First, Sir, let me express the great pleasure of the Australian delegation at your election as President of the United Nations General Assembly. We are particularly glad to see you, the distinguished representative and former Foreign Minister of a country with which Australia has such long associations and such close present relations, presiding over this body. On behalf of my delegation, I offer you our warm congratulations and wish you every success in your task, which we are confident you will fulfil in accordance with the high standards which your predecessors in office have built up.
2. At the same time I take this opportunity to express once again to Mrs. Pandit, the outgoing President, our admiration and respect for the way in which she, the first woman to be elected President of the General Assembly, has carried out her duties. I think that all of us who had the privilege of seeing Mrs. Pandit presiding again this year at the opening meeting of our Assembly were reminded once more of her skill and fairness in the Chair. I should like to express our warm thanks and congratulations to her on this achievement, which has added to her very considerable record as a woman in world affairs, and which is reflected again in her appointment to London.
3. I expect many of us know the song by Gilbert and Sullivan about the policeman’s lot not being a happy one. I think most of my colleagues here will agree that a Foreign Minister’s lot, particularly during the last twelve months, has not been an enviable one. The past year has been very full. The amount of travelling involved as we have moved from conference to conference has been considerable. But what, it may be asked, has all this travelling and discussion achieved? Has it meant that we are meeting here today in a world situation which has altered substantially for the better? That is a question which many people are quite legitimately asking. For my part, I feel that the answer is that there are grounds for greater optimism than was the case a year ago and that there has been some definite progress in a number of important international problems.
4. Of course, the great question before us all remains the same — how can we make progress towards the security and prosperity which we all seek? It is a problem of constant adjustment in an equation where no factor of fixed value remains, especially when the international situation is changing as rapidly as it has been in recent times. Since the last session of the General Assembly there have been many shifts and changes in international affairs. In this period there have been three major conferences. These have done much to produce the situation and to create the state of mind in which we meet here in this present session. During 1954, we have seen the Berlin Conference on Germany and Austria, the Geneva Conference on Korea and Indo-China and, finally, a conference of a very different order, although perhaps potentially the most important of the three, the Manila Conference, which a number of us have attended, and at which the treaty designed to create a system of collective security for South-East Asia was signed.
5. As I see it, one of the most significant things about the first two conferences, at Berlin and at Geneva, was what they revealed about attitudes of the Soviet Union and of China on some major international questions. The Berlin Conference showed plainly that the Soviet Union was unwilling to contemplate any solution of the present division of Germany except on terms which ruled out any chance of the Germans having the opportunity to ally themselves with anyone except the Soviet Union. The Geneva Conference showed, first of all, that there could be no agreement by the Soviet Union to the unification of Korea except on the same general lines as the Soviet terms for Germany.
6. The agreements achieved at Geneva on Indo-China did two important things: first, they stopped the fighting, and, second, they led a number of Governments, including that of Australia, to take further immediate steps to maintain and strengthen the integrity of the South-East Asian countries. And so, when I say that perhaps there are grounds for greater optimism today than there were last year, I do not mean that I believe that international communism has been induced to alter either its present practices or its future designs. If there is ground for optimism it is not because of any change in the communist attitude that has become apparent; any change for the better is due mainly to the positive steps that we have taken now in the East as well as in the West to deal with the threat of communist aggression. There should now be reasonable expectation that the communist leaders will see for themselves just how we will react in the future to what they might do.
7. At this point, let me say that we should not forget the unhappy situation of division and tension in which communist action has left a number of countries such as Germany, Korea and now Viet-Nam. We should not forget the distress which the peoples of these countries are suffering, with one part severed from the other. In these divided lands the suffering from communist action is direct and painful. Indeed, in all our countries, we are all continuing to pay a high price to maintain ourselves against the undiminished communist threat. The burden of armaments must remain while Communist Powers, led by the Soviet Union, refuse to consider any workable system by which tension could be reduced by gradual, internationally-controlled reductions in armaments. We, in Australia, have watched with great disappointment the Soviet Union’s performance in the Disarmament Commission, which this year has made strenuous efforts to find some solution. This failure to reach agreement has caused great disappointment to millions of people all over the world. Even President Eisenhower’s constructive proposal, made during the eighth session of the General Assembly [470th meeting], aimed at promoting the peaceful uses of atomic energy under international auspices, struck no response from the Government of the Soviet Union. Its attitude on this matter remained as cynically propagandist as ever until, on the eve of this General Assembly, it agreed to consider negotiating again.
