1. Before I commence my statement I should like to say how pleaded Canadians are that Mr. Slim has been chosen unanimously as President of the sixteenth session of the General Assembly. Throughout the last few years we have learned to admire him for his friendliness and his great wisdom, and we believe that he has become one of the outstanding statesmen of the United Nations. We are pleased also because he represents Tunisia which, in its term as a Member of this Organization, has taken such an active and important part. It is most fitting that a Tunisian should have been chosen President of the General Assembly.
2. We believe, too, that it is appropriate that a representative of a nation of Africa should be President of the Assembly at the present time—that continent which is now the centre of attention for the whole world, a continent whose sons are playing such an active and important role in these halls.
3. For all these reasons I wish to congratulate the President on behalf of Canada and to assure him that we shall help him in every way possible during his term of office. It is not an easy time to be President of the General Assembly, but we know that he will fulfil the expectations of his many, many friends.
4. At no other time in its sixteen years has the United Nations faced so many large issues, some of which, we believe, threaten its very survival. Many of these issues have been placed on the agenda, but the one which immediately confronts us results from the tragic death of the Secretary-General. Before we can deal effectively with any other question, some interim arrangement must be made to enable the work of this Organization to be carried on.
5. The appointment of a Secretary-General is a matter so important that it would require mature reflection even if circumstances were normal, but in the prevailing political atmosphere an early appointment seems, from the Canadian point of view, out of the question.
6. But today's circumstances will not allow this Organization to be left any longer without direction. The Congo situation alone demands that an interim arrangement be made at once. Member Governments, such as the Government of Canada, with important
commitments in that country, have a right, and a duty, Page to insist that the United Nations operation be conducted under proper authority. Here we have important negotiations under way at this very time with Katanga, yet with no one here in New York to direct the operations of the Secretariat. That, I suggest, is a foolish situation, but surely there is enough wisdom in this Assembly to meet that situation and to appoint someone on an interim basis. The Advisory Committee on the Congo, made up of eighteen nations, of which Canada is one, has done splendid work here for more than fifteen months past, and yet there is now no one to whom that Committee can give directions. That, I repeat, is the situation which should not be allowed to continue.
7. No delegation here has expressed disagreement about the urgency of making an interim arrangement. Intensive consultations have already taken place about various possibilities. It is recognized by all—and I do not believe there is one delegation here that would disagree with the statement that I am about to make- that there are right here in this hall eminent representatives who have the necessary Qualifications and who enjoy the trust and confidence of the Assembly. We should waste no time in selecting one of these widely respected men to take interim charge of the functions and responsibilities of the office of Secretary- General.
8. We do not expect such an arrangement to be indefinitely prolonged. We see it as a means for keeping the essential work of the Organization going, and as a means of affording to us the time required to give careful consideration to the appointment of a Secretary- General.
9. We would expect the interim appointee to have the loyal co-operation of the Secretariat at all levels. No doubt he will have his own working methods and will make his own arrangements for drawing on the advice and experience of the international staff. He may wish to make some adjustment in the Secretariat. He must, however, retain full authority to make the decisions and give the directions which are the sole responsibility of the office he will be filling.
10. As for the longer term problem, the Charter calls for the appointment of a single executive. Any change in the nature of the office would require amendment of the Charter, That does not mean that the composition of the Secretariat should not reflect the changed membership of the United Nations. On the contrary, all Member States have a legitimate interest in ensuring that the main geographical areas have equitable representation. However, no State or group of States should be in a position within the Secretariat to veto the implementation of decisions of any organ of the United Nations.
11. We stand firmly behind Article 100 of the Charter which provides that the Secretary-General and his
staff shall not seek or receive instructions from any government or from any other authority external to the Organization". And how essential that is, if this United Nations is to live and to expand and to meet the challenge which faces it. An independent international civil service must be preserved if the United Nations is to perform its impartial role.
12. There is no reason, moreover, why Member States should try to keep control of their nationals in the Secretariat. The appropriate political control of Secretariat activities is exercised by the Security Council, the General Assembly and the other organs of the United Nations. Those organs can give full instructions to the Secretary-General,
13. As well, we have wisely adopted the practice of establishing advisory committees especially for peacekeeping operations. 1 referred a few moments ago to the Advisory Committee on the Congo which we think is an excellent committee; perhaps because we are a member of this Committee. These committees afford an additional opportunity for interested states to offer advice and to give political guidance to the Secretary- General in the discharge of his mandates. This is a practice which has proven its worth, and one which can be developed further in relation to many activities of the United Nations.
