New Zealand

I feel that I should announce that although my name is Clifton Webb, I am not the screen star. By all accounts, he is “Sitting Pretty” down in Hollywood, and foreign ministers, I find, are “Cheaper by the Dozen” around here. I am also pleased to see from the map above the head of the President that New Zealand, is on top of the world. We, of course, know that that is a fact, but we are" pleased to see that it is recognized by others. 2. Amidst the large and growing number of topics with which the Assembly is invariably called upon to deal, there may be a tendency to forget that the maintenance of International peace and security still remains the paramount purpose of the Charter. How have we fared in this respect since this Assembly last met? 3. It would be too much — far too much — to claim that the clouds which have been darkening the horizon have rolled back, for they still hover threateningly over certain areas. But, nevertheless, I feel that the situation — perhaps I am an optimist — shows signs of becoming a little easier. The sky is not quite so overcast. In a period of acute international tension, this is much to thankful for. It would, nevertheless, be idle to deny that this is due, not to a change of heart on the part of those who have been disturbing world peace, but to increased determination, backed by actual preparation, on the part of those peace-loving States which, while threatening no one with aggression, are determined to resist it from whatever quarter it may come. 4. At San Francisco, when this Organization was launched, we had hoped that its Members would be so united and so powerful and willing to resist aggression that all regional arrangements of the kind some of us have felt it wise — and indeed, imperative — to make would be unnecessary. But, to the world’s great loss, this has proved not to be the case. 5. It is a sorry commentary on our so-called enlightened twentieth-century civilization that, in the present temper of nations, military preparedness seems to be the only condition on which we can hope to avert a third world war — a war which might well change the face of civilization. 6. But let us not rest content with this negative approach to the problem of maintaining world peace. As. our retiring President, Mr. Padilla Nervo, in what, I thought was a comprehensive and thoughtful speech at our opening meeting, said, perhaps not in so many words but in effect, defence against aggression is not enough. Something more is expected of us. We must strive all the time to devise some way of ridding the world of the scourge of war and of the threat of war. The expenditure on military preparation, not to mention war itself, has reached staggering and appalling figures. What a tragedy that these vast sums cannot be devoted to the constructive purposes of peace instead of the destructive purposes of war! Peoples all over the world are yearning for a brighter future. But, alas, until the time comes, if it ever does come, when the edifice of peace rests upon the common determination of all nations to support it, until the time comes, if it ever does come, when nations, or at any rate all great nations, are prepared to have their international disputes settled by arbitration instead of by war, the only hope seems to be to buttress the structure of peace: with appropriate regional arrangements wherever it is threatened. 7. I now naturally turn to the Collective Measures Committee, about which the Secretary-General circularized all Members last year [A/2215]. He invited us to submit observations on subjects which the Committee might consider during this year. The response to his appeal has been disappointing. 8. New Zealand, as one of the very few Member States which replied to the Secretary General's invitation, suggested that the Committee might usefully devote some time to a study of the problem as to how the military, financial and other assistance to be furnished to the United Nations in the case of collective action might be more equitably shared. We made this suggestion because it relates to what we regard — and, indeed, what obviously must be regarded — as one of the essential elements in the development of an effective system of collective action, namely, the necessity for the widest possible participation and support by Member States. 9. That there is a need for the United Nations to build up such a system is endorsed by the great majority in this Assembly, and we are all concerned to support its development. But mere verbal or voting support is not enough. We should like to see a clear recognition of the principle — and, what is more important, some practical evidence of that recognition — that the military and economic burdens of collective action must be borne by the majority of States supporting the action, rather than by a willing minority. 10. As my Government has already pointed out to the Committee, it is in our view entirely inequitable — though it seems to be taken for granted by the great majority of States — that all the economic burdens incidental to collective military action should be borne exclusively by those Members of the United Nations which have themselves provided military elements. In such an action it-is incumbent upon all Members to assist the United Nations primarily by the provision of military elements or, if that is impossible, at least by the contribution of some other forms of assistance. I do not deny that this problem of sharing is a difficult and, perhaps, delicate one; but I repeat my conviction that the United Nations has to face up to it if it seriously desires to found an effective collective measures system. 