I should like to express to the President the congratulations of my Government and my delegation on his well-deserved election to the highest elective office of this Assembly. It gives us great satisfaction to have as our President, for the first time since our first session, a representative from a European country. We have always valued highly our close association in the General Assembly with Netherlands representatives, an association which derives not merely from a happy alphabetical accident, but from a community of outlook and interest. Our awareness of the breadth of his experience in international and United Nations affairs inspires in us complete confidence that our business will be conducted with efficiency, impartiality and wisdom.
2. The President will recall, that a Dutch explorer was the first European to visit my country. There can hardly have been more pleasure at his election in the Dutch province of Zeeland than in the new country which bears its name.
3. I wish also to pay tribute to the work of the Secretary-General and his staff during the past year. Mr. Hammarskjold has tackled with energy the pressing problem of reorganization and has, at the same time, effected substantial economies. He has conducted his delicate political duties with both tact and vigour. The Secretariat is the indispensable arm of this Organization. Its effectiveness depends in part, as the Secretary-General has pointed out in his annual report [A/2663], on the co-operation of States Members in refraining from imposing on the Secretariat new tasks of dubious value. My delegation, for its part, will do what it can in this respect to assist the Secretariat, in whose loyalty and sense of dedication it reposes every confidence.
4. Since the eighth session of the General Assembly went into recess, there has been, both in Europe and in Asia, a succession of diplomatic negotiations and conferences of major importance. In the General Assembly, whose agenda covers the whole range of international affairs, their results will colour almost every debate. It is appropriate, therefore, that in this preliminary exchange of views, Members of the United Nations should have an opportunity to draw attention to the significance and the accomplishments of these negotiations and conferences, particularly in fields or areas which to them are of special concern.
5. For my Government, the foremost problem of the year has been the question of Pacific and South-East Asian security, which hinged, in the first instance, on the outcome of the Geneva Conferences on Korea and Indo-China.
6. The Korean Conference, in which New Zealand participated, was in effect the political conference recommended by the General Assembly in December 1952 [resolution 610 (VII)] and provided for in the Armistice Agreement. The Conference, regrettably, railed to reach agreement on a final settlement of the Korean question. It is worthwhile, I think, to draw attention to the principal cause of this failure, for it is of direct and serious concern to this Organization. The objective of those Members of the United Nations who participated in the United Nations action in Korea and who attended the Geneva Conference was the establishment by peaceful means of a unified, independent and democratic Korea. In our view, this required that elections, genuinely free and impartially supervised, should be held under United Nations auspices. In rejecting proposals put forward on this basis, the Communist representative at Geneva delivered a bitter attack on the impartiality of the United Nations. New Zealand and others firmly repudiated the view that, because the United Nations properly exercised its authority in taking collective measures to repel aggression, it is thereby disqualified from any role in the supervision of the settlement to follow the termination of aggression. I am sure the General Assembly, too, will repudiate this argument, which, indeed, is a challenge to the good faith of the Organization.
7. The New Zealand Minister for External Affairs, Mr. Clifton Webb, took occasion at Geneva to emphasize that it was essential for the Conference to approach its task in a moderate and conciliatory spirit. It is a matter for regret that adamant refusal of the Communist delegation to recognize the United Nations as other than a belligerent made progress impossible. The cause of Korean unification has suffered a serious setback. It may now be unrealistic to expect an easy or an early solution. The peaceful unification of Korea must remain, however, a paramount objective, and, indeed, a responsibility, of the United Nations.
8. The New Zealand Government was not a party to the Conference on Indo-China. But, as a Pacific Power with a vital interest in the stability and peaceful progress of South-East Asia, it followed the proceedings closely and welcomed the end of hostilities in Indo-China. At the same time, my Government does not believe that this development can be viewed with complacency. We can all rejoice in the end of a bloody struggle; we cannot afford to assume — and, indeed, we in New Zealand are far from assuming — that the termination of overt Communist aggression is the same thing as the termination of communism’s expansionist policy in the area. The manner in which the Geneva agreements are observed, in the spirit as well as the letter, will offer a better guide to Communist intentions. New Zealand, for its part, will respect the Indo-China settlement. My Government trusts that by the end of 1956, the whole of Viet-Nam will be united in a free and democratic State, and that all the Powers which have associated themselves with the Geneva settlement will work towards that end.
