I am happy, Mr. President, to have this opportunity of joining with previous speakers in congratulating you, and us, on your election to your high office.
57. This ninth regular session of the General Assembly has gathered at a moment when, for the first time in many years, open warfare on an important scale is not going on anywhere in the world. One year after the Armistice in Korea in July of last year, the armistice agreements for the three Indo-Chinese states were signed at Geneva. In my country, as I am sure in all other countries represented here, there is a sincere feeling of relief that, for the first time in nearly twenty years, no organized mass killing of man by man is going on. This feeling of relief is coupled with a strong desire to see the world proceed from a state of armistice between armed camps to one of real peace and active co-operation between nations.
58. We cannot, however, close our eyes to the fad that, despite the few encouraging signs to which I have just referred, the general world situation confronting us is deeply disturbing. Fundamental international conflicts which have beset us during most of the lifetime of this Organization remain essentially as unresolved as at any previous session of the General Assembly, and we do not know how far we shall succeed through our work here during the coming weeks in bringing their solution any nearer.
59. To an important extent our success or failure in making a constructive contribution to the cause of peace will depend on the way in which we make use of the opportunities afforded to us by this world Oganization of ours.
60. We have as the basis of our general debate the comprehensive annual report [A/2663] of the Secretary-General on the work of the Organization during the past year. I avail myself of this opportunity to congratulate him not only on this particular report but in general on the documentation with which he and the Secretariat have provided us on the many important items before this Assembly. Allow me to add my thanks to the Secretary-General for the firm, efficient and sober way in which he is discharging his great responsibilities under the Charter.
61. In the light of what I said at the outset, I should like to make a few observations on those parts of the Secretary-General’s report which deal with the role of the United Nations in diplomatic affairs. It is of course true, as the Secretary-General points out in his introductory remarks, that the United Nations is not an end in itself. Our Organization is an instrument created by the Member States to serve them in their efforts to maintain peace and to further international co-operation in all fields of human activity. It is entirely up to us, the Member States, to use this instrument or to ignore or by-pass it. As an instrument, the United Nations cannot be self-operating.
62. In his report, the Secretary-General expresses apprehension that the United Nations be by-passed or ignored for reasons of expediency or shortsighted convenience. In the opening speech of this session, on Tuesday [473rd meeting], the outgoing President, Mrs. Pandit, also cautioned us not to encourage neglect of the machinery we have patiently built up. “Machinery”, she said, “in order to be useful, must be kept running.” Such warnings on the part of two of the chief servants of our Organization make it incumbent upon everyone of us representing the Member States to consider very seriously our attitude to the United Nations and the use we are making of the Organization.
63. I, for one, agree with the Secretary-General that the United Nations cannot and should not supplant the normal processes of diplomacy. There can be no disputing the Secretary-General’s view that when these processes are adequate and likely to lead to positive results they should be utilized. In so doing Members should, however, bear in mind their obligations to the Organization and keep its appropriate organs informed about developments which fall within the sphere of responsibility of the United Nations.
64. There have been situations where the machinery of the United Nations has not been utilized, not because other means of negotiations seemed more promising, but because certain States, vitally interested in the Particular situation, had no possibility of making themselves heard in this world Organization of ours. I have primarily in mind the fact that the People’s Republic of China is not represented in the bodies of the United Nations. This is a state of affairs which, in the opinion of my Government, cannot but cause increasing concern to the Members of our Organization. It is this state of affairs which explains why vital international Problems, even problems bearing directly on the question of peace or war, are precluded from realistic consideration within this forum. My Government is of the opinion that it is in the common interest of all of us, that an end be put to this anomalous situation. Otherwise there is a continued risk that the tendency to by-pass the United Nations and to substitute for it other means of international negotiation may make itself increasingly felt. The task of our Organization surely is to facilitate international contacts between Governments, and not to impede or even prevent such contacts.
65. These observations lead me to the question of the admission of new Members to the Organization, a question which, of course, is different in principle from the problem of who should represent a particular Member nation.
66. The admission of new Members is guided by the provisions of Article 4 of the Charter. It seems reasonable to my Government to consider that Article in the light of the situation prevailing in the world at the time when it was drafted. In the final stages of the Second World War, the United Nations was generally viewed as an alliance engaged in a war against a certain group of States. This conception of the United Nations as an alliance is reflected in Article 4 and explains the inclusion in the text of that Article of the word “peace-loving”, a world which at that particular moment of history meant, for all practical purposes, a State actively participating in the war on the side of the United Nations.