8. Regarding Australia’s attitude towards President Eisenhower’s proposal in respect of the use of atomic energy for peaceful purposes, the Australian delegation welcomed it last year and we followed closely the course of the consultations between the United States Government and the Government of the Soviet Union which took place during the following months. We had hoped that from these discussions some agreement might emerge which would allow these two great Powers to work together in a positive way on the development of nuclear energy for civilian purposes and that, from such co-operation, in due course great benefits, both in scientific progress and in reduced danger of attack by nuclear weapons, might flow to us all. For we in Australia are engaged in the development of what may be a very rich endowment of uranium ore, and so are particularly interested in this new source of power which could greatly assist and expedite our development. Equally, we are concerned to promote any project which could lead to reduced danger of atomic war.
9. For these reasons, therefore, we welcomed President Eisenhower’s proposal last year and we now welcome the proposal introduced in this present Assembly on 23 September [475th meeting] by the Secretary of State of the United States. As a country which promises to be an important source of uranium, we hope to play our full part in the proposed agency for developing the constructive uses of atomic energy. As a people well aware of the importance of these resources in the event of war, we hope that from the co-operation between the major countries concerned in the development of atomic energy, and from the increased mutual confidence which this might bring, the threat of atomic war might be progressively lessened and finally removed by the establishment of full international controls.
10. I should now like to speak briefly of some of the things which have happened over the past twelve months and particularly about development in the areas in which Australia is more directly concerned. A year ago the fighting. was going on in Indo-China. The United Nations had recently achieved an armistice in Korea and we were trying to proceed to the next step, the establishment of a political conference to discuss the future of Korea. In the Middle East, an area which has always had a particular significance for Australia, agreement between the United Kingdom and Egypt on arrangements for the security of the Suez Canal Zone still seemed a long way off, and the Iranian oil dispute was still unresolved.
11. Now, a year later, we find definite progress in these situations. The armistice has been successfully maintained in Korea and the fighting in Indo-China has been brought to an end. The United Kingdom and Egypt have reached agreement on the Canal Zone problem, and Iranian oil is about to flow again.
12. For us in Australia the most important single achievement was the ending of the fighting in Indo- China. The Indo-China settlement, reached at the Geneva Conference, was by no means all that we would have wished, although it was probably the best that could have been reached in all the circumstances. The flaws in the Geneva settlement on Indo-China and the risks that they entail are obvious enough, but perhaps not enough stress has been laid on the good points.
13. I believe that in the present world situation the ending of open hostilities in such an inflammable situation is an important thing in itself. All of us, I think, were concerned — and perhaps not least the Government of the Soviet Union — at the way in which the heat of the fighting in Indo-China appeared to be creeping steadily up towards flash-point. Wars, particularly modern wars, do not stand still. They tend either to expand or to contract. The termination of the fighting stopped what might well have been an expanding risk.
14. Secondly, the Geneva settlement means that Laos and Cambodia will have complete independence. The Soviet Union, Communist China and the Viet-Minh, as well as the representatives of the democratic countries, agreed to respect the integrity and the independence of these States. This is a provision which may be of the first importance in stabilizing the situation in South-East Asia. It is the earnest hope of my country that all the free Asian countries will accord diplomatic recognition to these States. Some, I am glad to say, have already done so.
15. As I have said before at this General Assembly [473rd meeting], the series of military enterprises in which Communist China has been so actively and vigorously concerned in recent times — Korea, Indo-China and, most recently, in the Formosa Strait, each of which has followed closely on the heels of the other — these warlike activities lead us to wonder about the future, about what the next item in Peking’s programme might be. It has therefore seemed wise to us to enter into an arrangement which is designed to underwrite the settlement achieved for Indo-China at Geneva and to establish a system of collective security throughout the area of Asia menaced by communist expansionism.
16. Together with others of us here, I have just come from the Manila Conference where this important link in the chain of defence against aggression was forged. The South-East Asia Collective Defence Treaty which we negotiated at Manila is an open agreement for all to see. It is an undertaking in complete harmony with the Charter of the United Nations and throughout emphasizes the duties and obligations which all the parties have assumed as Members of the United Nations.