9. In the meantime, however, we believe that the situation in South-East Asia has made essential the expression of a united will to resist further aggression. To fail to do so would be to neglect the lessons of history, and particularly of recent history. As Mr. Webb trenchantly observed at the opening of the Geneva Conference, there have been many occasions in the past when a firm indication of an intention to resist aggression might have stayed the hand of the aggressor.
10. It was in the acute awareness of these considerations that eight of the countries most directly concerned gathered in Manila early this month to draw up the South-East Asia Collective Defence Treaty and Pacific Charter. New Zealand, as my fellow representatives know, was among those countries. It must be obvious to all who have read it that this Treaty is a purely defensive arrangement. It is neither provocative nor aggressive. Indeed, it was only after the grave warnings provided by Korea and Indo-China that the interested Powers began to take effective steps to organize the collective defence of South-East Asia.
11. Her Majesty’s Government in New Zealand recognizes that the formulation of the present Treaty is only a first step. We recognize that military preparedness, while essential, is not in itself sufficient. One of the declared aims of the signatories — and I quote from Article III of the Treaty — is: “... to strengthen their free institutions and to co-operate with one another in the further development of economic measures, including technical assistance, designed both to promote economic progress and social well-being and to further the individual and collective efforts of Governments toward these ends”.
12. The New Zealand Government attaches the greatest importance to the maintenance of an energetic policy of economic and social development throughout the area, believing that this is one of the best ways of assuring long-term peace and stability. We also-believe that the maintenance of the security of South-East Asia requires the goodwill and the active co-operation of all — and I emphasize “all” — free countries in that area. It is my Government’s hope that all such countries will, in due course, join in completing the common task which the signatories of the Manila Treaty have begun.
13. I wish to emphasize that my Government regards the Manila Treaty, and other treaties of a similar nature, as squarely within the framework of the United Nations Charter. Article 51 of the Charter provides for the exercise of the right of individual or collective self-defence in the event of an armed attack until such time as the necessary measures have been taken by the Security Council. Unfortunately, we cannot depend on the swift action by the Security Council which the authors of the Charter envisaged. In these circumstances, it has become apparent, particularly to small nations, that organization in advance is necessary if the right of collective self-defence is to be promptly and effectively exercised.
14. This does not mean that my Government challenges the supreme and overriding responsibility of the United Nations in matters affecting international peace and security. On the contrary, we uphold it. At San Francisco, the New Zealand delegation fully supported the inclusion in the Charter of certain vital provisions. These give the Security Council unfettered discretion to investigate any dispute or situation in order to determine whether its continuance is likely to endanger the maintenance of international peace and security; further, these provisions require that the Security Council be kept fully informed of any action taken on a regional basis for the maintenance of international peace and security or in the exercise of the right of individual or collective self-defence. In our opinion, moreover, any State has the right, if it is attacked or believes that aggression is imminent, to invoke Article 39 of the Charter. In these circumstances, it is the Council’s unqualified right and duty to give the complaint urgent consideration and, as a first step, to make an appropriate determination in the terms of the Article.
15. Thus, the position under the Charter appears to us clear and unambiguous. Unquestionably, the Security Council has supreme authority in matters affecting international peace and security. But until the Council acts, or if for any reason it does not act, Member States surely are free to exercise their inherent right of individual or collective self-defence. New Zealand will continue to uphold this principle.
16. Notwithstanding New Zealand’s especial concern with the security of the Pacific and South-East Asia, my Government fully recognizes the significance for the democratic community to which it belongs of developments in other parts of the world.
17. We have followed with close and sympathetic attention the continuing efforts of Western statesmen to strengthen the unity and security of the free nations of Europe. It is our earnest hope that these efforts will bring the positive results essential for the effective defence of those nations which were the source, and are the first bulwark, of our democratic form of government.