67. For obvious reasons, this meaning of the word “peace-loving” could not be maintained for long after the war was over. Furthermore, international developments soon put an end to the concept of the United Nations as an alliance, even in the loosest sense of that word. It is many years now since the description of our Organization as an alliance could be considered even remotely justified.
68. The developments to which I just referred must necessarily be reflected in our concept of the nature and role of the United Nations in the present world situation. It necessitates a shift in emphasis, away from the concept of. the United Nations as a politically homogeneous body, to the concept of the United Nations which is the meeting-place of the world, and I may add of the world as it is, with all its varieties of political, social and economic systems.
69. There is no doubt need for forums, where like- minded people can meet. This does not, however, in the least detract from the great importance of maintaining and developing an organization where nations with widely differing views and interests, even with opposed views, can meet and seek peaceful solutions to conflicts and disputes. There is no organization other than the United Nations in the world today which can serve this particular purpose. This is indeed the raison d’être of the United Nations in the present world situation, and that is why we view the United Nations as essential to the maintenance of peace and security.
70. In order that the United Nations may play its part as a meeting-place of the world as efficiently as possible, it seems to us essential that the doors of, the Organization be open to States which wish to participate in it. If we sincerely believe in the possibility of solving international problems through negotiation, it would seem illogical to pursue a restrictive policy in the membership question. My delegation will, therefore, actively support efforts at extending membership to as many applicant States as can obtain the necessary recommendation from the Security Council.
71. Having said this, I venture to add a few-observations regarding the aim. of the negotiations we conduct in the various bodies of our Organization. I presume it is generally agreed that the purpose of international negotiations is to reach solutions to the problems with which we are faced. In my opinion, however, there is often a tendency to forget this primary purpose in United Nations bodies. Over the years there has been an increasing tendency to substitute voting for negotiation, obviously on the assumption that a resolution adopted by a majority is tantamount to a solution of the particular problem under consideration. It is hardly necessary to stress that this very often is a fallacious assumption. With the exception of Security Council resolutions in certain specifically defined cases, no resolutions of any United Nations body can obligate Member Governments. United Nations resolutions generally are no more than recommendations to Governments. This is a basic provision of our Charter, and Member Governments are not at the present time willing to assume more far-reaching obligations. A widening of the obligations imposed on the Members of the United Nations could not be effected without grave consequences for the structure of our Organization.
72. In my view, however, the very limitations of the obligations of Member Governments constitute a challenge to their willingness and ability to seek solutions, not through the adoption of resolutions by varying majorities, but through sincere and patient negotiations. I have noticed with apprehension the tendency prevalent in United Nations organs to press for resolutions so far-reaching that they are adopted by only a bare majority. Might it not be preferable to seek solutions perhaps less far-reaching but capable of commanding unanimous or nearly unanimous support? The method of patiently seeking unanimous solutions would no doubt produce fewer resolutions but perhaps more results. And, above all, such a method would create a better atmosphere, which in turn would facilitate the process of co-operation amongst us all.
73. There is one particular field of United Nations activities on which these general observations have a direct and immediate bearing. On more than one occasion, it has been unanimously established that assistance to under-developed countries should have top priority in the activities of the United Nations. The Norwegian Government wholeheartedly endorses this view, and within the limit of its ability has tried to play its part in the efforts made in this field.
74. It would also be generally admitted, I feel, that the efforts undertaken and the means made available to this end lag far behind the well-nigh unlimited needs which such an extended technical assistance programme is intended to meet. Against this background, it is perfectly understandable that Member States from those areas of the world which are considered under-developed show a good deal of impatience at the slow progress of the United Nations technical assistance programme. On the other hand, it seems to my Government that there is not much point in recommending through a mere majority vote the setting up of agencies, such as the proposed Special United Nations Fund for Economic Development and the proposed International Finance Corporation as long as the Member States to which we must necessarily look for a major part of the capital envisaged do not see their way to contributing.
75. Having sounded this note of what to me seems common sense, I hasten to add, however, that while waiting and hoping for a better moment to start new United Nations operations to finance economic development, we attach the greatest importance to the expansion and speeding-up of the extended technical assistance programme now in operation. In submitting to Parliament budget estimates for the fiscal year 1955-1956, my Government intends to suggest another substantial increase in Norway’s contribution to this programme, with a view to doing what is in our power to help expand the activity of our Organization in this field.
76. Since the beginning of this year, Norway is once more a member of the Economic and Social Council of the United Nations. It seems appropriate, therefore, that I should dwell for a moment on one or two more of the problems now before that body.
77. To my mind, the problems connected with securing full employment in the Member States are among the most important questions dealt with by the Economic and Social Council. During its eighteenth session, the Council invited the International Labour Organisation to continue its work in the field of employment problems [resolution 531 B (XVIII)] and adopted various recommendations to the Member States to maintain high and expanding levels of production and employment in their territories.
