
149. On our agenda we have now for the first time the question of the use by humanity of outer space, since man's penetration into outer space is gradually becoming a reality. With this newest achievement of science, it has now become of utmost importance to secure international co-operation for the peaceful use of cosmic space, and arrangements, to that effect should be accelerated in order to assure that the exploitation of outer space should be permitted only for the benefit of humanity.
150. As I mentioned at the commencement of my statement, Iceland now feels an urgent need to make its voice heard in the general debate, particularly in reference to item 59 on the agenda of the General Assembly, which bears the title "Question of convening a second United Nations conference on the law of the sea”. In this connexion I would be failing in my duty if I did not raise my voice here in regard to the problem of fishing in Icelandic waters, a problem which is of such a nature that it has resulted in a most serious dispute between two friendly Member nations.
151. In my opinion, there are a few fundamental points which should be kept in mind in this connexion. First, as has repeatedly been emphasized before this General Assembly and elsewhere, it is an indisputable fact that my country, Iceland, would hardly be habitable without its coastal fisheries. Iceland is a country practically without any natural resources other than its fisheries. Due to our northerly position, the possibility of agriculture is very limited. No minerals or forests exist; Consequently, most of the necessities of life have to be imported from abroad and financed mainly through the export of fishery products, which amount to 97 per cent of the total exports of Iceland. Thus, whether we can sustain our coastal fisheries is a matter of life or death to us. This is my first point.
152. Secondly, the experience of the last few decades has proved beyond dispute that if the necessary steps are not taken to prevent overfishing, the fishing grounds around Iceland will be depleted. In view of these vital considerations, my Government has found it necessary to safeguard the interests of my people in this respect. At the same time, let us not lose sight of the fact that, in so doing, my country also protects a stock of fish and spawning grounds essential for the fisheries in the North Atlantic as a whole, and for the future benefit of all nations concerned.
153. I am not going to mention any specific figures in this connexion. It is sufficient to recall that in the years between the two World Wars, and the years prior to World War I and after the second, when great and increasing fleets of foreign trawlers fished off the Icelandic coast, the catch became constantly reduced so that utter destruction was imminent. On the other hand, during the years of the two world wars when no foreign trawlers fished in Icelandic waters, the catch increased constantly. It is an established fact that without this involuntary protection, the spawning areas and nursery grounds in Iceland would have long since been destroyed, and thereby the fisheries themselves. If that had been the case, Iceland would hardly be habitable today.
154. It has been the policy of the Icelandic Government to protect the resources of the sea as far as possible through the rules of international law. For years we tried, through international co-operation, to safeguard these interests. Thus, in 1949 — almost ten years ago — we suggested to the General Assembly that the International Law Commission should be entrusted with the task of formulating rules concerning the extent of coastal jurisdiction. By this proposal we hoped to achieve, within a relatively short period of time, a solution to this problem so vital to the future existence of my country.
155. It is a fact that in former times, prior to the development of modern fishing techniques, the Icelandic fishery interests were more fully protected than they are today. In the seventeenth and eighteenth centuries and the first half of the nineteenth century, the fishery limits around Iceland were four leagues - the league being at first the equivalent of eight, later six, and finally of four nautical miles. In other words, at the beginning of the period the limits were thirty-two miles, later they became twenty-four miles, and in the nineteenth century they had been reduced to sixteen miles. During the latter part of the nineteenth century, a four-mile limit seems to have been practised. But all bays were closed to foreign fishing during the entire period.
156. In 1901, while Iceland was still under Danish rule, an agreement was made by the Danish Government with the United Kingdom, providing for a ten- mile rule for bays and a three-mile fishery limit around Iceland. This agreement was terminated by the Icelandic Government in 1951. At that time, the approaching ruin caused by overfishing was quite clear, and the Overfishing Conventions of 1937 and 1946 did not offer any assistance in counteracting this ominous development.
