Although it is now a month since the beginning of the General Assembly’s seventh session, I should like, as head of the Ethiopian delegation, to express the particular satisfaction with which the election of the Canadian representative as President of the General Assembly was greeted in my country. Ethiopia considers that Canada has always distinguished itself among the Members of this Organization by its objectivity in studying questions brought before the United Nations and by its devotion to the cause of peace — and in particular to the principles of collective security — as evidenced by the Canadian people’s contribution of armed forces for the defence of South Korea against aggression. I am pleased to see that our President combines in his person the same qualities that we ascribe to the Canadian people, with a spirit of outstanding impartiality which he has already manifested during the discussions of this session.
96. For those of us who have taken part in the sessions of the General Assembly of the United Nations since the San Francisco conferance, it is always a matter, of interest to study the agenda of each new session, since the lessons which emerge from them provide a clear indication of the progress made in relation to previous sessions of tire Assembly.
97. This year, the agenda contains no less than ninety separate topics, classified under seventy-three titles. Of these ninety topics, fifteen are matters of mere routine; fifteen others are purely administrative matters; and forty-seven form the subject of regular reports by the Special organs of the United Nations. Of these forty-seven reports, we may reckon that eleven, at the very most, deal with subjects of fundamental importance to our Organization. The remaining thirty-six reports are purely administrative. In short, if we leave aside the fifteen matters of routine, it may be said that about fifty of the seventy-five questions are of a purely administrative character; in other words, two-thirds of questions with which we are concerned this year are matters not of substance but of administration and routine, such as the questions of pensions for United Nations personnel, the United Nations Postal Administration, etc. Many of the remaining questions, while of considerable importance, none the less do not come finder the primary obligation of the United Nations to promote the maintenance of peace. I refer to a number of economic questions, to problems concerning the exchange of information, human rights, women’s rights, the question of genocide, etc.
98. The Ethiopian delegation realizes the importance of economic problems and joins with other delegations in support of the suggestions for increasing the scope of United Nations technical and economic assistance to the under-developed countries. We also support the detailed observations of the representatives of Mexico, Chile, Cuba, Ecuador and Iraq regarding that assistance and the establishment of an international fund for the purpose of contributing to the execution of that programme of economic aid.
99. These questions should not, however, cause us to lose sight of the primary aim and responsibility of the United Nations, which is to maintain peace. It should be noted, Incidentally, that, even in the field of the maintenance of peace and the peaceful settlement of international disputes, most of the questions have already appeared on the agenda of previous sessions of the General Assembly. Today they appear on the agenda in another form, under a more or less humanitarian aspect. I refer to the Greek question, the Palestine question, and even, to a certain extent, the Korean question. None of these questions has as yet been finally settled by the United Nations.
100. As an example of a somewhat academic question, I would draw the Assembly’s attention to the item entitled “Methods which might be used to maintain and strengthen international peace and security in accordance with the purposes and principles of the Charter” [item 18]. I wonder whether a rather abstract discussion of this item could be of substantial assistance to us in the solution of certain practical and urgent problems. We must not lose ourselves in endless academic or ideological discussions. Nor must we lose ourselves --as was well said by the Mexican representative in His opening speech [376 meeting] — in the maze of procedure and commissions. Finally, the United Nations must not give the impression that it is seeking to evade its heavy responsibilities.
101. Many of us have attended every session of the General Assembly since San Francisco. We all know the difficulties, the innumerable obstacles which the United Nations must overcome in order to accomplish its high mission of maintaining peace. Perhaps the Canadian representative put his finger on the origin of these difficulties inherent in our Organization when he so aptly said, some days ago [382nd meting]: “It is perfectly obvious that the United Nations is not in any sense a world government. The only basis of which we can operate is on the basis of consent,” Indeed, noting can be done without the agreement and mutual consent of the members of the Assembly. The Assembly could not impose its will upon its members. Its will derives from the members themselves and does not exist independently of them. If the members do not wish to adopt a particular solution, the Assembly is completely powerless.
