93. This session of the General Assembly has opened at a time when the international situation is characterized by serious conflicts and difficult problems: the war in Viet-Nam, the grave and acute conflict in the Middle East, and the tensions which prevent the harmonious liberation of peoples, particularly in the southern part of Africa. And, overshadowing all this, there is the threat of an accelerated development of nuclear weapons, which might obliterate most of mankind.
94. Quite naturally, during this debate, several of these conflicts and problems have been amply discussed and analysed from different viewpoints and positions. For my part, I shall not engage in any detailed examination. I should like, however, to state the position of the Norwegian Government on some of the most pressing problems and conflicts. Following this, I will make some remarks about this Organization, its structure, it working methods and its ability to act.
95. Even if the question of the conflict in Viet-Nam is not formally on the agenda of the United Nations, the member nations of a world organization obviously cannot stand aloof from a crisis which affects world peace. The conflict has in years past been in the centre of the general debate, and the debate this year has in many ways become a continuation of the debate which took place at the last session. Attention was then sharply focused on two questions. First, what long-term aims have the parties to the conflict, and particularly the United States of America, defined as their final objectives? Second, what are the conditions of the parties for entering into negotiations?
96. As to the long-term objective stated by the spokesmen of the United States I believe it can be summed up as follows: the United States does not aim at establishing permanent bases or any other form of permanent military presence on Viet-Nam territory. The United States does not aim at creating any long-term or permanent influence on the right to self- determination of the people in South Viet-Nam or in North Viet-Nam or in a united Viet-Nam. The United States has declared that it will withdraw from the area as soon as a stable situation has been created through negotiations.
97. I have the impression that some of the speakers have tended to regard the United States presentation of its position as a sort of verbal camouflage of its real intentions. We do not share that view. We have learnt from our close and long-standing relations with the United States that there is no reason to doubt commitments made by that country. However, the distrust between the parties to this tragic conflict is so strong that it has not been possible to get talks or negotiations in any form started. The question now seems to be how to create an atmosphere in which negotiations might be initiated. I repeat: to create an atmosphere in which negotiations might be initiated. Mr. Goldberg, in his statement in the general debate [1562nd meeting], invited an open and frank exchange of views on just that question. There is every reason to take advantage of this invitation.
98. I agree with those who have pointed out that the situation would be clearer if North Viet-Nam could give some indication of willingness to negotiate if the United States should cease the bombing. In this connexion I refer to the speech by the President of the United States last Friday at San Antonio, Texas, But even without such an indication, it is the view of the Norwegian Government that it would greatly improve the possibilities for development towards a negotiated settlement if the bombing of North Viet-Nam were stopped. Of course, nobody can say or predict exactly what would be the response to such an initiative. Nevertheless, we feel that this should be tried as a first step to get negotiations started. There seems to be general agreement that no lasting and just solutions can be achieved by military means. Consequently, there does not seem to be any other alternative than to take the chance and to use this possibility to initiate negotiations.
99. A small nation like Norway can, of course, do very little in a direct way to contribute to a solution of a conflict of the kind we have in Viet-Nam. I should like, however, to refer to two modest initiatives which have been taken in my country.
100. In February 1966 the Norwegian Parliament declared Its willingness to participate in the reconstruction of Viet-Nam which we assume will take place
on a broad international basis when hostilities have finally been terminated. As already mentioned by my Danish colleague [1562nd meeting], we had at a later stage engaged in discussions with our Nordic neighbours to find out whether it would be useful to organize our contributions to such a reconstruction as a joint Nordic endeavour.
101. The Norwegian Government has also found it natural to support the initiative taken by a group of former Peace Prize winners who, through contact with the parties to the conflict, will try to ascertain the possibilities for negotiations.
102. Now, I should like to give a brief summary of how my Government views the situation in the Middle East.
103. During the different phases of the consideration of this question in the United Nations, two very clear and simple principles have emerged. First, territorial gains obtained through the use of force cannot be recognized — any more in this conflict than in any other conflict. Secondly, all the States in the area have a right to independent national existence and territorial integrity. They must, on a mutual basis, recognize the rights of each other in conformity with international law. These two principles have, as far as I know, not been challenged by anyone.
104. At the same time the present situation seems deadlocked in a way which has frustrated the prospects of a step-by-step implementation of these principles. The Arab States have adopted the position that the Israeli troops must be unconditionally withdrawn from the occupied territories; only then are they willing to negotiate. Israel has adopted the position that the withdrawal from occupied territories can only be considered as part of a complete and comprehensive settlement. Thus the parties concerned have been frozen into positions which have hitherto hindered any progress.
105. Sometimes it may happen that the lapse of time in itself makes it easier to solve a conflict. It seems quite clear that just the opposite is the case in the Middle East. As has already been said by my colleague, Mr. Brown, the United Kingdom Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs [1567th meeting] in this conflict time is not the great healer. As time goes by, it becomes obviously ever more difficult to implement the two fundamental principles on which a solution will have to be based. For the parties concerned there is no time to lose. Furthermore, the continuation of the conflict is not acceptable to the international community. It is also of paramount importance that neither side carries out any measures which in turn may present new obstacles to a final and lasting solution.
