I address the United Nations Assembly today for the second time since I returned to take part in international affairs. Last time we met in Paris in a temporary home. Today we are gathered together in a new building of our own, where much care and thought have been given to facilitate our work, It would be indeed a misfortune if at this critical time in our affairs we were to lose the devoted service of our Secretary-General, I hope that Mr. Lie can yet be persuaded to reconsider his decision,
27. Much of my life has been concerned with efforts to build up international institutions in various forms. All too often I have seen the highest enterprises founder on the rocks of national interest, prejudice or human ambition. Even more discouraging has been the repeated emergence of intolerant ideologies, which have set men against each other and obscured their common interests and destiny. For though ultimately these ideologies do destroy themselves, they retard, maybe for generations, the accomplishment of peace through reason. They obstruct the achievement of a free and ordered international society. Sometimes one is tempted to think with the poet that “the troubles of our proud and angry dust are from eternity and shall not fail”. Certainly the long record of conflict and hatred, persecution and war, which has run through the history of man, bears its awful warning for us. In this respect I agree most fully with the opening passages of the speech made by the representative of India.
28. And yet, we dare not be discouraged. For it is the first duty of statesmen to keep alive the greater hope and to build up, so far as lies in their power, the temper and the practice of peace. This, after all, is the main purpose of the United Nations. When we meet here, the representatives of so many millions of men and women, we have one commanding duty: we must use our opportunities of discussion and negotiation to the full, There is no other organization in the world today which offers the same facilities for building world peace. If we misuse it, if we fail to take full advantage of these meetings, we betray a trust,
29. When I spoke at the Assembly in Paris last, year, I suggested two things. First, I proposed that we should try to solve some of the limited problems which faced us at that time. Secondly, I urged the need to reduce international tension and to seek understanding by using considerate and moderate language to one another,
30. There has not been any notable improvement in this regard that I have noticed in the twelve months which have passed since then, On the contrary, the year has been marked by an increase in propaganda designed to arouse and intensify hatred among the nations. Far from seeking to enlighten and clarify, Communist publicity has surpassed itself in its attempts to blacken and abuse the free peoples of the world.
31. Monstrous allegations have been made on all manner of subjects. Germ warfare is one example. This calumny has been primarily directed against the United States, which country carries the main burden in Korea. It is in vain that the charges have been denied. It is in vain that we have offered to have them examined by impartial investigators. That is always rejected. It is hard to understand how anyone can sincerely believe these charges. Put if they do, how can they refuse a serious investigation of them?
32. Nor is it only this alleged germ warfare. Communist propaganda has been even more extravagant. Her Majesty's Government, and many of your governments also, are frequently described as “cannibals”. Nobody, of course, believes that grizzly accusation, not even those who use the term. But it is just an example of that abusive language which makes all communist statements so suspect. The Russian people, who, like other peoples of tire world, would no doubt prefer to think well of other nations, are told of “pitiful slums and stuffy workshops” in London, Paris and New York, “where seven- and eight-year- old children toil day and night, their faces emaciated and weakened”. The Red Fleet alleges that in 1951, British servicemen, and in particular British marines, were engaged in — what do you think? — spreading leprosy in the northern areas of Korea.
33. These are but a few examples. Is that the way to bring men and women together in peace? Can real understanding among the nations be built up against so false a background? How can the Russian people and the peoples of Eastern Europe and of China form a true judgment of the rest of the world when this is the information they receive? Or is truth a bourgeois fiction too dangerous to be allowed to pass over the frontiers or to penetrate the “iron curtain”?
34. As Members of the United Nations, we are pledged to work for peace and understanding. We have no right, any of us, to foster a campaign of hate against the rest of the world. But the Molodoi Bolshevik [Young Bolshevik], describing the work of the komsomols, or youth organizations, quite openly admits that this is what is being done. Here is what it says: “The task of the komsomols is to work, in a fighting manner, impregnated with militant Bolshevik party spirit, to inculcate in youth a burning, irreconcilable hatred of the accursed enemies of the Soviet people, the Anglo-American imperialists.” The Soviet Air Force paper says the same thing. It boasts that their komsomol organization “is daily employing various measures to instil in our troops a burning hatred of the American and British imperialists”.
35. The British people. I desire to declare here, wish to live in peace with the inhabitants of the Soviet Union and Eastern Europe. I am sure the same is true of the other free peoples. We may have differences of policy and interest. But these can never be resolved in an atmosphere of prejudice and a passion of hatred. States which have undertaken the obligations of our Charter should be ashamed to call upon the irrational and primitive elements in human nature.