18. My Government is glad to note, despite the continuance of tension between Israel and the Arab States, that there has been in some respects an improvement in the Middle Eastern situation during the past year. We are particularly pleased that agreement in principle has been reached, after protracted negotiations, between the United Kingdom and Egypt over the Suez base, and that the long-standing Anglo-Iranian oil dispute has been settled. These agreements have brought about an immediate easing of tension and will, we may hope, contribute in the long run to better relations between the States concerned and to the stability and security of the region as a whole. It would be idle to pretend, however, that these last-mentioned objectives can be fully secured so long as the present hostile atmosphere pervades Arab-Israel relations. While it may well be, as the Secretary-General says in his annual report [A/2663, p. xii], that the time is not yet ripe for a political settlement of the Palestine question, New Zealand, as a disinterested small Power, will continue to do what it can in the Security Council and elsewhere to assist the United Nations in supervising the armistice, in eliminating points of friction and in constantly seeking the improvement in the general atmosphere which is a prerequisite for a settlement.
19. Despite the highly political nature of this problem, the importance of economic factors should not be underestimated. The problem of Arab refugees, for example — to whose support and relief New Zealand has consistently contributed — is one that can probably best be solved by co-operative economic development.
20. During the year, New Zealand has also continued to contribute, in amounts which are substantial in proportion to its resources, to other United Nations relief and rehabilitation programmes, including the United Nations Korean Reconstruction Agency and the United Nations Children’s Fund. In South and South-East Asia, an area in which I have already indicated our special interest, we contribute as in the past to capital development under the Colombo Plan. We are, however, a small country with, neither vast resources of capital nor heavy manufacturing capacity. The field in which we feel we have, the most to offer is one which the Secretary-General rightly described as of “singular importance” — the technical assistance programmes of the United Nations, the specialized agencies and the Colombo Plan. Here, a relatively nonindustrial country such as my own, which has developed a high standard of living from its agricultural and pastoral resources, may have something to offer underdeveloped countries from its own scientific and administrative experience.
21. My delegation approaches the contentious political issues which face this Assembly with a full sense of the importance ascribed to them by the delegations most directly concerned.
22. Perhaps the most important problem, and one which certainly concerns us all here, is that of disarmament. My delegation, as a member of the Disarmament Commission, has carefully studied the work of the Sub-Committee which met in London earlier this year. It welcomes the initiatives taken by the Western delegations. It regrets that these initiatives have not yet been met by a comparable flexibility on the part of the Soviet Union.
23. My delegation also desires to welcome the initiative taken by the United States at this Assembly in regard to the development of atomic energy for peaceful purposes. President Eisenhower’s speech on this subject last December [470th meeting] delivered as it was in circumstances of great solemnity, found a responsive echo throughout the world. The concrete proposals now put forward surely warrant the Assembly’s most sympathetic attention. The harnessing of atomic energy is the greatest scientific discovery of our age. Every step which increases the emphasis on the development of peaceful and constructive uses of this immeasurable source of energy demands our active co-operation and merits our heartfelt praise.
24. I wish now to offer some comments of a more general nature on another group of important political items.
25. I have already indicated that my country regards the United Nations as the supreme arbiter in matters relating to international peace and security. It is necessary, in our opinion, to remember that, despite admitted imperfections, this is the Organization’s primary and most important function. At previous sessions, the New Zealand delegation has drawn attention to the danger that the Organization may become preoccupied instead with matters which do not affect international peace and security, in which its competence at best is in serious doubt and with which it is unable effectively to deal. Experience has clearly shown that the only practical effect of disregarding the obvious intent of the domestic jurisdiction clause is to put Article 1, paragraph 4 of the Charter into reverse; to make the United Nations a sounding board for disharmony and a meeting place for the cultivation of unfriendly relations among nations. We had hoped that, as this trend became plainer. Members would come to take a more realistic attitude in regard to questions of the kind I have described.
26. Unfortunately, this has not yet happened, and we are faced this year with more items than ever in which the likelihood of a threat to the peace cannot reasonably be asserted and in which there is serious doubt as to competence. We cannot but regard as fallacious and dangerous the apparent view in some quarters that the Assembly’s prime duties are to remould the domestic policies of States, to liquidate their overseas possessions, and to arrange for the transfer of territorial sovereignty from one State to another.