11. I wish to make it quite clear that the observations which my Government submitted for consideration by the Collective Measures Committee, and the remarks I have just made, were not directed, specifically at any particular case of collective action; we intend them as applying to the general development of the collective measures system, and to all cases which may have to be dealt with under that system. I cannot deny, however, that our own experience as a participant in the Korean action was very much in mind when we made these observations. It cannot be contested that the contributions of Member States in that case fall far below the full requirements for collective action as indicated in the Committee’s report last year [A/1891]. I do not propose to dwell on this point; it was fully dealt with by the leader of the New Zealand delegation in the general debate at the sixth session of the Assembly [337th meeting]. I would only add that in the year that has passed since then there has, in our view, been very little improvement in this aspect of the case, and that substantially the whole military and economic burden of the action continues to be borne by the same small minority of Member States. 12. Gilbert Murray, who laboured hard for world peace, if any man ever did, once said: “The problem is to make sure that all Members, or at least those Members upon whom the issue depends, will, when the time comes, do their duty and take united action to resist the aggressor.” It must be admitted that before the Korean action this unfortunately was still a problem, 13, I regard the Korean action as a turning point in the history of this Organization. It is the first time that anything approaching an international police force has been seen in operation. Some people seem to regard our action in Korea as a failure. My own view is that it has been anything but that. It cannot be too strongly emphasized that we intervened in Korea solely to halt aggression, and in that we have succeeded. We seek no territorial expansion or other material gain in Korea, but if we are to measure up to our responsibilities under the Charter, then no nation and no group of people must be allowed to take the law into its own hands. That is why we intervened in Korea. We felt that, whatever grievance the North Koreans may have had, they were not justified in attempting to redress it by the arbitrament of the sword. 14, Though the response to this clear call to duty has not been as great as it ought to have been, nevertheless it is reassuring that some Members — and I am proud to think that New Zealand is one of them — have demonstrated that they are prepared to fulfil the obligations into which they have solemnly Entered and that they are determined to see, and to let others see, that a breach of world peace cannot be committed with impunity. And so I repeat that the United Nations action in Korea has not been a failure. No one, of course, would deny that we have not as yet accomplished all that needs to be done. Our task is not yet finished, and we intend to stay in Korea until our objective has been achieved. That objective, I emphasize, is to bring about a cessation of hostilities and to establish something approaching a settled order in the country — nothing less, nothing more. 15. The first step now towards this end is the conclusion of an armistice, and in this connexion we are profoundly disappointed that the truce talks, in which agreement has been reached on all controversial points of substance except one, should have been seriously interrupted. 16. It is the duty of all States, both Members and non-members of the United Nations, to bend all their efforts towards the conclusion of an armistice. And if, as we are given to understand, the only outstanding problem is the question of the forcible return of the prisoners of war, surely some mutually acceptable formula can be agreed upon. 17. I should like to make an appeal to the Soviet Union, through its representatives here to assist wherever it can towards this end. Theoretically, ostensibly, the Soviet Union is not a party to the Korean war, but we know that it has been doing a little more than prompting from behind the scenes. 18. It may be said by way of rejoinder that we could have had an armistice long ago if we had only chosen to send unwilling prisoners back to the North Korean lines; bat would any reasonable person, any unbiased person, say that we should force men to return against their will — when they say they fear for their lives if they are sent back? By all accounts, the genuineness of their fears has been doubted; so also, apparently, has j the reliability of our calculations, and perhaps even our veracity. I suppose that in the present tense atmosphere, when suspicions are so easily aroused, these doubts are understandable, though in fact they are quite unfounded. 19. But surely adequate means for putting the prisoners and ourselves to a reliable test have been devised. How can it be suggested that no impartial screening tribunal can be found? People who make this suggestion lay themselves open to the charge that those who are not prepared to put their trust in anyone else are judging the ethical standards of all other people by the same low level as their own, or alternatively, that they are afraid to have the other fellow subjected to an impartial test because they know that he will be proved right and they will lose their grievance. 20. I hope, therefore, that even at this late stage, the Soviet Union will be able and willing to persuade the North Koreans and Chinese to accept the reasonable terms — the very reasonable terms — that the United Nations negotiators have offered, and thus bring about an armistice. This in turn should pave the way for a settlement that will rid this unfortunate country, Korea, of the internal dissension and strife by which it has been torn asunder. 21. In the meantime, the United Nations, as a whole, may draw courage and inspiration from the fact that the first part of its duty with regard to Korea — the defeat of aggression — has been fulfilled. 