14. Now I go on to deal with five different subjects: Berlin, nuclear testing and radiation, disarmament, outer space, and the strengthening of the United Nations.
15. First of all, Berlin. Most speakers in .this debate have referred to the prevailing crisis over Berlin. The Soviet Union has seen fit to create there a very dangerous situation, where a few months ago no imminent threat to peace existed.
16. The peoples of the world are watching anxiously the steps which are being taken in the direction of negotiation. I have not doubt at all that it is the universal desire of this Assembly that a settlement on Berlin be negotiated with the least possible delay. Clearly the tension must be reduced and the frightening threat of armed conflict must be removed.
17. The primary responsibility for solving the Berlin crisis r*9sts with the four occupying Powers in that city, but the United Nations could be called upon to play a role in a Berlin settlement. In any event, the United Nations cannot abdicate its responsibility in relation to any problem which raises acutely the fundamental issue of peace or war.
18. There are at least three ways in which the United Nations might be of assistance in the Berlin situation.
19. The first is to focus world attention on the problem and to leave the four Powers in no doubt whatever that they have an obligation to reach a negotiated settlement. This debate is already serving that purpose.
20. Secondly, if the four Powers agreed, the United Nations could serve in an observer capacity in the whole city and on the access routes. Properly integrated into a four-Power settlement, a United Nations presence in the Berlin area would add stability and would restore confidence.
21. A third possibility is that the United Nations might be asked by the four Powers to assume some responsibility for operating an international regime for the whole city of Berlin. The influence of such an international regime could be strengthened by locating the European office or other agencies of the United Nations in Berlin. If Berlin were internationalised in this way, a heavy burden, it is true, would be placed upon the Organization, but the United Nations should not shrink from assuming the responsibility and accepting any obligations involved.
22. I go on the nuclear testing and radiation. During the last two weeks of September, following recent Soviet weapons testing in the atmosphere, the level of radio-active fall-out over one major Canadian city- Toronto—jumped by as much as 1,000 times over previous readings. We are making available to the United Nations complete details of Canadian readings but the following figures will demonstrate that there is real cause for the gravest concern,
23. Whereas in the week ending 10 September the highest level recorded anywhere in Canada was 20 •■disintegrations per minute per cubic metre, in the next week the following high readings were recorded: Ottawa, 90 units; Montreal, 100 units; Fredericton, 140 units; Windsor, 260 units; and Toronto, 470 units.
24. Long before this new and hazardous increase in the radiation to which our people are exposed, my Government had made crystal clear in this Assembly and elsewhere that it was unalterably opposed to the testing of nuclear and thermonuclear weapons. Now more than ever we are confirmed in our opposition to test explosions, particularly, of course, those which produce radio-active fall-out, whether such tests occur in the atmosphere, in outer space, or elsewhere.
25. The anxiety which is aroused in Canada by these test explosions is, I believe, shared by peoples everywhere. We take the strongest possible exception to having our present and succeeding generations exposed, through the actions of other States, to the danger of radio-active fall-out. We know that radiation presents a hazard to human health and the more we learn about the extent of its consequences the more disturbed we become.
26. In my view, this Assembly and world opinion— and this is the place to focus world opinion—must insist that there be no further testing of nuclear weapons. The time has come when it is not sufficient merely to express concern and to record blame. We must find means of compelling the countries responsible to cease the testing of nuclear weapons. Whatever success we may achieve in respect of the other grave issues will, I fear, be of little comfort to mankind if we fail to dispel forever the ominous and lowering clouds of radio-activity which hang over this and unborn generations.
27. In 1959 this Assembly unanimously endorsed far- reaching proposals [resolution 1376 (XIV)], initiated by Canada, for strengthening the important contribution which the United Nations Scientific Committee on the Effects of' Atomic Radiation can make to greater understanding of the extent and nature of the biological effects of radiation. At that time, Canada and about twelve other countries extended an offer of assistance to less well-equipped countries for the analysis of samples they might wish to send to our laboratories- samples of soil, air, bone and so on. Several have availed themselves of our facilities and today I invite other countries to do so. In addition, the recent sharp increase in the levels of radio-active fall-out in the world makes it all the more essential to support the work of the United Nations Scientific Committee on the Effects of Atomic Radiation,
28. The radiation hazard alone is sufficient justification for demanding the cessation of nuclear weapons testing. But there is another reason and that is the spectre of the development, as a result of test explosions, of new and even more terrible weapons, for example, Chairman Khrushchev's one hundred megaton bomb, which might be called the Armageddon bomb. The fact that the leaders of this great nation of the Soviet Union are even thinking of such a bomb shows the need for an immediate change of direction in world thinking. This is the time to call a halt to this sort of business. Let us all do a right about turn and not look any further at such a terrible prospect.