27. At this stage, I do not wish to discuss in detail the relevant agenda items. But I .am encouraged to note that thirty delegations, one half of the Assembly’s membership, did not — I repeat, did not — feel able to support the admission of the Cyprus question [item 62] to our agenda.
28. New Zealand is well aware of the Charter obligations of Members administering Non-Self-Governing or Trust Territories. My Government has continued to promote the welfare and advancement of the people in the Trust Territory of Western Samoa and in the Non-Self-Governing Territories for the administration of which it is responsible.
29. Last year [436th meeting], my Minister for External Affairs told the Assembly of the decision to hold in Western Samoa a constitutional convention at which the Samoan people would have the opportunity of formulating their views and expressing their opinions on the nature of the institutions through which they desired to exercise full powers of self-government. This convention will be representative of all sections of the Samoan people, and will be held next November. The convention will be essentially Samoan in character and composition. Some valuable preparatory work has already been carried out by a Samoan Working Committee. This Committee has produced and distributed in the Territory a simplified version, in the Samoan language, of the development plan, which includes the proposals for the constitutional convention. In addition, the Working Committee has undertaken an examination, the results of which have been widely distributed in Samoa, of a number of fundamental questions which will arise for consideration by the convention. I refer to such matters as common citizenship, reform of the legislature, suffrage, control of the Public Service, the method and tenure of the office of Head of State, the Executive Council and the relationship between New Zealand and the future self-governing State of Western Samoa. The Working Committee has also made proposals as to the composition and procedure of the constitutional convention.
30. I should emphasize that, in this preliminary work and in the proceedings of the convention itself, my Government has not sought — and indeed will not seek — to influence the conclusions of the Samoa people. It has, of course, given assistance and advice when so requested.
31. Thus, the Samoan people, through their own representatives, will have a free and untrammelled opportunity to hold their discussions and reach their conclusions on the political institutions they desire and on the manner in which they wish to achieve the fundamental objective of self-government envisaged in the Charter.
32. As the Prime Minister of New Zealand announced in his statement of March 1953: “The recommendations of this convention and the date on which the constitution will be put into effect will be carefully considered by the New Zealand Government, which is fully prepared to implement any scheme which seems to it to be consonant with its responsibilities as Administering Authority and its natural regard for the welfare of the Samoan people. Naturally, the New Zealand Government will fulfil its duty of keeping the Trusteeship Council of the United Nations informed and would give due consideration to its views and advice.”
33. I hardly need to emphasize the importance which the Samoan people and the New Zealand Government attach to this occasion. But it must also be frankly admitted that, whatever conclusions may be reached by the convention, progress in the final step towards the attainment of self-government for Western Samoa will require time, careful study, and patient and harmonious collaboration.
34. I should like, in conclusion, to revert to a topic to which I have already referred: the importance, particularly for small countries, of organizing collective self-defence in advance. I have one final point to make.
35. There are some who argue that the establishment of new collective defence organizations, even if justifiable in terms of the Charter, contributes to international tension instead of reducing it. Such action, it is suggested, casts doubts on our belief in the possibility of “peaceful coexistence”. I do not want to quarrel with this now fashionable expression, but let us be clear as to its meaning. It might, of course, mean merely the avoidance of a world war, but in that case “peaceful coexistence” means no more than “existence”, since a major conflict is all too likely to end in universal destruction. But surely it means something more positive than this; indeed, if the concept is to have any value for democratic countries like my own, it must mean freedom to maintain and defend our way of life, unmolested by the threat of aggression or subversion. We certainly cannot assume from recent events that this threat has vanished, or indeed that it has decreased, since we are all familiar with the communist theory of tactical flexibility. Until we have convincing proof that Soviet and Chinese Communist leaders regard “peaceful coexistence” as something more than a temporary expedient and a propaganda. catch-phrase, we dare not relax or, indeed, do other than build as fast as we can our collective security. If then, as we believe, the price of freedom is eternal vigilance, that also must be the price of peaceful coexistence.