Union of South Africa

This is not the first occasion on which I have been on this rostrum since the President’s election, but it is the first suitable occasion on which I can tender him, as I now do, the congratulations and sincere good wishes of my delegation. We believe that few Presidents, if any, have been called upon to preside over an Assembly upon whose decisions so much may depend. 20. It is true that the agenda which has been accepted for this session contains few items which have not, in one form or another, been discussed previously. Many of the problems have, in fact, been discussed often before. It may be said, therefore, that there is little in the work for this session which is entirely new. However, I submit that this fact cannot serve as a source of comfort to us. Indeed, when all the circumstances are carefully examined, I believe that our agenda must be regarded as a source of serious concern. I say this because, apart from the fact that the repeated reappearance on our agenda of so many problems could well be accepted as proof of our many failures in the past, some of these problems have reached a stage where continued aggravation can have the most unfortunate consequences. 21. It is in these circumstances that I say that the present session may prove to be one of the greatest importance — that, in fact, it may even be a fateful one, if not for the international situation generally, then at least for the United Nations itself. 22. The delegation of the Union of South Africa would therefore express the hope, which we are sure is shared by all other delegations, that under the President’s wise guidance this Assembly will so conduct its affairs that we may get closer to the ideals of peace and co-operation which are inscribed in the Charter. It was in this connexion that we listened with such close attention, and approval, to the President’s wise advice that we should, in the performance of our work during the present session, exercise “the greatest good will, the utmost prudence and a maximum restraint in action and in speech” [473rd meeting]. May I add to this the hope that the present Assembly’s decisions, and the manner in which those decisions will be reached, will be such as not to drive us, the Member States, still further apart, and will be such as to ensure against dealing a further blow, perhaps a fatal blow, to the prestige of this Organization. 23. While on this point, may I make one further observation, namely, that in charting this safe and wise course, we should all pay heed to the lessons of the past, to the experience which we have acquired during the years since San Francisco, in order to avoid the many pitfalls which, due often to enthusiasm but often also to more dangerous practices, have prevented the United Nations from progressing towards what one might well describe as full maturity. 24. In the President’s inaugural address, when he gave expression to the relief, which we all share, that there is “no organized armed clash anywhere on any important scale”, he also drew attention to what he termed “a lowering sky” in international relations, and he referred in that connexion to the fatal consequences of armed conflict in our atomic age. Other speakers have also discussed this matter, and have, almost without exception, dwelt on this threat of total destruction which is preoccupying the minds of those who have experienced the horrors of war and who now, in the light of scientific development, look with apprehension at the growing tension between the different power blocs in world affairs. 25. It is not my intention to pursue this matter. I merely refer to it as I believe it to be essential that we never lose sight of these facts, since they constitute the sombre and dangerous background against which it would be well to consider future international action. 26. And it is in this context that I, also, would like to say something about the United Nations, its place in international life and the manner in which it is seeking to fulfil its essential functions. If in doing so I repeat what we and others have said in the past — or what has already been said in the present debate — I must ask the Assembly to bear with me. Also, if in an effort to be frank I should appear to be unduly critical then I would point out that it is only by an objective examination of past performance that we can determine whether or not the United Nations is playing the part for which it was created — and, if not, what measures should be taken to restore it to the place it was designed to take in world affairs. 27. No one could reasonably wish to detract from what the United Nations has achieved, and continues to achieve, in certain fields of its activities. Nor would anyone reasonably underestimate the importance of these activities which, in fact were prescribed for the United Nations by those who defined our purposes at San Francisco. But we should realize that, however important these activities, and however encouraging its success in many respects, the Organization will have failed, and will have failed tragically, if it does not achieve the primary purpose for which it was created — that one purpose which has been described as its raison d’être. This purpose is, of course, the achievement of peace and the establishment of security. This, and this alone, constitutes the primary task of the United Nations, and if the Organization fails in this task, all its other achievements, however important in themselves, can be of no avail. 28. The Assembly will have noted that in his introduction to his annual report the Secretary-General has stressed the extent to which the United Nations continues to be by-passed in the negotiations and efforts to establish and maintain international peace. In this regard Mr. Hammarskjold states, inter alia [A/2663, p. xi]: “To fail to use the United Nations machinery on those matters for which Governments have given to the Organization a special or primary responsibility under the Charter, or to improvise other arrangements without overriding practical and political reasons — to act thus may tend to weaken the position of the Organization and to reduce its influence and effectiveness, even when the ultimate purpose which it is intended to serve is a United Nations purpose.” 29. Mr. Hammarskjold also refers, in this context, to the increasing resort to regional rather than United Nations machinery not only to ensure peace and security but to achieve other forms of practical cooperation. 