1. Mr. President, on behalf of the Irish delegation I wish to convey to you our sincere congratulations on your election. In your opening remarks [1560th meeting) you called our attention very pertinently to the spirit which should inform our deliberations and to the procedures we should employ so as to replace violence and arbitrary acts of will by reasonable standards of behaviour serving the general interest. I hope that under your guidance this session of the Assembly will make a worth-while contribution to that end.
2. In view of the many situations of actual or threatened armed conflict, it is little wonder that our distinguished Secretary-General devoted such a large part of the Introduction to his Annual Report [A/6701/ Add.1] to the problems of making and keeping the peace. The Irish delegation is grateful that U Thant has not been overwhelmed by the burdens and responsibilities of his office in recent years and that he is still fit and determined to fight for peace and social progress with all means at the disposal of the Secretary-General.
3. Let me say that no one who appreciates the difficulties of government and international relations in these superheated times of rising expectations will be surprised that the United Nations has not within a mere twenty years ended all social and international injustice and violence. All that any reasonable person can expect of the various organs of the United Nations is that each will do its duty within the sphere assigned to it by the Charter "to unite our strength to maintain international peace and security" and "to promote social progress and better standards of life in larger freedom".
4. As the Secretary-General has stressed, there are many ingredients in the cure for belligerency. He rightly gives first place to conciliation and has suggested the designation by him of a special representative to the Middle East whose task would be to harmonize ideas, help find solutions for the current situation and prevent the recurrence of war in the area [ibid., para. 48].
5. My delegation feels that the powers of the Secretary-General are such as to enable him to designate on his own initiative a Special Representative for an area such as the Middle East in which a state of war exists or is threatened. In this connexion we recall that when, last December, in response to the strong urging of all the Members of the Organization, he accepted to serve for an additional term, the Security Council formally declared that it would "respect his position and his action". It seems to us, therefore, that, having regard to the Secretary-General's conviction as to the usefulness of having a Special Representative for the Middle East, no further authorization is required. But, should a contrary view prevail, my delegation would urge that the requisite authority be granted at once by the Assembly, or by the Security Council.
6. In his report of 12 July on the United Nations Emergency Force (UNEF) the Secretary-General when dealing with conciliation referred to a peace-keeping operation as "a practical adjunct of peace-making" and said that its true function is "to create a climate of quiet which is more congenial to efforts to solve the underlying problems" [A/6672, para. 21].
7. When considering or criticizing the success or failure of peace-keeping operations it should be remembered that all peace-keeping operations, including observer ones, mounted since UNER were authorized by the Security Council. They were given no power to enforce peace or suppress aggression, nor were they given any right to maintain themselves in an area against the wishes of the Government of the State concerned. The International Court has, of course, held that the General Assembly has the right to recommend the establishment of a peace-keeping operation when the permanent members of the Security Council are not unanimously in favour of doing so, but it is only the Security Council that can decide upon taking action to enforce the peace and suppress acts of aggression. This distinction is not always kept in mind by those who condemn United Nations peace-keeping units for not taking forcible military action to implement resolutions of the General Assembly, Neither, unfortunately, is it kept in mind by Members who vote for Assembly resolutions containing clauses which would require enforcement action to ensure their implementation. Resolutions of this type are worse than useless, for they create false hopes outside our Organization and they distract the Assembly from concentration upon its real work: that of pressing the Security Council to take enforcement action if such is necessary.
8. The Irish delegation believes that one of the reasons the five permanent members of the Security Council are hesitant about approving peace-keeping or enforcement operations is that under Article 17 of the Charter they would be required to pay their normal share of the expenses, and thus be held responsible for every act and omission of the United Nations Force involved. This might mean that a great Power with tentacles all over the world would be embarrassed if the United Nations Force did not always please all the States or sections with which it wished to be on good terms. My delegation believes that the system proposed for the financing of peacekeeping operations contained in the draft resolution co-sponsored by my delegation last year would go as far as is reasonable to meet the difficulties of the five permanent members of the Security Council. Indeed we hope it would encourage them to help their fellow Members of the United Nations, in the words of the Charter, "to take effective collective measures to keep the peace and repress aggression", which, after all, is the primary aim of the Organization.
9. I now wish to make a few comments upon one of the problems to which the Secretary-General directed our attention in the Introduction to his Annual Report. It is a problem which involves the safety and survival of the whole human race, a problem which is rapidly approaching the point when It will have passed beyond the possibility of control: that is, the problem of preventing the further spread of nuclear weapons to ever-widening circles of States.
10. I should like first of all to congratulate the Latin American countries upon the conclusion of the Treaty for the Prohibition of Nuclear Weapons in Latin America. They have given a wise and much-needed example to the world. The Governments concerned have earned the respect and gratitude of all who wish to see modern resources and skills used for the welfare and happiness of human beings rather than for their impoverishment and destruction.
11. In view of the urgency of concluding a worldwide non-dissemination agreement, I wish also to welcome most heartily the recent tabling of identical draft treaties at the Eighteen-Nation Committee on Disarmament by the United States of America and by the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics. It will be one of the greatest tragedies in history if these two great Powers do not complete the treaty without further delay and open it for signature, as was done in the case of the Moscow test-ban Treaty, in the capitals of all the nuclear Powers which had signed it.
12. Let me say that the Irish delegation does not regard as essential the inclusion of a clause in the projected treaty which would provide at this stage for the inspection of the territories of nuclear Powers. There is more than one good reason for our attitude but it is sufficient to mention one: that, as all alliances are subject to change, it would not be in the interest of a nuclear Power to share its nuclear weapons with another State. We strongly advocate, however, that the treaty should provide for a regular check in all non-nuclear States on all plant and stores which use, stockpile or produce any nuclear material coming under treaty control.
13. It is fervently to be hoped in the interest of mankind that if two or more nuclear Powers agree upon a treaty to prevent the further spread of nuclear weapons, it will be signed without delay by all the non-nuclear States. In the case of some of the larger States, which already have the requisite resources and skills to make nuclear weapons, we recognize that this is asking for the exercise of what is perhaps an unprecedented degree of enlightened national self-restraint. But no one who has read the recently expressed thoughts of Secretary McNamara can fail to realize that there is urgent need to mobilize sufficient moral strength and political wisdom to control the spread of nuclear weapons; that otherwise the remainder of mankind’s existence on this planet will be distorted by the strains and burdens Involved in trying to maintain even a very inadequate defence system against nuclear bombs and the fall-out from missile and anti-missile explosions.
14. The near-nuclear States have a vital role to play in preventing the spread of nuclear weapons. Let us hope that all of them will be wise enough to sign a non-dissemination agreement as soon as one is tabled. For the sake of their own people, as well as the rest of the world, they should concentrate their attention on helping to build a stable all-nation world system of collective security and they should eschew all idea of building a nuclear defence system in the hope of providing effective protection and ease of mind for their own people. For such hope would surely prove false in a world in which nuclear weapons had become part of the conventional equipment of the armies of a growing number of industrialized countries.
15. In conclusion, may I appeal to both nuclear and near-nuclear States not to waste their resources and skills on the will-o'-the wisp of military invulnerability. I would urge them instead to seek their security and prestige by co-operating with all other Members of the United Nations to promote true peace and progress throughout the world.