36. Let us then examine as dispassionately as we can the various problems which concern us in the United Nations, and see whether, by a more understanding approach, we cannot make some progress with them. Of the issues which I mentioned last year, several have not advanced at all.
37. No agreement has been reached on free elections in Germany and the creation of a single all-German government. The Assembly will recall that last year the United Nations passed a resolution [510 (VI)] setting up a Commission to determine whether the conditions existed in Germany in which free elections could be held. This Commission was given every facility in the Federal Republic of Germany. It was not even allowed to enter Eastern Germany. Over a prolonged period, communications have passed between the Soviet Union Government and the other three occupying Powers in an endeavour to reach agreement.
38. The position of the three Western occupying Powers has been that the first essential, before a peace treaty can be negotiated, is a freely elected all-German government which can take part in the negotiations, We have insisted, therefore, that the first step is to make sure that conditions exist in which free elections can take place throughout Germany, That was the object of the United Nations Commission which you here set up last year, But in an attempt to meet the Soviet Union, which had objected to it, we declared ourselves ready to discuss any other form of commission,
39. The USSR Government, on the other hand, has never been ready to take the discussions in this order. It appears to want a peace treaty negotiated over the heads of the German people. This we cannot accept. But we have not given up our endeavour. In our latest note, we again suggested a four-Power meeting with an agenda setting the problems in their natural and necessary order. Is it too much to expect that, even at this late date, the strength of these arguments will be recognized? If so, then progress could at once be made,
40. Nor are we any nearer a peace treaty with Austria. We have an item on our agenda in this Assembly covering this problem. With the, exception of a few relatively minor clauses, a draft treaty was agreed by the four occupying Powers nearly three years ago. But despite endless discussion, no final agreement could be reached. In an attempt to make progress, we suggested a shorter version of the treaty. This was rejected. We then offered to add to the shorter version all the agreed articles from the longer version because the Soviet Union. Government had specifically objected to their omission. That too was not accepted. Is it too much to hope that our discussion here, and the expressions of world opinion which I have no doubt will emerge, may make some impact on those stubborn negatives? Our sole desire is that the four Powers should agree to the early conclusion of a treaty which will relieve the long- suffering Austrian people of the burdens of an occupation which can no longer be justified.
41. Nor have we been able to extend the membership of the United Nations. In Europe, Italy and Portugal, and in Asia, Ceylon, to take but three examples, are still excluded from their rightful place in this Organization,
42. And finally there is the question of disarmament, on which little progress has been made. It is a tragedy for all the world that so large a proportion of our national energies and resources, is consumed on military preparations. It is only a reduction of tension and a settlement of political disputes that can check this evil. But while we work for these, we should also be thinking of ways and means by which general disarmament can be put into practice when circumstances make it possible. That study, if undertaken in the right spirit, should of itself help to reduce tension.
43. In the Disarmament Commission, a number of Power, including ourselves, have put forward constructive proposals. These cover many of the major aspects of disarmament. They were proposed as a basis for discussion, not as cut-and-dried plans which had to be accepted in every detail. We hoped that they would be considered and discussed reasonably and dispassionately, But the Soviet Union representative refused his co-operation. Instead, we were told time and again that the Soviet Union proposals put forward in Paris last year [A/C.1/668/Rev.1, A/C.1/698] were the only basis on which disarmament could be brought about. We were told that any suggestions put forward by anyone else were merely tricks to delude public opinion, devices to enable the Western Powers to continue the so-called armaments race, plots of the war-mongers who were set on the destruction of the USSR. Perhaps this year we may look for some gleams of co-operation, I hope so. Despite all discouragement we, for our part, shall not give up. We urge that the work of the Disarmament Commission should continue. We shall give it our full support. We regard this as one of the most important tasks of the United Nations.
44. The lack of progress which I have been describing is discouraging. The peoples of the world expect the United Nations to do better than this. They expect action, agreement, settlements. If nothing results, now can we maintain faith in our institution and confidence in our efforts for peace?
45. Of course, I do not forget that during the past year we have also had achievements to our credit. The new State of Libya, as the representative of India mentioned just now, has been consolidated and has taken its place in the community of nations. Eritrea has been successfully federated as an autonomous area with Ethiopia. The relief and works plan approved at the last session [resolution 513 (VI)] for Arab refugees from Palestine has been reaffirmed by the Assembly at this session [391st meeting] with the necessary budgetary adjustments, and that most urgent work of humanity goes forward under the aegis of the United Nations. It cannot go forward too fast, for it is a true work of peace. In many fields the United Nations has brought relief to suffering, higher standards of health, better education and care for children, technical guidance and assistance of all kinds.