102. This does not mean, however, that the United Nations is incapable of promoting progress in international relations. Many questions on our agenda, in particular those concerning the codification of human rights and international law, open up an enormous field in which our Organization can make a valuable contribution. There is also another field which seems to me to lend itself particularly to useful action by the United Nations, acting, as always, on the basis of the mutual consent of its Members. I refer to the principle of the self-determination of peoples and its corollary, the right of peoples to self-government. As the United States Secretary of State put it very well the other day, this right is inscribed in the Charter itself and all Members of the United Nations are certainly bound to promote its attainment by all peoples. The main point in the connexion is clearly the principle that the peoples concerned must give their consent; it is therefore natural that agreement on these matters among the Members of the United Nations should have a great effect and be of great encouragement to the peoples who are called upon to exercise the right of self-determination in freely accepting one solution rather than another. It seems clear to me that, by basing itself scrupulously upon the desires expressed by the people concerned, the United Nations can be of great use in this field.
103. My country has recently co-operated closely in the application of the principle of self-determination to the Eritrean question. The United Nations, guided as always by the provisions of Article 1 of the Charter, and despite the fact that a commission of inquiry of the four great Powers had already studied the question of the wishes of the Eritrean population, arranged to send out a second commission of inquiry to ascertain the wishes of the inhabitants before recommending any solution. It was on the basis of that commission’s findings that the United Nations, on 2 December 1950, made its recommendation for the federation of Eritrea with Ethiopia [resolution 390 A (V)]. Here again, however, in conformity with the principle of tile self- determination of peoples, the resolution provided that the recommendations should not be given effect unless they had been freely accepted by both members of. the federation.
104. It was therefore only after the Eritrean people, on the one hand, and Ethiopia, on the other, had formally accepted the recommendations of the United Nations, that the federation came into force on 11 September 1952. It was obviously a slow, patient and, at times, difficult task, which required the constant goodwill and the closest collaboration among all parties concerned, namely, the United Nations Commissioner in Eritrea, the United Kingdom Administration, the Ethiopian Government and the inhabitants of Eritrea. Thanks to the perseverance and far-sightedness of his Imperial Majesty, my august Sovereign, thanks to the outstanding statesmanship of the United Nations Commissioner, Mr. Anzé Matienzo, and thanks also to the sincere co-operation of the United Kingdom Administration, this work was completed, and the two members of the federation have been able to collaborate freely in the establishment of the regime which will henceforth guide their destinies.
105. Thus it is that, by its recommendation, the United Nations has accomplished a valuable task by enabling the united peoples of Ethiopia and Eritrea, through the application of the principle of self-determination, to establish, by their own agreement and their own wishes, this federation which will ensure the personal well-being and mutual progress of all their inhabitants, including foreigners, and without distinction as to nationality, race or religion. Thus settlement of the Eritrean question by agreement between the peoples concerned, on the basis of the principle of self-determination laid down in the Charter, constitutes a signal success on the part of the United Nations in a field where the concurring wishes of the Members of the United Nations can with particular advantage guide the peoples who are called upon to apply this principle.
106. As the United States Secretary of State said, with his customary clarity and precision, in his speech before the General Assembly on 16 October 1952 [380th meeting], “the primary function of the United Nations” is rather, in such cases, “to create an atmosphere favourable to settlements which accord with Charter principles but which should be worked out by the parties directly concerned”.
107. The success of the United Nations in this field should lead us to reflect upon similar work which it might profitably undertake in other fields. In this connexion it will be recalled that the reference in the Charter to the principle of self-determination is to be found in Article 1, paragraph 2. Other similar problems are mentioned in that paragraph and in the subsequent paragraph of the same Article, These paragraphs refer, not only to the principle of the self-determination of peoples, but also to equal rights and to international problems of an economic, social, cultural or humanitarian character and to the encouragement of respect for human rights and fundamental freedoms for all, without distinction as to race, sex or religion.