29. I am sure that it came as a profound shock to the whole world to learn that the critical negotiations which had gone on for so long in Geneva—for almost three years—and had borne so much of the hopes of mankind, had been abruptly brought to an end by the Soviet resumption of tests, tests which obviously had been planned for a long time. Such was the Soviet response to a series of Western proposals which offered further concessions and gave promise of the early conclusion of a treaty on the discontinuance of nuclear weapons tests.
30. These developments demand that this Assembly give the highest priority to considering the permanent cessation of nuclear weapons testing. The progress achieved during three years of arduous negotiations in Geneva must not be sacrificed. At this session we must take positive steps to ensure that without delay the nuclear Powers renew their efforts to agree on a safeguarded treaty which will obligate them to end nuclear weapons testing. Subsequently all other countries should adhere to this treaty.
31. I should now like to say a few words about disarmament.
32. At this session, more than ever before, the question of disarmament requires our urgent attention. The crisis over Berlin and the great anxiety created by the resumption of nuclear weapons tests have brought to every mind the death and destruction which would follow the outbreak of nuclear war. We must check the spiralling competition for supremacy in armaments. That means pressing without delay for vigorous and effective measures of disarmament. After all, the Charter of the United Nations places the responsibility on the shoulders of all delegations present in this hall- new and old Members alike. To fulfil this obligation we must concentrate on the steps which will lead most directly to concrete measures
33. Canada welcomes the Joint Statement by the United States and the Soviet Union [A/4879] on agreed principles to guide disarmament negotiations. This agreement represents an important accomplishment, but it is only the first step. Substantive negotiations have not been resumed, even though more than a year has passed since the previous talks were broken off in Geneva.
34. The comprehensive programme for disarmament introduced by President Kennedy [1013th plenary meeting] on 25 September 1961 provides a sound basis for serious negotiation. Canada co-operated actively in the preparation of this important new plan. The programme it sets out accords precisely with the principles which have been agreed upon between the United States and the Soviet Union. I commend this new plan
all members of the Assembly.
3 October 1961 199
35. The Soviet Union, as all representative^ here know, has also put forward disarmament plan, the general philosophy of which is explained in the letter [A/488 7] of the Soviet Foreign Minister to the President of the Assembly. Delegations may be asking themselves whose plan is the better—that of the Soviet Union or that bf the United States. I suggest that it is unnecessary for this Assembly to decide that question.
36. In the Ten-Nation Committee on Disarmament at Geneva, as also at the fifteenth session of the General Assembly and in the bilateral discussions this summer between the United States and the Soviet Union, there has been a drawing together of viewpoints, in spite of all the halts and setbacks. The main evidence of this drawing together is the Joint Statement of Agreed Principles just mentioned,
37. Now, there are still important questions relating to disarmament on which the position of the Soviet Union and its allies differs substantially from the position of the Western countries. But I believe that these questions can, and must, be resolved by a painstaking and business-like negotiation, in which concrete measures and related verification procedures will be examined in detail.
38. The United States plan is flexible and can accommodate reasonable proposals from the other side, or in fact from any quarter; it is very helpful to have suggestions from any delegation. If the Soviet Union and its allies will demonstrate a similar flexibility and spirit of compromise, it will now be possible to make real progress towards general and complete disarmament.
39. In their bilateral talks this year, the United States and the Soviet Union could not agree on the composition of the body which should undertake these negotiations. It is therefore incumbent on this Assembly to help reach a decision in this matter—that is, on the question of what form the negotiating body should have.
40. The Conference on disarmament held at Geneva in 1960 was conducted by a Ten-Nation Committee. It seems to be generally agreed that the composition of that Committee will require some modification. Canada believes that, if negotiations are to be productive and realistic, the negotiating body must have adequate and balanced representation of the major military groupings in the world; this was the principle upon which the Ten-Nation Committee was organized; it will be remembered that that Committee was set up by the Foreign Ministers of the United States, the United Kingdom, the Soviet Union and France.