30. The Secretary-General does not, of course, contend that these arrangements are contrary to the Charter. Indeed, he makes it clear that this is not the case. However, while there is no question as to the validity of these arrangements, the Secretary-General’s concern at the weakening effect of these developments on the position of the Organization in world affairs is a matter for serious consideration. I would submit that Mr. Hammarskjold’s concern must necessarily be shared by all Member States which, at the time of the San Francisco Conference, had hoped that the United Nations would constitute the principal international instrument for the maintenance of peace and security and for the achievement of other forms of international co-operation in matters of international concern. And here let me remind the Assembly that those who, today, are primarily responsible for the arrangements to which the Secretary-General has referred are the very nations which played such a leading part in the establishment of the United Nations — and which today continue to play a leading part in its maintenance. These nations can therefore have no interest in any action which would in any way weaken the United Nations or impede its orderly growth — unless, of course, there are compelling reasons which require them to take urgent measures outside the United Nations for their own protection and for the solution of dangerous and urgent problems. 31. And it is in this connexion that the Secretary-General’s remarks should be seriously considered in order to determine why it is that United Nations machinery is being by-passed — why it is that, notwithstanding the weakening effect which regional and other arrangements may have on the United Nations, those who have consistently been loyal to the Organization, and who continue to be loyal to it, are being obliged to embark upon such action. 32. Is the answer not this: that the present international situation is such that, having regard to events in the last few years, many nations have realized that they cannot depend solely on United Nations machinery for the protection which is essential if they are to be secure, and that in dealing with major and dangerous problems the United Nations, as it operates at present, may not be a safe and effective instrument to employ in their solution? 33. It is in these circumstances that I refer today to the working of our Organization — and my delegation believes that the time has come to give urgent attention to this matter in order to determine the reasons why the Organization has been prevented from playing its full part in world affairs. 34. It is true that there have been developments since the San Francisco Conference — developments outside this Organization over which we had no control — which have contributed, and contributed materially, to the present inability of the United Nations to discharge its proper functions. The co-operation between the great Powers, for instance, which at that time augured well for the future, has long since disappeared, with the result that the United Nations is called upon to face an international situation which those responsible for its creation had no reason to anticipate. These and other developments were not contemplated when the Charter was drafted. I need not dwell upon them, for they are known to everyone in this room. 35. On the other hand, if we are honest with ourselves, we must admit that the inability of the United Nations to cope with dangerous problems today is also due — in part at least — to its own faulty working. If this conclusion is a valid one — and my delegation holds that it is — then surely it is necessary that, in the interests of the Organization itself, as well as in the interests of the high purposes it is required to serve, every effort should be made to rectify its faults and any defective practices which may have developed since its inception. It is not enough merely to criticize the United Nations — unless by doing so we seek to render it effective as the instrument it was designed to be. 36. It is true, of course, that many who find fault with the Organization are inclined to ascribe its defects to imperfections in the Charter — and who apparently believe, therefore, that Charter revision is the only sure remedy. While my delegation would be the last to claim for our constitution the merits of perfection, we believe most strongly that the errors and weaknesses which the workings of the United Nations have revealed in the past eight years have not been due so much to inherent defects in the Charter as to the incorrect application of Charter provisions. We believe that the fault lies not with our constitution so much as it does with ourselves, and that these faults will not necessarily be eliminated by a revision of the Charter, even if revision were still possible in the same spirit of compromise which prevailed at San Francisco. For let us remember that the Charter was itself the end-product of many compromises, and that it was hoped and expected that it would be applied and administered in the same spirit of co-operation and compromise which attended its birth and in a manner which would uphold its sanctity as an instrument containing obligations and safeguarding rights. 37. It is because we hold this view that the South African delegation has consistently appealed for respect for the law of our constitution. We may differ on how that law should be interpreted and applied. Our differences may well be the product of sincere and honest convictions. But let us refrain from imposing an interpretation by the application of a majority decision on fundamental provisions, the true meanings of which were not, at the time they were drafted, in dispute. 38. Among these provisions we find those which safeguard the rights of Member States — rights without which the Charter would never have been accepted. However individual delegations may today regard these Charter provisions, they remain valid and will continue to remain valid until such time as they are amended in accordance with the procedure prescribed in the Charter. To seek to destroy their original and only valid meaning by means of interpretation in the Assembly is to resort to practice which inevitably places each and every one of us at the mercy of what I must necessarily term a chance majority. This is also the negation of the rule of law and the most dangerous threat to the survival of the United Nations. 