157. In 1952 regulations were Issued providing straight base-lines and the fishery limits were then drawn four miles from the base-lines. These regulations were violently objected to in some quarters. Three or four Governments maintained that the regulations were contrary to international law and that by barring foreign fishermen from areas where they had previously been fishing the regulations would have the effect of greatly reducing their catches. In the United Kingdom where Iceland had previously sold approximately 25 per cent of its catch of demersal fish, the market was forcibly closed entirely for a period of four years, which at that time was intended as a serious blow to the Icelandic economy.
158. Later events clearly have shown that the fears of foreign fishing interests about a reduced catch were quite unjustified. It is now recognized by all concerned that the regulations of 1952 not only halted the disastrous trend, but even succeeded in starting an upward trend for the benefit of all those fishing in Icelandic waters. However, there are definite signs that even a slight increase in the fishing effort would result in overfishing. There is also another aspect to be considered, and that is the possible development of entirely new fishing methods. The use of gigantic factory vessels equipped with electric fishing apparatus and pumps may seem, perhaps, exaggerated, but in the present era of technical progress, events of that kind may be just around the corner.
159. In view of the developments and the problems involved, the Icelandic Government was firmly convinced that further measures would have to be taken for the twin purpose of ensuring necessary conservation and safeguarding vital fishing interests in the coastal area. Therefore, new regulations were issued on 30 June 1958 concerning twelve-mile fishery limits off Iceland, which, however, were not to become effective until 1 September 1958.
160. I am not going to elaborate further on this point, since my Government in a few days will submit a memorandum to the Sixth Committee, where these problems will be explained in detail. I shall now proceed to my third point.
161. As already indicated, the Icelandic Government would have liked to solve this particular difficulty through international co-operation. My Government brought this entire problem before the United Nations almost a decade ago in the hope that a proper and speedy solution thereto could be found. The Icelandic Government had already waited for ten years for a solution on the international level. It did not find it possible to wait any longer.
162. Before we extended our fishery limits to twelve miles on 1 September 1958, we discussed the matter With our neighbours in the North Atlantic area in order to achieve a satisfactory result. It was always understood that the time from 30 June 1958, when the new regulations were issued, until 1 September, when they came into force, should be used to explain them and gain understanding and support for them. I think it is only proper for me to state that throughout these discussions we sincerely hoped and thought that the problem would be solved in a friendly manner. But, unfortunately, our hopes were not fulfilled.
163. Hard and fast rules do not exist in international law concerning the delimitation of coastal waters — a fact which has been amply demonstrated by the judgement of the International Court of Justice in the Anglo-Norwegian Fisheries Case and by the work of the International Law Commission and the results of the United Nations Conference on the Law of the Sea, held in Geneva in 1958. The specific and extraordinary features governing the delimitation of the fisheries zones of Iceland should also be taken into account, features of a geographical, economic, political and historical nature specific for Iceland and for Iceland alone.
164. The widely varying practices of coastal states as to the delimitation of their territorial waters and fishery limits, and the latest developments in this field as a whole, should be recalled. Although the International law Commission did not finish its work concerning the extent of coastal jurisdiction, it is a fact that It did submit that it would be illegal to extend this jurisdiction beyond twelve miles. That fact clearly supports the Icelandic action. At the United Nations Conference on the Law of the Sea, no final solution was found, but it is quite clear that a majority of States, representing an overwhelming majority of mankind, favours the distance of twelve miles in one form or another.
165. It is the sincere conviction of the Icelandic Government that it has acted within the confines of international law in putting into force and effect its twelve- mile fishery zone. Some of the nations fishing in Icelandic waters have protested against the regulations, and we have also been criticized for having laid down our fishery limits by unilateral enactments. Such criticism is unfounded. It is not unique, and indeed it is a generally accepted practice, that a coastal State may and does fix unilaterally, by its domestic legislation, the limits of its coastal waters. It is not necessary to elaborate on this self-evident point. But it must be borne in mind that a host of coastal States, by unilateral enactments, have fixed the limits of their fishery zones or of their territorial waters at twelve miles, or even at distances far in excess of this limit, and a number of other States have expressed their intention of doing so in the not too distant future.