22. Passing now to other matters, I am glad to record that New Zealand has continued to co-operate to the best of its ability with the Trusteeship Council and other United Nations organs concerned with advancing the welfare of dependent peoples. We feel that the Trusteeship Council has now settled down, and has developed healthy procedures by which it can effectively carry out its task. There is no doubt that it has made noticeable progress and has worked hard. Many of its achievements may have escaped notice, but they are none the less real. Too often the headlines are reserved for quarrels which beset many of the organs of the United Nations, and probably the reason why the Council’s deliberations are not well publicized, therefore, is that it is working harmoniously and reasonably well. 23. The International Trusteeship System has now been in operation for six years, and, if I may be permitted, I should like to indulge in a very brief stocktaking. In 1946 — before the Council was established — the New Zealand delegation stressed in the General Assembly that the Trusteeship System was not devised in the interests of either the Administering Authorities or the other Members of the United Nations; much less was it devised as a flail with which to flog the Administering Authorities or other Members of the United Nations or as a forum for propaganda. The main objective of the Charter was, and is, the promotion of, the welfare of the inhabitants of the territories concerned. 24. It is regrettable that in the years which have elapsed since then a tendency to ignore this vital point has on too many occasions seemed evident, and that there have even been attempts to misuse the Trusteeship System in the struggle for world power. Such a course cannot serve the real interests of the inhabitants of either the Trust Territories or the Non-Self-Governing Territories. 25. The New Zealand delegation is, however, convinced that the great majority of the members of the General Assembly do not want the Fourth Committee to become, as it has regrettably shown signs of becoming, another political committee. Extraneous political issues should not find a place in the Fourth Committee, since discussion of them can only lead to neglect of the interests of the peoples of these territories. We feel that all members of the Fourth Committee should strive to develop a sense of responsibility and to put aside all thought of gaining momentary, and often illusory, political advantage from actions which have nothing to do with the welfare of the dependent peoples. 26. What we need is a better spirit of give and take — a renewed effort at co-operation and conciliation in the interests of the Trust Territories and Non-Self-Governing Territories. On the part of the non-administering Powers, this calls for a better understanding of the magnitude of the task which confronts the administering Powers, a recognition of the great progress that has been made, and the exercise of patience in “reviewing what must often seem to them the painfully slow emergence of the dependent peoples towards self-government or independence, 27. So far as the New Zealand Government is concerned, we shall always be ready to pay heed to all honest and constructive criticism. We think that we have in the past shown our willingness to co-operate to the fullest extent with the United Nations in guiding the people of Western Samoa towards self-government We are grateful to the Trusteeship Council and the General Assembly for the help which they have given us in this respect. 28. I should like to emphasize that New Zealand has nothing whatever to gain out of Western Samoa, except the satisfaction of promoting the welfare and advancement of its people and of helping them along the road that leads to the goal of their ambitions — self-government — and that satisfaction, I may add, will be ample reward to us for the obligations which the trusteeship entails. In my capacity as Minister of Island Territories of the New Zealand Government, I visited Western Samoa, at the beginning of this year, and I can assure the General Assembly that both Samoa and New Zealand will continue to co-operate with the United Nations and to pay the greatest attention to any constructive suggestions and recommendations the United Nations may put forward. In this connexion I may mention that one of the last Bills I introduced in our Parliament before leaving for this Assembly was one which provides for the setting up of a Samoan executive council which will include several members of the Western Samoan Legislative Assembly. This new body is designed to give members of that assembly a voice in the shaping of the legislative programme, and not merely the right, as at present, to discuss such measures as may be brought before it. 29. When, in the United Nations, a delegation makes an appeal for patience, whether with respect to dependent territories or to other questions which come before us, it is liable to be suspected of secretly wishing to make the United Nations a barrier against all change. It is therefore salutary to remind ourselves of the very great political developments which have already taken place through, or with the assistance of, the United Nations in the comparatively brief space of its seven years. No fewer than four States — Indonesia, Libya, Israel and the Republic of Korea — have taken their places in the family of sovereign nations, though for well-known reasons two of the four still knock vainly at our door for admission. But in any event the United Nations has played a significant part in their attainment of international status. Besides Libya, the constitutional position of former Italian Somaliland and Eritrea has also been settled through the decisions of the United Nations General Assembly [resolution 289 A (IV)], and it is worth recalling that in spite of the gloomy prophecies that the British war-time Administration of the former Italian colonies would continue to remain indefinitely in possession, it has, in fact, now vacated all three. These examples alone are enough to prove that important changes do take place through the instrumentality of the United Nations. 