17. The Manila Treaty is merely the application to a particular danger area of the principles of the United Nations Charter. It is directed solely against aggression. It is an instrument of defence and cannot be invoked for aggressive purposes. Those who do not contemplate aggression or interference in the affairs of independent States will find nothing to object to in this organized grouping for defence in South-East Asia and the South-West Pacific. By the Manila Treaty we are not putting ourselves into a warlike posture. We are only warning any would-be aggressor that “this animal is dangerous. It defends itself if it is attacked”.
18. There are those who would have us believe that the Communists have no aggressive intentions and that regional defensive arrangements are provocative to the Communists and might induce them to embark on the very sort of aggressive actions which we are trying to prevent. Those who say that the Manila Treaty is provocative seem to forget the military might of the Communist world and the fact that Communist power has actually been used, not once or twice, but constantly for years past to destroy the independence of the weak.
19. Indeed, it is obvious that those countries of South- East Asia which have not so far joined the Manila Treaty cannot help but receive an added measure of security because the rest of us have joined together for the defence of the area. I myself believe that the initiative which the United States of America has shown by taking the lead in the establishment of this new regional arrangement for collective security is a far-sighted and statesmanlike move in the same high tradition as the Marshall Plan and the North Atlantic Treaty Organization.
20. I have heard it said that some Asian countries which have joined with us in the Manila Treaty are in some way subordinating themselves to the United States. To those who say this, I would say: put yourself in the place of a small Asian country, cheek by jowl with Communist China and so under potential threat; and in that situation if you would not accept the hand of friendship of the greatest single Power in the world today, then I say that you are a braver man than I am. The policy of some Asian countries is to be very severe on communism within their own borders, but to take a neutral position with regard to international communism. This seems to me rather like the village situation in some tropical countries, where the villagers’ homes are spotlessly clean but the surroundings of the village have accumulations of refuse which attract flies which undermine the health of the villagers.
21. It can be assumed that there would be no great difficulty in determining whether an outright act of aggression has taken place. Outright aggression can be coped with because it is clear-cut and obvious. For that reason, outright aggression may not be the principal danger with which we are faced in South-East Asia. Perhaps the more real danger in South-East Asia today is what I might call aggression by proxy and by stealth. Communism foments and feeds on the discontents of under-developed peoples. The Communists have a vested interest in discontent. It is this danger that we and the free peoples of Asia must guard against.
22. Many of us have said that communist aggression will not be defeated by military means alone. We cannot exclude the psychological and economic aspects of the problem. Countries under stress and under threat need more than the pledge of military aid if and when their integrity is threatened. This applies to countries as it does to individuals. They need encouragement and moral support. And so, provision is made to this end in the Manila Treaty. The economic side of the treaty will be developed through agencies already at work in the area, such as those set up under the Colombo Plan.
23. An added reason for the Manila Treaty is the need for some co-ordinating factor in South-East Asia where, for one cause or another, the individual countries do not have much to do with each other. They tend to reside in water-tight compartments, and they do this to a considerably greater degree than is usual for contiguous countries throughout the rest of the world. Their economies are very similar, and so there is but little trade between them to provide even this form of contact and interdependence. If the Manila Treaty turns out, as time goes on, to be unnecessary, no one will be more pleased than its members — and not the least of them my own country, Australia.
24. With regard to Laos and Cambodia, the Australian delegation has submitted a proposal for the admission to membership of the United Nations of the independent States of Laos and Cambodia [A/2709 and Add.l] which we commend to our fellow representatives.
25. There are one or two points in particular in this connexion that I would ask delegations to bear in mind: First of all, in 1952 resolutions [620 D (VII) and 620 E (VII)] were passed by the General Assembly which declared Laos and Cambodia as qualified for admission to the United Nations. Secondly, the Geneva Conference — to which the Soviet Union was a party — in effect endorsed these resolutions, and it is appropriate that, at the first General Assembly following the Geneva Conference, we should proceed to admit Laos and Cambodia.
26. Each of the countries represented at the Geneva Conference has committed itself to respect the integrity and independence of these two States. Let us now translate this expression of intention into reality.