46. Mr. van Zeeland gave us yesterday [392nd meeting] a careful analysis of some of the world’s economic problems, I understand that the Second Committee has also been debating these matters. I do not want to enter into them in any detail today, but only to say just this. In the final resort these problems cannot be resolved except on a world basis. In the immediate future, many of the countries here will have an opportunity to take stock of the present position in preparation for a fresh attack on common economic problems.
47. So far as we in the United Kingdom are concerned, we warmly welcome a Commonwealth conference which is to meet in London at the end of this month. Here can be a famous opportunity. The Organization for European Economic Co-operation, of which I have now the honour to be Chairman, is at the same time actively engaged in the preparation of its annual report on the economic position of Europe. In both of these endeavours I can give you the assurance that our country will play its full part. We hope that constructive and positive proposals will emerge from them and that these will serve not only the countries concerned but a wider company of nations.
48. Meanwhile, in the sphere of defence, the North Atlantic Treaty Organization is adding to its strength and unity. Here is a true guarantee of peace, within the framework of our own Charter.
49. I should now like to turn to another aspect of this Assembly's work. I hope that all here will take a constructive and practical view of what are called the colonial problems, on which there has been so much debate, The peoples of the Non-Self-Governing Territories need the help which the colonial Powers are able to give them, until they can stand on their own feet. Without that help, these peoples cannot possibly enjoy conditions of economic and social stability. The modern practice of colonial administration is designed to bring them this assistance, and to guide them towards self-government. It is a partnership between the weak and the strong. Disparate, warring tribes are welded into nations. Law is established and justice and respect for human rights, replacing the rule of the jungle and the despot.
50. As the representative of a colonial Power, I tell this Assembly that we are proud of the responsibilities we bear towards our dependent peoples. We regard these duties as a solemn trust. We have carried them through faithfully, and shall continue to do so. I assure you that we require no urging nor admonition in that task, Naturally, we are very ready to make use of technical knowledge and skill from any quarter. We are very well aware of the wide desire for self-government in Asia and Africa. We have always respected these aspirations and we always shall. But we consider it a duty to protect the peoples of certain territories from becoming the sport of international politics. Their standard of life is rising steadily, and is already in some cases higher than that of some countries which most bitterly criticize the colonial Powers. These territories have real and obvious needs. They want peace to develop their own political institutions and to strengthen their economic life. They need education, social and economic assistance, medicine, industries and improved methods of agriculture,
51. All these things we are bringing to them, as we have brought them to others before. We are asked by some here to give up this work. Let me make our position clear: nothing will induce us to do so.
52. There is a clear choice. Either these lands can continue, with the help of countries like my own, their orderly progress towards self-government. Or they can be prematurely abandoned by us and exposed to anarchy or despotism, so that all liberal tendencies are smothered, perhaps for generations. There is no question in my mind as to which of these courses most closely fits the purpose of the Charter of the United Nations.
53. In these matters and in all the problems with which we deal, it is important that we should respect the terms of our Charter. I agree with what my friend Mr. Schuman said to this effect yesterday [392nd meeting], His speech gave us a notable record of French achievement and seemed to me temperate and constructive, and mindful of the responsibilities of this Assembly, The task of building up a world organization in which all peoples freely co-operate for peaceful purposes is a delicate and arduous one. The Charter of the United Nations is the foundation on which we build. It was carefully drawn up, and it represents the highest common factor of agreement among the nations as to the powers which they are willing to pool for common purposes. If we attempt to stretch the meaning of the Charter and extend the areas in which the United Nations has jurisdiction, we run grave risks — unless we can carry all our fellow Members with us — of weakening the very structure of the United Nations. For this reason I regard it as very dangerous that this Organization should attempt to intervene in the domestic affairs of Member States, or that it should in any way contravene the terms of Article 2, paragraph 7, of the Charter.
54. The object of our Organization is to promote general international co-operation and good feeling. It was never intended to be an agency for controlling the domestic policies of its various Members or for intervening between them and the territories for which they are internationally responsible.
55. I am a profound believer in the United Nations, I have worked for international co-operation since the early days of the League of Nations and I cannot, I think, be accused of being lukewarm towards international institutions. It is precisely because I place such hopes in the part the United Nations can play for peace that I sound this note of warning today.
56. And now I come to the major issue of this session of the Assembly — Korea. I do not want to enter into a lengthy consideration of the past. This was lucidly expounded by Mr. Acheson in his brilliant speech a fortnight ago [380th meeting]. I have little to add to what he said so well. Nor do I propose to follow Mr. Vyshinsky into the realm of vituperation which he explored so exhaustively yesterday [First Committee, 521st meeting],
57. We did not send our soldiers to Korea for any aggressive purpose. They went to resist aggression. They went to meet force with force, by collective action, in defence of a moral principle. It is this collective support of international law that distinguishes the Korean conflict from any that we have known before. For whatever Mr. Vyshinsky may say, it is by decision of the United Nations and under the United Nations flag that each political step and each military action has been taken.