30. The United Nations cannot fairly be accused of going too slow in all matters it might sometimes, perhaps, be accused of trying to go too fast. I have in mind particularly those cases affecting the jurisdiction of the United Nations General Assembly in which its decisions might have matured better if more use had been made of advisory opinions of the International Court of Justice. The Assembly itself has recorded its desire to follow this path. 31. On the present agenda there are a number of items in respect of which problems that concern on the one hand the competence of this Organization and on the other hand, the domestic jurisdiction of Member States, have arisen. The existence of such problems is familiar to all, but there must be few who are able to discern with confidence and clarity the principles which should predominate in the solution of any one of them. This situation of uncertainty is the more distressing if we consider that as the United Nations advances, so will problems of this nature continue to be presented to it, perhaps in increasing number and variety. 32. The New Zealand delegation is, of course, not alone in regretting the lack of guidance and legal precedent from which, notwithstanding the number of cases that have come before us, the general membership of the United Nations still suffers in these matters. We think that the situation would have been different if, in dealing with these cases, the General Assembly had availed itself of the advisory function of the International Court of Justice. We ourselves have not failed on several occasions in the past to urge that it was the duty of the Assembly to follow this course. In some quarters this seems to be regarded as a device for shelving a question, but I do not regard it in that light at all. 33. No one would suggest that this Assembly should shirk its responsibility for political decisions by casting it on the Court, or that the Court should be burdened with questions on which the Charter provisions are perfectly clear. But there are cases, such as the one concerning domestic jurisdiction, which turn on questions of interpretation, where it is difficult to reconcile articles that are in conflict or apparent conflict. Sub-paragraph 7 of Article 2, for example, lays down that this Organization has no right to intervene in matters of domestic jurisdiction. Where does domestic jurisdiction end and our jurisdiction begin? In every case, of course, the final decision must be that of the United Nations, but if we referred the question to the International Court of Justice, we should have the benefit of trained minds, They could sift the chaff from the oats, lay bare the fundamental issues, state the arguments for and against and perhaps establish a set of guiding principles that would help us in making up our own minds. Two qualities are, of course, essential to its success — competency and impartiality. Both are indispensable, but given these qualities the Court can greatly enhance the Value of our work, I feel, therefore, that we should afford it every opportunity to prove its worth anti thus gain the confidence of the nations, 34. My Government has noted with extreme disappointment the results of the Security Council’s recent consideration of the outstanding applications for membership of the United Nations, Speaking quite frankly — and I address these remarks to the members of the Security Council, and in particular to the permanent Members — we believe that after all these years the Assembly is entitled to something better than the same empty report of no progress whatever. The position is highly unsatisfactory. The number of outstanding applications is now over twenty, and some of these date back more than six years to the very beginning of the United Nations activities. My delegation would be the first to agree with the advisory opinion of the Court that each application must be considered individually on its own merits, in the light of Article 4 of the Charter. It is essential to the life of the United Nations that its membership should grow, and the present situation, in which it is quite impossible to secure the admission of any one of twenty applicants — even one — is plainly intolerable. In my view this present situation, more than almost any other, carries with it the possibility that the United Nations will be brought into disrepute. The fate of an application for membership should not be dependent upon a horse-trading deal. 35. Finally, I should like to draw attention to Article 109, which provides that if a general conference for reviewing the Charter has not been held before the tenth annual session of the General Assembly, a “proposal to call such a conference shall be placed on the agenda of that session of the General Assembly, and the conference shall be held if so decided... by a vote of any seven members of the Security Council”. Though there is nothing in the Charter as to the date on which this conference is to be held, I understand it was the expectation at San Francisco that it should be held in conjunction with, or soon after, the tenth annual session. Such a conference would need considerable preparation, and it seems to me that it would not be too soon for the Assembly, at its next ordinary session, to take the matter in hand and perhaps appoint a preparatory committee to receive and analyse suggestions. 36. No one would claim that the United Nations Charter or the Organization itself is perfect; in fact, experience has shown that there are serious defects. But those defects are due more to the frailties and perversities of human nature than to the form of the Charter itself. We are a long way from that happy state when the wolf and the lamb shall lie down together and a little child shall lead them. But despite the imperfections and shortcomings of the Charter, it to the world a far more promising basis for an effective international organization than has hitherto been devised. One writer who had quite a considerable hand in the drafting of the Charter has recently said that what is surprising is not that the United Nations has been able to achieve so little, but that it has been able to achieve as much as it has in spite of all its difficulties. 37. Let us hope that as this Organization grows to maturity, it will gradually acquire the strength to keep the peace and promote good will and understanding among all people that on earth do dwell.