108. These provisions, couched in terms full of idealism but perhaps liable to a variety of interpretations, might also offer us other possibilities for useful work, provided, however, that they can at any time be applied to specific cases. An academic, ideological discussion would obviously throw no light on the problems that might be brought before us. If there are any particular infringements of these principles, it is our duly, of course, to seek to put an end to them. No such steps should be taken, however, in the absence of a really specific dispute endangering the peace.
109. Let us consider the application of these principles a little more cicely. Because the Security Council is unable to fulfil its oblivions, the primary functions of the United Nations are at present the responsibility of the General Assembly itself. But, under Articles 10 and 11 of the Charter, the General Assembly may make only recommendations, as previous speakers have emphasized. It is nevertheless self-evident that a recommendation, which is not a decision or an order, can impose obligations only on those willing to accept it, and the lack of success of many past resolutions containing recommendations has given a number of delegations rood for thought,
110. It was undoubtedly in this spirit that the delegations of Ecuador, New Zealand and Canada particularly stressed the advisability of procedures of arbitration and reference to the International Court of Justice. For reasons which I shall state later, the Ethiopian delegation supports these suggestions, These procedures have two undeniable advantages.
111. In the first place, when the parties involved have recourse to such procedures, they normally undertake in advance to accept the recommendations or the decisions handed down by the arbitral or judicial courts, which is not the case with recommendations of the General Assembly. That is a considerable advantage.
112. Moreover, by virtue of the fact that questions are submitted to arbitration or legal procedures, the parties involved are in a position to determine precisely the nature of the questions submitted for decision or arbitral award, The parties themselves determine the questions to be resolved, whereas in the General Assembly only one party formulates the item which is included in the agenda and of the other party takes no part in that preparatory work. In the case of a dispute under Article 35 of the Charter, this situation would inevitably lead to complaints by the other parties concerned about interference in matters pertaining exclusively to their domestic jurisdiction. If on the other hand, what is involved is not a dispute but a situation which, under the provisions of Article 34 of the Charter, “might lead to international friction”, the issues at stake become even more vague and indefinite and the objections about interference even more insistent. It follows that with such a procedure it would be difficult to ask any Member State of the United Nations to accept in advance the solutions recommended by the Assembly, as it would be expected to accept the decision awarded under the procedure of arbitration proposed by a number of delegations. In addition, there would be no guarantee that all the parties concerned would accept such recommendations — quite the contrary.
113. The problem confronting tis, therefore, is how to conduct our discussion so as to encourage acceptance of all our recommendations. For this reason, the suggestions of Ecuador, Canada and New Zealand are worthy of consideration, because, as I have just said, reference of questions to procedures of arbitration or judicial settlement clarifies the questions at issue, thereby giving each party advance assurance that no attempt will be made, in any settlement, to intervene in matters within the exclusive domestic jurisdiction of a State contrary to the provisions of Article 2, paragraph 7, of the Charter,
114. These suggestions, however, would not cover the many political questions which cannot, as such, be referred to judicial or arbitral proceedings, because political questions are essentially the responsibility of the General Assembly. Therefore, from still another point of view, the Ethiopian delegation supports the recommendation made by Canada, Ecuador and New Zealand for the reference of questions to the International Court of Justice for advisory opinions. We consider that the work of the Assembly would be greatly facilitated if advisory opinions were obtained from the International Court of Justice on such questions as the interpretation of the provisions of Article 2, paragraph 7, of the Charter. This would not involve the submission of an individual case to the Court for its opinion because that would constitute an attempt by the Assembly to escape its own responsibilities; what is sought instead is a general interpretation of this provision of the Charter so as to facilitate discussion of the various questions raised by Article 1 of the Charter in the Assembly.