41. But we also believe that nations which are not aligned with either of the. two sides could play a constructive role in the renewed negotiations* With this in mind, we suggested at the last session [839th plenary meeting] that an impartial chairman, assisted by one or two other officers from uncommitted countries, could greatly facilitate the work and improve the effectiveness of the negotiations. We are, however, ready to consider other proposals on the question of composition. I believe that it is essential that other nations should be added to the negotiating body. If agreement on composition cannot be reached in the halls of the United Nations, it might very well "be worth while to call a meeting of the United Nations Disarmament Commission and give it the responsibility of selecting a negotiating group.
42. Once the composition of a negotiating body has been decided, the Assembly should recommend that negotiations begin at the earliest possible date, on the basis of the principles agreed by the United States and the Soviet Union and on the basis 3f the plans which have been put forward by both sides. The negotiating body, with its broadened representation, should have a close and elective relationship with the United Nations, because general disarmament must eventually apply to ail nations without exception. I think that it is important that the United Nations should be kept in this picture, in the disarmament negotiations.
43. At the fifteenth session of the General Assembly, Canada, joined by eighteen other nations, sponsored a draft resolution intended to create such a relationship, as was recalled by the Foreign Minister of Chile in his statement [1019th plenary meeting] on 28 September 1961. The ideas then advanced may prove useful in facilitating a solution of the problem of general and complete disarmament. If we and our co-sponsors do bring forward a revised draft resolution at this session, I hope that it will receive the unanimous support of delegations here, The draft resolution which we presented last year did not get quite that support.
44. My second last subject is outer space. During the past year, both the Soviet Union and the United States have successfully launched men into outer space. Space travel and space exploration in manned vehicles may soon be commonplace—delegates to the General Assembly two or three years from now may be coming in outer space vehicles. While these scientific achievements stir our imaginations, we deplore the inability of the United Nations to make progress in regulating the use of outer space for exclusively peaceful purposes. Despite agreement at the fourteenth session— that is two years ago [resolution 1472 (XIV)] on the composition of a United Nations Committee on the Peaceful Uses of Outer Space, the vital tasks assigned to it remain unattained. The reason for this is that the two Powers whose achievements in outer space have uniquely fitted them for leadership in this field have failed to reach agreement on procedural arrangements —failed, I believe, to agree on who is to be Chairman, who is to be Reporter, and so on. As a result, the Committee has not met. Moreover, to this dispute there has more recently been added a further complication arising out of Soviet insistence that decisions must be taken unanimously.
45. The Canadian delegation believes that no effort should be spared to have the Committee on the Peaceful Uses of Outer Space begin its studies without further delay. I read in The New York Times this morning a report from Washington:
"Joint Space Plan Urged for World
"U.S. and Soviet Aides Speak at Session in Capital" The report goes on to say:
"Top officials in the United States and Soviet space programs appealed today for greater international cooperation in the peaceful exploration of space.
"The appeals were made by Dr. Hugh L. Dryden, deputy director of the National Aeronautics and Space Administration, and Dr. Leonid I. Sedov, chairman of the Interdepartmental Commission on Interplanetary Communication in the Soviet Academy of Sciences,
"They spoke at opening ceremonies of the twelfth World Congress of the International Astronautical
Federation."
46. Now it looks as if the International Astronautical Federation is more progressive and more powerful than the United Nations: down in Washington the Soviet and the United States citizens are able to agree on this—about doing something concerning outer space, I do suggest that it is time we got busy here and did something about it ourselves.
47. Unless there is some body of law, outer space could be exploited for aggressive purposes with greatly increased danger for ?U nations on this earth. Priority should be given to specific studies to determine in particular—and here I list some of the studies:
The limits of outer space;
The rules prohibiting military uses and the appropriation of outer space bodies;
Means for registering and identifying space launchings;
The allocation of radio frequencies for space research;
Methods for terminating radio transmission from outworn space vehicles—apparently, when these space vehicles are outworn they go on transmitting messages;
Rules governing the re-entry into the atmosphere and recovery of space vehicles; and
Principles of legal liability for the damage arising out of national activity in outer space.