27. In proposing the admission of Laos and Cambodia we do not, of course, mean to imply that our support for the admission of other States has in any way diminished. Many countries including Ceylon, Italy, Japan and many others have, of course, been waiting all too long as it is. But we believe that there is a special and urgent case for the admission of Laos and Cambodia. These States are free and independent but their position could be precarious. They need the moral support of the United Nations. Membership in the United Nations would bring with it the opportunity for contact with the outside world which the Governments of these two countries so greatly need, and it would also facilitate the extension to them of the material assistance of the various United Nations programmes. Viet-Nam presents a rather different and more difficult problem, which we would hope will be tackled later.
28. I have already spoken of the pattern of communist Chinese activity over recent years and of the recent events in the Formosa Strait. A potentially dangerous situation may be shaping up in this part of the Far East, and there is a risk that what began as a minor incident might develop into a wider conflict. Whatever the motives dictating the action of the Chinese Communist Government in this matter, the danger of the situation, I think, clearly affects us all. I hope that the Central People’s Government of China and, in their turn, the Chinese Nationalist Government may find it possible to do something to relax the tension. The alternative, and its potential effect on world peace, is obvious.
29. The Indonesian Government has seen fit to bring before this General Assembly the question of Netherlands New Guinea. The Australian Government learnt of this decision with great regret. We in Australia want the most friendly relations with our neighbours. One of our nearest neighbours is Indonesia, and we have over the years succeeded in strengthening the ties of friendship and mutual respect with Indonesia. The issue of Dutch New Guinea has, however, been a real point of difference between us. For our part we have tried to stop this issue from becoming an emotional one. We thought that the less it was shouted from the housetops the better it would be, and our policy has been directed towards this end. However, we are now faced with the fact that the issue has unfortunately been brought before this world forum.
30. It has been said that Dutch sovereignty over Netherlands New Guinea will continue to be a latent threat to the peace and security of that part of the world. I submit with all respect that there is no substance in this contention. Situations are sometimes said to be threats to the peace simply because people wish to regard them as such. The United Nations has already had sufficient experience of the fact that it is only a short move from this attitude of mind to the actual stimulation of disorder and tension. I say, in all sincerity, that the world situation is dangerous enough without raising new and emotional issues such as this which tend to inflame public opinion and exacerbate tensions between friends.
31. I may say that I can see no force in the Indonesian contention that the Netherlands Government has been unwilling to negotiate about Dutch New Guinea. On the contrary, the Netherlands negotiated and discussed the question long and patiently with Indonesia. One of the most important aspects of this question is the social, educational and economic advancement of the inhabitants of this part of New Guinea. Is it seriously contended that if sovereignty over this Territory were transferred to the Indonesian Government the peoples of the Territory would be likely to make more rapid progress? It is not in a spirit of criticism that I say that the Republic of Indonesia, confronted in its present very extensive territories with its own massive problems, is not in a position to promote the social and economic well-being of these primitive people. Most of the inhabitants of Netherlands New Guinea, like most of the inhabitants of Australian New Guinea, are still in the most primitive stage. Some of them, in the remoter valleys of that vast island, are still head-hunters and cannibals.
32. The United Nations will be aware of these conditions from the annual reports of the Netherlands under Article 73 e of the Charter. I would refer in particular to the very comprehensive and expert report for the current year [ST/TRI/SER.A/7/Add, 1.]. In this connexion I may say that if the Netherlands had transferred sovereignty over West New Guinea to Indonesia in 1949, Indonesia would not have reported on its administration, so that the General Assembly of the United Nations would no longer have been in a position to exercise any influence upon the development of this Non-Self-Governing Territory.
33. The fact is that the inhabitants of New Guinea are far removed in ethnic origin, in language, in culture, in history and in religion from the peoples of the Republic of Indonesia. The population of Netherlands New Guinea is Papuan, not Indo-Malayan; they are a people of the Pacific, not of the Indian Ocean. This fact has been recognized internationally by the inclusion in the South Pacific Commission of the Netherlands as the Power administering West New Guinea. This South Pacific Commission is concerned with promoting the welfare of the peoples of the Islands of the South Pacific; these peoples are Micronesians, Polynesians and Melanesians. The Papuans are Melanesians and so are properly associated with the South-West Pacific and not with the Malaysian region and peoples.