115. We consider it appropriate to support suggestions for the more frequent reference of matters to the International Court of Justice, not only in order to obtain decisions on the substance of questions which can be settled by that body, but also in order to obtain advisory opinions. This would create, within the General Assembly, favourable conditions for the consideration of political questions in an atmosphere in which all Members would be disposed to accept, in advance, the appropriate recommendations.
116. In the same spirit, on behalf of the Ethiopian delegation, I support the suggestions of the representatives of Iraq, Ecuador and New Zealand that the task of amending the Charter should be undertaken immediately.
117. I now turn to another consideration. At the outset of my statement, I observed that most of the difficulties encountered by the United Nations arose from the fact that the United Nations was not a government superimposed on States. The States are merely Members of an Organization which can operate only through its Members on the basis of general agreement. The difficulties of settling disputes between Member States are not so great as the difficulties which must be met in halting overt aggression. If the United Nations were a government superimposed on States, that super-government would merely have to initiate police action. Obviously, that is not the case. The Charter instead adopted the idea of collective security, in which all Members of the United Nations should participate.
118. That is why the United Nations action to stop the aggression in South Korea is of such great and historic significance. The very fact that the only question holding up the conclusion of an armistice is the repatriation of prisoners of war gives eloquent proof that the United Nations has succeeded in putting down the aggression in Korea. It is encouraging for countries like mine, which have suffered from the lack of collective security, to observe the success of our Organization. This is the first time in history that an international organization has undertaken collective action to stop aggression. It is therefore imperative for us to arrive, during the seventh session of the General Assembly, at an equitable solution of the question of repatriation. Such a solution is urgently needed. That is why the Ethiopian delegation has joined with other delegations in submitting a draft resolution [A/C.1/ 725] on the question of repatriation. Naturally we are also prepared to support any other resolution conceived on the same basis and in the same spirit.
119. There is reason to be concerned, as other delegation have already shown, about the small number of States which have supported the very humanitarian and realistic action in Korea by direct contributions, As the representative of New Zealand rightly said [380th meeting] : The military and economic burdens of collective action must be borne by the majority of States supporting the action, rather than by a willing majority ... 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.”
120. That is why Ethiopia, despite the ordeals of the last war, despite the urgent necessity of rehabilitating its people add its economy, and despite its ever-increasing responsibilities in East Africa, decided to contribute with its resources and especially with its armed forces to the common action in Korea. We consider that no country, particularly no small country which is a Member of the United Nations, could do otherwise. Our entire future depends on the adoption and defence of this principle by all Members of me Organization; all Members must participate automatically by making a contribution; to the defence against aggression. The history of Ethiopia and its conduct during the aggression in Korea entitle it to support New Zealand’s appeal in all sincerity. There should be no speculation as to the identity or the number of Members which would lend their support to halt any future aggression. Only through the unanimous and loyal participation of all Members of the United Nations can the principle of collective security become a reality and an effective method of preventing future aggression.
121. For this same reason — the universality of the Organization — Ethiopia wholeheartedly supports the statements of other delegations in favour of the admission of many States which have vainly, and so long, been knocking on the door of the United Nations. It is our duty to make the United Nations an increasingly universal membership, an organization of all the countries devoted to justice and peace.
122. In speaking of Korea, I said just now that it was a success for the United Nations to have been able to halt aggression. Moreover, through slow and patient work over a period of several months, it has been possible to reach agreement on most of the questions involved in an armistice. Only one question, that of prisoners of war, remains. If the desire to bring this war to an end is mutually and sincerely shared, it would be inconceivable that we should be unable to find a solution to the problem of the repatriation of prisoners of war. The tragic times through which we are living and the anxiety we feel at the prospect of a new catastrophe impose a sacred obligation on all of us. World opinion would not understand a failure by the United Nations in this matter. Let us strive to find a solution to the problem in order to restore, peace to the troubled land of Korea and thus to open the Way to world peace and co-operation.