39. In this connexion let me add that it is particularly important that we have, at all times, the utmost regard for the rights of the smaller nations — those nations which do not enjoy the protection of the veto, but who have to rely on the protection afforded by a strict and legal interpretation of the Charter. In the League of Nations the unanimity rule operated to protect the rights of the individual State. In the United Nations that rule was not adopted, and the protection that it afforded under the League is therefore no longer available. But let us remember the lessons of the League’s experience. In the first decade of its existence it had a record which can compare not unfavourably with the achievements of our Organization. However, the League’s system started to break down the moment it ceased to ensure respect for the rights of an individual Member State — not of a minority of States, but of the individual Member State. It is a lesson we should constantly bear in mind. 40. The records of the San Francisco Conference show only too clearly that this fact was recognized by our founders, who sought to inscribe in our Charter provisions which would safeguard the rights of an individual Member State. The lengthy debates on the veto and especially on Article 2, paragraph 7, of the Charter demonstrate this only too clearly. Our founders realized that if the United Nations were to survive it would be essential to limit its operations to matters demonstrably of international concern and that it should not deal with matters which fall within the domestic jurisdiction of Member States. But this field which this Organization was given in which to operate, which is limited to matters of international concern, is a very wide one — a very wide one indeed — and affords the Organization every opportunity of discharging its many important functions. In fact, this area of common concern is so large and includes matters of such delicacy that the Organization, if it is to function effectively, must of necessity have regard to the political, social -and economic framework of the world as it is. In any case, those who drafted the Charter realized that, having regard to the natural divergencies in tradition, culture and way of life of its Members, the Organization would have to operate strictly within the confines of its constitutional authority. 41. South Africa has had long experience of how departures from the course charted at San Francisco affect the interests of a Member State whose unique position is not understood and whose policies are therefore constantly misrepresented and condemned — without regard to the injustice of such a course. 42. In this connexion it is necessary that I say today from this rostrum that the people of my country find it difficult to understand why their rights as a Member State should be withheld because a majority of this Organization does not agree with South African policy affecting solely our own affairs. Surely it is unjust, as in fact it is dangerous, to deny to a Member State its legal rights upon a pretext that its affairs, about which in any case there is little comprehension, are not to the liking of others. Yet this is our experience. It is also an experience which will be shared by others as time goes on. 43. Here the Assembly should realize that it is unrealistic to expect the peoples of Member States to show enthusiasm for co-operation with the United Nations when once they have the impression that the Organization is being used as a platform for propaganda against them. Indeed, when once a people are convinced that the Organization no longer recognizes the constitutional rights of their Government under the Charter, they will inevitably resist co-operation, especially when such co-operation entails sacrifices by them. This is a most important fact which can only be ignored by our Organization at its peril. 44. To return to the measures which we should consider for rendering the Organization, in due course, more effective, let me revert to the all-important matter of co-operation and say that first of all we should endeavour to learn to co-operate in a manner which will dispel the clouds of mutual suspicion which colour so much of our debates. Co-operation itself cannot of course be a forced growth. It will not result from the coercion of majorities. Attempts at coercion, under our General Assembly system, only too often make a difficult problem even more unmanageable. If we are to rebuild mutual confidence, let us not set our sights too high. Let us learn to co-operate in the smaller things and in the spheres that are less open to controversy. Let us, wherever we can, eschew for the time being the problems that inflame passions and emotions, the disputes that make the headlines, the controversies in respect of which the parties concerned are committed, by reason of what has gone before, to hard and unyielding-attitudes. Only thus, in a multi-national organization such as this, can we begin to instill the virtues and habits of co-operation. 45. One last point: let us also attempt to devise a system of priorities, related directly to the possibilities of United Nations action producing constructive results. In this the Secretary-General has given us a wise lead. In his annual report, in a plea for a reduction of work of lesser importance and for the avoidance of new tasks of dubious value, Mr. Hammarskjold recommends that decisions be taken with due regard to certain considerations. These are as follows [AJ2663, p. xiv]: “…whether a particular task is one which an international secretariat can perform efficiently and effectively; whether it is designed to meet an urgent and vital need essential for the proper functioning of the United Nations and its principal organs; whether the desired results could not be adequately achieved through independent and unassisted national action; whether the original importance or usefulness of certain activities has diminished or, alternatively, whether having regard to the dynamic nature of United Nations operations, new efforts in new directions are called for; whether, in a particular field of inquiry or research, full account has been taken of work already carried out, either nationally or internationally, and of the practical possibilities that therefore exist of making a new and significant contribution.” This is advice based on experience which should be one of our guiding lights when each year we consider the inscription of new items on an already overloaded agenda. 46. There are of course many other matters of importance, some of vital importance, upon which I have not touched. There is, for instance, the very important proposal for the peaceful development of atomic energy which, not only because of the benefits which mankind may derive from the implementation of such a plan but also because of our position as one of the most important sources of fissionable material, must of necessity be of interest to South Africa. The South African delegation will state our Government’s attitude on this and other matters when they come up for consideration in the appropriate Committees. 47. In the meantime, I have expressed the views of my delegation on matters of a more general nature, and in doing so have once again drawn attention to the dangers which, in our view, are inherent in our procedures, dangers which, we firmly believe, must be removed in the interests of the United Nations and the development of international harmony and cooperation.