34. I am convinced that the United Nations will be making a mistake of far-reaching consequences if it encourages Indonesia to continue agitation for the transfer of these alien people to Indonesian control. The separate and distinct character of the Residency of New Guinea has always been recognized by the Netherlands East Indies Administration. The Netherlands has administered its territory in New Guinea for a century and a half. Where such primitive people are concerned, the importance of continuity of administration cannot be overlooked.
35. Despite what the Indonesian delegation might say to the contrary, there has never been any independence movement among the Papuans. The only voices heard in favour of union with Indonesia are echoes from Djakarta. Agitation from outside, such as that now in train, can only have a disturbing and detrimental effect upon the indigenous population of Netherlands New Guinea who, like the population of Australian New Guinea, are untroubled by political conflicts of any kind.
36. The Australian delegation intends to contest this issue vigorously all along the line when the matter comes before the First Committee. Australia will require a detailed examination by the First Committee of the legal basis on which the whole Indonesian case rests. We believe that it will be proved beyond doubt to any unbiased person that the Indonesian claim to the Western half of the island of New Guinea has no justification whatsoever either in law or in common sense.
37. With regard to the subject of trusteeship, our Australian concern is with the Trust Territories of New Guinea and Nauru on which we report to the Trusteeship Council under the Trusteeship Agreements into which the Australian Government entered in 1946. Let me say a few words on our conception of these obligations.
38. Australia has been accused of being remiss in the fulfilment of its duties towards the indigenous inhabitants of New Guinea and Nauru. Such charges have been made in the Trusteeship Council and in the Fourth Committee and have persisted despite numerous detailed explanations on the part of the Australian representatives. Even the explanations so often given by the special representatives of the Australian Government, sent to the Trusteeship Council from the Australian Trust Territories themselves, appear to have had but little effect on some of our critics. Nor do we feel that proper attention has been given to the reports of the visiting missions which the United Nations itself has sent to our Trust Territories. These missions on the spot have not found anything there inconsistent with our obligations to the United Nations under our agreements, when proper account is taken of the actual conditions in the territories concerned.
39. We in Australia have no objection to constructive criticism but we resent the sort of criticism and insinuations to which we have been subjected and which we regard as unfounded and captious. Please let me say, with respect to our critics, that the United Nations Trusteeship System does not mean that the United Nations is in charge of our Trust Territories. We are in charge of them and we are footing the bill and we are meeting our obligations towards the Trust Territories with all the energy and sympathy and expert experience that we can bring to it.
40. If I may say so, we in Australia are proud of the way we are carrying out the obligations we have undertaken; we are particularly proud of the administrative services that we have built up in our Trust Territories. We make no complaint about there being a proper scrutiny of the way in which our obligations as an Administering Power are carried out, but we cannot accept that there exists in the United Nations the power to direct the speed of development, the rate of expenditure or the basic policies which we consider appropriate in the particular circumstances of our Territories. It is in the hope that such unwarranted criticisms will not be brought forward during the present session that I put this attitude of the Australian Government firmly before you.
41. With regard to the economic and social field, Australia is a member of the Economic and Social Council and has taken a full part in its activities. In the last year the Council has devoted a great deal of time to two problems in which we take considerable interest, problems affecting the economic development and stability of under-developed countries. The Australian Government views sympathetically plans to promote greater stability and a higher rate of economic development in under-developed countries, and I think I may say that our record and our substantial contributions — through the Colombo Plan and to the United Nations programme of technical assistance — are an earnest of our desire to help in this work, consistent with our means and with our other obligations.
42. Having said this, I would like to say a word about the present economic situation of Australia. There is a tendency for countries to be divided into two rigid categories: the so-called "developed” and the so-called "under-developed” countries. For broad descriptive purposes, I suppose these two categories serve a useful purpose, although they are oversimplified and need further description and qualification in some cases. Some countries can clearly be described as “developed” and others as “under-developed” without any further qualification. Australia is one of the countries which cannot be simply described as “developed” or “underdeveloped”. It would be wrong to describe Australia simply as a “developed” country without qualification. Australia is a country which falls into an intermediate category, that is, a country essentially in the “developmental” stage. As with all young countries in the developmental stage, we are unable to finance the rate of development that we wish solely from the proceeds of our own savings. In other words, we are a “capital hungry” country; we constantly need capital from abroad.