106. My Government is of the opinion that it must be an important undertaking for the United Nations to bring this conflict out of the present deadlock. I shall not in this context elaborate on the various formal and procedural questions involved, I shall confine myself to saying that my Government fully supports the idea of designating a special United Nations representative who could assist in the return of peaceful conditions. We also welcome the efforts of third parties to aid in bringing about conditions for a settlement. It would be particularly helpful if the understanding reached between the United States and the Soviet Union during the emergency special session could serve as a basis for progress.
107. In addition to the two fundamental principles to which I have already referred, there is a third aspect on which there is common agreement: a solution must not be found to the refugee problem in the Middle East. This can, of course, not be achieved without the full co-operation of all the parties concerned in the area. But it is equally certain that this is a humanitarian task which, in terms of finances, technical problems and administration, far exceeds what these countries can be expected to do alone. This is a responsibility for all of us. We are faced with a task which demands a joint effort on a broad international scale.
108. I shall now make some more general observations on the United Nations and its ability to perform its functions.
109. It is often the smaller nations which are most concerned with the promotion of international cooperation. Individually they have only limited capacity to influence the geopolitical power constellations and the international conflicts of interests. Their contribution to the creation and maintenance of international law and the way to influence the course of international events lies in co-operation with other States. It is for this reason that so many smaller nations have found it useful to engage in different patterns of regional co-operation. Norwegian foreign policy has in many important fields been influenced by our participation in organizations such as the Nordic Council, the Council of Europe, the North Atlantic Treaty Organization, the European Free Trade Association group, and so forth. Several other Member countries have similarly found their place within the pattern of the co-operation in other regional organizations.
110. But regional co-operation only becomes really meaningful when it takes place within the context of comprehensive international co-operation on a global basis. In Norway we therefore regard our membership in the United Nations as a cornerstone in our foreign policy. It is one of the fundamental principles of the United Nations that its functions and tasks are of a universal character. The Organization should be universal in its membership too, so that it comprises the vast majority of the peoples in the world. This is the basis for Norway's consistent support of the seating of the People's Republic of China in the United Nations. Perhaps it is not realistic to think that this question will be solved in the present somewhat confused situation. We do, however, consider that as a matter of principle the present Members of the United Nations should make it clear that the United Nations is open also to the most populous nation in the world.
111. It may be said about most organizations and associations, also in international life, that they are not an aim in themselves but only instruments for the furtherance of certain purposes and interests. This is not the case with the United Nations. The concept of its universality invests the very existence bf the Organization with a value in itself. To keep the Organization in being, irrespective of its greater or lesser efficacy in any given phase of its development is therefore an important task in itself.
112. But the realization of this does not suffice, of course. During recent years the United Nations has been subjected to new trials and ordeals. Among many Member nations there is considerable disappointment that the United Nations has not been able to achieve more, particularly in connexion with some aspects of the crisis in the Middle East. We can also sense a somewhat resigned and negative attitude concerning the capacity of the United Nations to influence the course of international events.
113. Admittedly, we all can feel disappointed that achievements have not always corresponded to expectations. But we must not forget that the Middle East conflict, which could easily have got completely out of control was after all confined and temporarily stopped.
114. On the other hand, even if the feelings of resignation concerning the capacity of the United Nations are unjustifiable, it is equally clear that we must learn from experience. We have learnt that the Organization must be strengthened, above all by giving it more effective instruments to maintain peace and security. To blame the administrative leadership of the United Nations for lack of results is to direct criticism to a completely wrong quarter, What has been missing is, to put it bluntly, the political will on the part of the Member nations to give the Organization the necessary means to carry out its functions in accordance with the United Nations Charter.
115. How can we correct this situation and develop the United Nations as an instrument for the promotion of peace? It is of vital importance that Member
nations respect the United Nations Charter and that decisions be based on its principles. The political and economic organs of the Organization must arrive at decisions which can he generally accepted and implemented. And the decisions must, as far as possible, take into consideration the different interests which exist among the parties concerned.
116. The Norwegian Government has supported every initiative previously taken in order to expand the authority of the United Nations to act on behalf of the Member nations, and to strengthen the means which are at the disposal of the Organization. With the conflict in the Middle East in mind, I would especially underline the position we have taken with regard to the question of organizing and developing the capacity of the United Nations to carry out peace-keeping operations. Norway will also in the future take a positive attitude on every initiative which aims at strengthening our Organization.
117. Mr. President, throughout all I have said I have wanted to stress the Norwegian view that the United Nations and co-operation within it are of vital importance for the future development of the world. It is with that in mind that I should like to associate myself wholeheartedly with the many speakers who have congratulated you upon your election as President of the General Assembly. Or, to put it in a slightly different manner, it is with this in mind that I wish to congratulate the United Nations on having you as the President of the Assembly during this important and difficult session.