58. Now the principle has been defended. The aggressor has been repelled. Once this had happened, we did not hesitate to discuss terms for a settlement. Over a year ago, the offer of armistice discussions was made. We at once accepted it, though the military position was at that time overwhelmingly in our favour. That fact alone should prove to our opponents that we are not pursuing any aggressive or imperialist purpose. We want to see a settlement, for reasons that are not selfish. I need not dwell upon the human problems involved, the casualties on both sides, the sufferings of the people of Korea, the danger that the conflict may spread, and all the other considerations which must be present to the minds of an assembly such as this.
59. The difficulty in ending the conflict has now been reduced to one issue. That is being debated in detail in the First Committee. I have been following the discussions, I still do not despair that they can help towards agreement. But if we are to arrive at such agreement, we have first to see whether we can set down the principles which should govern our conduct in these matters.
60. Let me tell you what I consider these to be. First, that every prisoner of war has the right, on the conclusion of an armistice, to be released; secondly, that every prisoner of war has the right to be speedily repatriated; thirdly, that there is a duty on the detaining side to provide facilities for such repatriation; and, fourthly, that the detaining side has no right to use force in connexion with the disposal of prisoners of war. In other words, after an armistice, a prisoner of war may not be either forcibly detained or forcibly repatriated.
61, These, in our view, are the principles, I have tried to state them as simply as possible. I am not a lawyer. Therefore I have avoided legal technicalities, I have only tried to apply common sense and the dictates of ordinary humanity. I do not see how any reasonable person can disagree with these principles, and I should like to hear the views of other representatives upon them. I listened yesterday for two and a half hours to Mr. Vyshinsky speaking on this subject in the First Committee. In spite of all his legal arguments, he did not give a direct answer to the question put to him by my colleague, Mr. Selwyn Lloyd.
62, Mr. Vyshinsky said that he, believed in the unconditional repatriation of prisoners of war without screening and, as he said, without excesses. He did not, however, say whether in his view those who genuinely fear for their lives should be forced back at the point of the bayonet. I am encouraged by his lack of precision on that point. I hope, therefore, that he will examine my four principles and consider carefully whether or not they are acceptable.
63. If it proves that these four principles are in fact accepted, then it should be possible to put them in a clearly understood resolution which will command agreement among all the parties. This could then be communicated to the negotiators and become perhaps the basis of a settlement.
64. Of course it is necessary to devise machinery to give effect to these principles. This may be difficult, but it is clearly not impossible. The United Nations Command has already made a number of suggestions to that end: that prisoners should be brought to neutral areas, or to demilitarized areas; that there should be neutral inspection, or visits by joint Red Cross, teams; that the prisoners should all be released in a neutral area, and so on. All these proposals still stand. Other people may have other proposals.
65. We would examine any method, any procedure which could ensure that these principles would be carried out. Is it possible to make a fairer offer than that? One machinery has been agreed upon and is put into operation, other problems will, of course, arise, and we have been interested in the valuable suggestions that have been put forward, for example, by the Governments of Mexico [A/C1/730 and A/C1/731] and Peru [A/C1/732] in that connexion.
66. Mr. Vyshinsky yesterday elaborated his proposal for a new commission. But in his draft resolution [A/C.1/729/Rev.1/Corr.1] he lays it down that all prisoners of war must be repatriated. Therefore his draft resolution is of no help in our present difficulty. I do not dispute that at a later stage there might be scope for some such commission. Our immediate purpose is to get this sole remaining issue of the prisoners of war settled. Only then can we proceed to the political conference which has already been accepted in paragraph 60 of the armistice agreement. In that way we can provide for reconstruction and stability in Korea, and then go on to a settlement of those other problems which we must solve to secure a lasting peace in the Far East.
67. To conclude then, I would say this. The peoples of the world are confronted with the gravest peril. We know of the swift discoveries of science which, if not matched by political advance, must one day destroy humanity. We know — and the Communists know — that in every field of endeavour our fates are linked together, East and West alike. We know that the health, the happiness, the prosperity of each nation is essential to all. Yet, while we all know these things, we cannot even take, it seems, the one crucial step which would bring us agreement in Korea, and give the world a fresh lease of life and hope. Here is a problem to test our statesmanship. Cannot we, in this Assembly, along the lines I have suggested, lead and guide the nations to its solution?