166. During the talks between Iceland and her North Atlantic neighbours, it was emphasized by all concerned - even by those protesting against the new regulations — that it was of the utmost importance that no serious incidents should occur. The Icelandic Government would like to take this opportunity to egress its gratitude to the Governments concerned which have maintained this view and have kept their respective nationals from fishing in Icelandic waters; One Government alone — and I am here referring to the Government of the United Kingdom — did not co-operate in this effort. The Government of the United Kingdom has expressly advised its trawlers to fish inside the Icelandic twelve-mile zone and has sent several warships into these waters to protect the illegal trawling of its fishermen and to force its views upon the Icelandic Government at gunpoint. Against tills we have already protested, and we repeat our protest.
167. I would like to mention that one of the great Powers of Europe, the USSR, has claimed and enforced territorial waters of twelve miles for a considerable period, but the United Kingdom has not found it necessary to send warships into that area to protect its alleged rights under international law, even at times when no treaty arrangements regulated the situation. It is a fact that the British through their present activities in Icelandic waters are not supporting international law, but rather are trying to uphold an obsolete policy by claiming resources that rightfully belong to the Icelandic nation.
168. This attitude will not cause the Icelandic people to surrender to force. On the contrary, they are more than ever united on the question of the twelve-mile fishery limits. Because this is a matter of survival for the nation, the Icelandic people are confident that the fairness and legitimacy of their claims will prevail. It will not be possible in the long run to engage in trawling under the protection of warships, and it is known that the catch of British trawlers has never been less than now under this novel and unique form of fishing. Although the Icelandic people are confident as to the final result, they realize that serious incidents would be created, for instance, if British vessels continued to try to ram Icelandic patrol vessels. It would create serious consequences in the relations between nations in the North Atlantic area. Nevertheless, the Icelandic Government has not wanted to make charges against the United Kingdom in the international arena. Because of the long-standing friendship between these nations, the Icelanders will proceed to avoid excessive measures on their part which might make it more difficult for the United Kingdom to adopt a proper policy in this matter. It is also our opinion that British statesmanship will sooner or later prevail, and that these obsolete tactics' will be discontinued.
169. World public opinion has often proved to be a sound guide for the great Powers in questions of oppression, which rightly belong to the past. The reason why we want to discuss this matter here is that my people are confident that other nations will appreciate and understand our exceptional position as regards the protection of our fishing grounds, and that world public opinion will convince our United Kingdom neighbours of the advisability of discontinuing their resort to force and violence in Icelandic waters.
170. My final point is, where do we go from here? It goes without saying that a solution to the problem in general must be found as soon as possible and, we hope, by this General Assembly.
171. It may be recalled that at the eleventh session of the United Nations General Assembly the Icelandic delegation ventured to suggest that, in view of the fact that the International Law Commission, for a number of years, had not produced a formula for the proper delimitation of coastal jurisdiction, it was not very likely that a conference of experts would be able to solve this particular problem. It was then our painful privilege, if I may say so, to stand alone in suggesting that the General Assembly itself should try to solve this problem.
172. Now we know that the United Nations Conference on the Law of the Sea which was held in Geneva this spring was not able to find a workable formula as to the extent of coastal jurisdiction. Consequently, I submit that the experts have had their say and that no greater success could be anticipated from a second conference. It is the opinion of my Government that we must, therefore, not run the risk of further grave incidents while waiting for a new conference to convene — a conference which, I repeat, would not be more likely to succeed in solving this delicate political question than its predecessor.
173. In the opinion of my Government the General Assembly itself could and should find an international solution in this field in such a way that reasonable rights of coastal States would be secured, and that the special position of those States which are overwhelmingly dependent on their coastal fisheries, as is Iceland, would be fully taken into account.
174. The Sixth Committee possesses all the necessary qualifications for undertaking a careful consideration of this matter. If neither the Sixth Committee nor the General Assembly is able to find a solution, it is not probable that a new conference would succeed in that endeavour.
175. I have now come to the end of my statement, and I trust that all the relevant points have been covered, but before I leave this rostrum I want to emphasize that, above all, it is the demand of my Government that military activities in Iceland coastal waters should at once be discontinued — activities which never before in history have been directed against any State which has unilaterally extended its jurisdiction over coastal fisheries. The gunpoint diplomacy must come to an end.