43. I say this in order to explain that the resources available to the Australian Government for assisting the development of other countries are unfortunately, but necessarily limited. We do what we can to help others and we believe that for our population our contributions have not been small. However, the approach of the Australian Government to projects such as the special United Nations fund for economic development and the international finance corporation, must of necessity be more cautious than we would like it to be if our own development were further advanced.
44. One of the more encouraging developments during the past year has been the success of United Nations enterprise in the field of technical assistance and in the relief of human suffering. Through the United Nations Expanded Programme of Technical Assistance valuable aid has been given to economically underdeveloped countries in their efforts to strengthen their economies and improve the material lot of their peoples. At the same time the programmes of long-range and emergency relief to children, implemented during 1954 by the United Nations International Children’s Fund (UNICEF), have brought relief in a direct and practical way to no fewer than 31 million mothers and children. The success of these two essentially humanitarian enterprises provides a good example of what can be achieved by co-operation between Governments through the machinery provided by the United Nations. The Australian Government has contributed substantially to these programmes in the past and will continue to support them to the extent that our other commitments allow.
45. I would remind the General Assembly that the problem of European refugees — largely from behind the Iron Curtain — is a continuing one and I hope that sympathetic and humane action will soon bring substantial relief to these unfortunate fellow human beings. I am glad to be able to say that the Australian Government, subject to ratification by the Australian Parliament — I hope within the next few weeks — will be making a contribution of £25,000 to the United Nations Refugee Emergency Fund, for the current financial year ending June 1955.
46. Regarding other Australian contributions, my Government also expects early Parliamentary approval for a contribution of £50,000 to the United Nations Relief and Works Agency for Palestine Refugees in the Near East, and for a contribution of over half a million pounds to Korean relief, both these to be available during the financial year ending June, 1955. Regarding our contribution to UNICEF for the Fund’s current financial year ending December, 1954, Australia expects to provide £201,000.
47. I have tried, in what I have ventured to say to the Assembly today, to express the views of my country on a number of matters in the international field that are of concern to us. The opportunity that this annual General Assembly offers of making each other aware of the reactions of our respective countries is one of the useful attributes of the United Nations. We all know only too well that the organization of the world for peace and survival is very far from being perfect. Nationalism and what is called “enlightened self-interest” and the varying circumstances and environment of each one of our countries, all these things militate against unanimity and even make compromise a difficult matter. In addition, there is the vast and overriding problem of the division of the world between the free democracies and international communism, and the possession by each side of the means of almost totally destroying the other.
48. These things do not make for optimism, and yet it would be unwise to succumb to pessimism as regards the future of mankind. One can only hope and work in the belief that mankind is not destined for national — and international — suicide The only real hope for continuing peace in the world lies in the possibility that the Communists will come to realize that there is room enough for them to live with the democracies in the same world without interfering with each other.
49. The question of nations living together peacefully is basic to the very conception of the United Nations. It is here, at meetings such as this, that important first steps can be taken in the process of breaking down the barrier of mutual distrust and suspicion at present dividing the democracies and the countries under Communist control. The United Nations provides a common meeting ground where the leaders on each side can come together in personal contact and, as many of us have so often pointed out in the past, these personal contacts are of considerable importance in bringing about a better understanding of differing points of view. Every opportunity, however small, which may arise and which gives promise of breaking down the present barriers between nations must therefore be taken. This is not a position of weakness, I suggest, but of sanity. We must, of course, be on our guard against being deluded by false hopes. However, whatever apparent evidence there may be to the contrary, I am enough of an optimist to say that we should not shut our minds to the possibility that the present tensions may be merely a temporary and not a permanent feature of international relations. Indeed, I am coming to believe that the opportunity that this annual General Assembly provides for continuing and progressive personal contacts between Foreign Ministers and representatives of most of the countries of the world, is one of the most important and valuable functions of the United Nations.
50. We come here as members of delegations representing our respective countries, and to watch and promote the interests of our countries. But let us remember that the survival of our individual countries depends on the survival of the whole free world. The pursuit of our individual ambitions will not avail us if thereby the security of the whole is imperilled. Let us not forget that the whole is greater than the component parts.