78. I am fully aware that there is no simple and over-all solution to the problem of achieving and maintaining full employment. The form in which the problem presents itself is certainly very different in the highly industrialized countries and in countries which are economically under-developed, and it goes without saying, therefore, that the measures taken to ensure full employment and economic expansion must differ considerably.
79. On the other hand, the institutional framework within which we are now able to work out and implement concerted policies both on national, regional, inter-regional and world-wide levels, has been greatly expanded. It is surely our task, with energy and in close co-operation, to adapt our policies and our machinery on the various levels to a realistic attack on our inter-related economic problems.
80. In addition to policies of full employment and expansion of production, I want also to stress the importance my Government attaches to concerted international action in the field of trade and payments. These problems have been the object of international action for decades, and the post-war world particularly has grappled with them over and over again. Outstanding results have been achieved in Western Europe, and various bodies under the United Nations have made considerable progress.
81. The Economic and Social Council carries a heavy responsibility as the main organ for directing and coordinating the policies of Member nations in this field on a world-wide basis. During its seventeenth and eighteenth sessions, major problems of international trade and payments were discussed. I mention international capital movements, stabilization of world commodity trade and prices, trade problems generally, with particular weight given to East-West trade. It might be said that no very tangible results were arrived but we should be grateful for what was achieved, and I feel confident that the scope for action in this field in the present world situation was once again carefully explored.
82. In this connexion we should bear in mind that the same and related problems come up for consideration very often from other angles in international bodies other than the Economic and Social Council to a considerable extent in bodies inside the United Nations.
83. We expect from the members of these other bodies which are currently dealing with particular aspects of trade and payments — such as convertibility, East-West trade and inter-regional trade — a willingness to seek workable solutions which can safeguard continuing progress towards full employment and an expanding world economy.
84. There are great and obvious benefits to be derived from freer trade and payments. At the same time, however, such progress will make additional claims upon the policies of both creditor and debtor nations. Most debtors will face grave difficulties if their efforts to expand exports do not find an adequate response in creditor countries, which will be called upon to pursue a liberal or, if you prefer, a “good creditor” policy. Such a policy must include a liberal pattern of behaviour in trade matters and with regard to the international flow of capital, two fields which are very important for the proper functioning of a liberal and progressive trading system.
85. I venture to express the hope that Member governments will devote fresh energy to working out solutions to these problems at the forthcoming meetings both of the International Monetary Fund, the parties to the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade, and elsewhere.
86. Before I leave the problems now before the Economic and Social Council, allow me to refer briefly to the refugee problem, that unhappy legacy of the last world war, which today, nine years later, still remains with us. The United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees has drawn up a comprehensive plan [A/2648] for the liquidation of the refugee camps, the permanent placement of the refugees in need of institutional care and the integration of the remainder into economic and social life. The High Commissioner’s plan is of course concerned with only those refugees who fall within his mandate, the so-called “international refugees” — that is, those who do not reside in a country of which they are citizens.
87. I need not remind this Assembly that it is the obvious moral duty of this world Organization to give the High Commissioner the means to carry out his plan, and it is hardly necessary to stress the political danger of not doing everything in our power to solve the refugee problem. The reason for my mentioning the High Commissioner’s plan in this debate is that I should like this Assembly to know that the Norwegian Government will suggest to Parliament a considerable increase in Norway’s contribution to the High Commissioner’s work. We hope that similar contributions from other Member States will enable him to start action without delay and on a broad scale.
88. From these brief remarks on a few of the problems facing us in the social, economic and humanitarian fields, I now turn to an aspect of the present World situation which, more than anything else, is causing anxiety and fear in the minds and hearts of ordinary men and women in all parts of the world. I refer to the development of weapons of mass destruction, whose application in war might cause the whole structure of modern civilization to break down, and to the heavy load of conventional armaments carried by a number of States, Members and non-members alike.
89. In approaching the problem of disarmament it is essential that we have a clear conception as to where the primary responsibility for the present disturbing state of affairs resides.
90. Rearmament has been forced upon the democratic world. Reluctantly we have arrived at the conviction that the unilateral disbanding of military forces which took place after the Second World War was the principal factor in bringing about the cold war — for this simple reason: the Soviet Union, the only great Power victorious in the war which maintained a very high degree of military preparedness after the end of hostilities in Europe and Asia, could not resist the temptation to take advantage of the situation created by the unilateral disarmament undertaken by its democratic allies. Communist political and economic influence filled the vacuum in Eastern Europe and in parts of Asia. We were slow in waking up to reality and slow in recognizing the dangers which this development created to the maintenance of international peace and security. The democratic world was forced to respond by taking action in two fields: first, by joint action in the economic field to rehabilitate and strengthen our democratic institutions; secondly, by joint action to restore the military balance, especially in Europe, which was destroyed by the unilateral disarmament of the Western democracies after the war.