48. These and other important questions are clearly within the terms of reference of the United Nations Committee on the Peaceful Uses of Outer Space set up two years ago and specifically asked to make preparations for an international scientific conference [1472 (XIV)B]. In the proper spirit of international scientific collaboration, much benefit would result from such a conference. However, we would not wish preparations for a conference to delay early consideration of the important questions I have mentioned. We hope to see the United Nations Committee on the Peaceful Uses of Outer Space continued in being and given clear instructions to pursue its work energetically.
49. Should this prove impossible, we must turn our attention to alternative methods of moving forward- perhaps through various agencies of the United Nations; we should not allow delays over procedure to prevent us from making a new approach to the problems of outer space which are of universal concern and of constantly increasing urgency.
50. Finally, I come to the question of strengthening the United Nations. I should like to say a few words about the need to strengthen our Organization. It is timely and desirable that we take stock of its worth. The question we must ask ourselves is not, "Do we want a United Nations?" but, "What sort of a United Nations do we want?" Dag Hammarskjold, with characteristic political foresight, placed that question before us in this year's introduction to his annual report [A/4800/Add.l].
51. If we are to maintain an effective United Nations, and if it is not to become just a big debating society, a number of things must happen and changes must be made.
52. Some constitutional adjustments are required which will give rights and opportunities to all Members to exercise the full weight of their influence. There is
no doubt that some geographical areas are in present circumstances denied their equitable share of such opportunities.
53. This is why the Canadian Government is firmly in favour of enlarging the Security Council and the Economic and Social Council. We see this as the only way in which the composition of those bodies can be adjusted to ensure a properly balanced and equitable representation from all geographical areas.
54. If sensible adjustments within the various organs are needed, it is even more necessary that the United Nations should have a suitable financial base for its operations in all fields. No satisfactory formula has yet been evolved for meeting the expenses of peacekeeping operations in the Congo and elsewhere. A limit has been reached, I suggest, to the process of raiding one reserve fund to support another. The United Nations—our United Nations—is now facing bankruptcy.
55. Canada has the greatest understanding for those who would pay but cannot, but we have no sympathy for the few who can pay but will not. I believe it would be folly to depart from the basic principle of collective responsibility which has been clearly established by the Charter. It would be quite unwise, either to give in to the Soviet view that Members need only pay for those undertakings which they like, or to admit the principle that any one State or group of States should make financial contributions disproportionately high.
56. The aim should be to find a formula which takes into account the difficulties of the less developed countries in paying the full assessment but which spreads the resulting additional burden equitably among the other Member States which are in a position to pay. Our concern about these financial problems flows from a desire to have this Organization act as effectively in the field of peace and security as in other fields,
57. Throughout this statement I have been at pains to emphasize the need to make the United Nations fully effective. I have urged that this international mechanism which we have so carefully assembled and developed through the years should be strengthened and
used to its maximum extent to serve the purposes of the Charter and the needs of Member States. This is a reflection of a firm Canadian view that despite many obstacles and shortcomings, the United Nations has, on the whole, met the challenge of our times. We are proud of the United Nations.
58. We believe that the United Nations should be dynamic in its approach to the questions which come before it. This Organization must be free to develop if it is to meet new situations. It must not be stagnant. In my view, its capacity can be greatly increased if Member Governments are ready to make fuller use of its possibilities.
59. At this session, the outlook is darkened by the grave dangers the world is facing and by the serious internal problems of this Organization. Peoples everywhere all over the world are watching these developments fearfully. They are asking themselves whether nuclear war, which in recent years has been considered unthinkable, is now not only being considered possible but is being accepted as inevitable. The gravest danger we face is a drift into a nuclear war. I am sure all Members realize this fact. But at this time of tension and danger we must not be dominated by fear and panic.
The very seriousness of the situation demands that we
keep calm and think clearly about our predicament. Actually I believe this to be the mood of this Assembly.
60. We have such an immediate responsibility to use our full influence to reduce the causes of tension. To do this we must enable the United Nations to act effectively, and all countries, large and small, must stand firmly behind this world Organization.
61. I think each one of us here at this session has a date with destiny. I do not believe there has ever been a session of the United Nations which held such potentialities for evil and for good. We are all human beings. We all have good motives. I am sure that down in the heart of each representative here, no matter from what country he may come, there is a sincere desire to help mankind. And we have such a wonderful opportunity to do it: what a great challenge. I hope and I am confident that when the story is written of this sixteenth session of the General Assembly, it will be such that each one of us who has been privileged to be here will feel that it was a great honour to be a representative in 1961.