91. The action taken in the economic field was popular among peoples and governments alike. The programme implemented in the military field could not be, and has never been, popular, but it has been accepted as necessary for the preservation of our national security.
92. It goes without saying that any indication of a possibility of reducing the armaments burden will be welcomed unanimously by peoples, parliaments and governments alike in all democratic countries. It is, as I said, a burden which has been forced upon us, and we should like to get rid of it as soon as possible. By “as soon as possible” I mean this: a reduction of our armaments must not mean a reduction in our national security. This is a fundamental requirement.
93. Disarmament must be carried out, not unilaterally, but universally in a balanced way and with adequate controls. Of equal importance, however, with the working-out of elaborate plans, is the atmosphere in which we approach the problem. In the first place, without a minimum of goodwill and without a minimum of confidence, all our work in this field will be doomed to failure. In the second place, we can only hope to reach agreement on disarmament to the extent that we succeed in settling the political issues and conflicts which are the underlying causes of the present world tension.
94. One of the issues which has to be settled in order to alleviate this tension and bring about a stable situation is the problem of Germany. The way this problem is being handled, in the West as well as in the East, and in particular in Germany itself, is a severe test of our statesmanship and the key to the future of Europe.
95. For five years my country was under Nazi occupation, and we cannot forget the experience of that recent past. It seems obvious to us that a peaceful future for Europe can only be assured if, as a member of the European family of nations, there is a truly democratic Germany. An international settlement cannot, and should not any longer, be imposed on Germany from the outside, contrary to the wishes of the German people. That would be true of the united Germany which we must hope will in no distant future emerge on the basis of truly free elections. It also holds true for the present Federal Republic of Germany.
96. It is my belief that the negotiations now in progress on the problem of Western European security will contribute to a lasting improvement of relations not only between Germany and France, but also between the Western and the Eastern worlds. Three things seem to me essential in this connexion. The solution arrived at must be one which can command the active support of the parliaments in all the countries directly concerned. It must be so conceived as to provide, on a non-discriminatory basis, adequate guarantees against the resurgence of German militarism, and it must not preclude the possibility of uniting Germany by peaceful methods on the basis of genuinely free elections.
97. It is my hope that recent developments in Asia and coming developments in Europe will create a better atmosphere for the work of the Disarmament Commission. So far, progress has been distressingly slow. Positions have been frozen. Old ideas of national sovereignty have dominated the discussions on effective international control, which is essential for the carrying-out of any disarmament programme, however limited in scope.
98. While these negotiations have been dragging on, technical developments have proceeded at a relentless pace, which cannot but cause the gravest anxiety for the survival of our whole civilization. Nuclear weapons are the nightmare of our time. To eliminate them as instruments of destruction and to establish adequate controls should be recognized as the supreme task of governments in the world today. On their success or failure in this endeavour will depend the continued existence of our civilization, possibly the continued existence of the human race on this planet. This is the magnitude of the task. It is one of self- preservation in the strictest sense of the word.
99. Against this background, arguments against international controls based on old concepts of national sovereignty seem as absurd and as obsolete as bows and arrows in a modern battle.
100. However, this is basically a problem of mutual trust and confidence. In a world where trust does not exist, we must take the slow and cautious approach. This has been done in the Disarmament Commission. It is the sincere hope of my Government that the joint memorandum [DS/53, annex 9] of France and the United Kingdom of 11 June in the Sub-Committee will be accepted by all principal Powers as a basis for a compromise which would enable us to agree upon a programme of disarmament and the international control of atomic energy.
101. While holding this hope, we do of course fully realize that the road towards this goal is long and arduous. We therefore sincerely welcome the statement. made here yesterday [475th meeting] by the United States Secretary of State that his Government is prepared to take an initiative in the near future to organize on an international basis the exploration and development of the peaceful use of atomic energy. This initiative emanates from the proposals made in the Assembly on 8 December of last year [470th meeting] by the President of the United States. I noted with particular satisfaction that participation in this new endeavour would be open to nations from all regions of the world, and that it is suggested that the preparatory conference of scientists should be held under the auspices of the United Nations. Let us hope that this new venture in international co-operation for the peaceful use of atomic energy will expand rapidly and pave the way for genuine international co-operation and also for the purpose of eliminating the threat to our civilization which is inherent in these vast destructive forces.