59. Mr. President, I, like all those who have preceded me to this rostrum, would like to start by saying how very glad I am to see you occupying that Chair. You and I have come to know each other very well indeed, and you know how much I value the degree of warmth that has entered into our personal relations. You have a very difficult task before you, and, if it needs saying, let me say at once that you will have all my support in carrying out that task.
60. I would also like to pay attribute to your predecessor. In the past year, the Assembly met three separate times. Rarely has such a heavy burden been placed upon a President. I believe, with all my friends, that we were very fortunate indeed during that year to have our Afghan colleague in the Chair, and he has earned the warmest thanks of all of us.
61. At the opening of each year's session of the General Assembly, we have a unique opportunity to take stock, and I want, if I may, to use this opportunity to talk pretty frankly about our Organization. I will try to say where I believe we succeed. I will also have something to say about what I regard as our weaknesses. I have some suggestions to make as to what all of us should do to remedy those weaknesses. As the Secretary-General reminded us in his Annual Report on the Work of the Organization [A/6701], and as others have said before me, when we are talking about our Organization, we must not speak of something that is detached from ourselves. Our United Nations Organization cannot be more effective than we, its Members, make it. Its successes are our successes, its failures are our failures, and no one can contract out.
62. When I spoke here last year [1436th meeting], I proclaimed the firm belief of my country and of myself in our Organization and all its stands for. I said that we were determined to work in a most practical way for the fulfilment of its ideals and its aims. I solemnly repeat that pledge here today. It binds my country and it binds me as much today as it did a year ago.
63. Let me turn first to the achievements, as I see them. First and foremost, of course, is the fact that this Assembly provides the only real forum for continuing discussions between the nations. At this opening stage of the General Assembly, foreign ministers from all over the world meet and talk together. I find this immensely valuable, and I believe my colleagues feel the same. Therefore, I say that however difficult are the problems we face, it remains true that the world is a safer place because of the opportunities which this Organization provides for all of us here to have a full and free exchange of views.
64. Springing from all this the United Nations Organization has acquired what I called last year "a certain intangible supra-national moral strength" [1436th meeting, para, 45]. The Office of the Secretary-General has acquired a prestige over the years which can enable both him and his staff to exercise a real Influence in the danger areas of the world. He and they, with the United Nations peace-keeping forces and the observer group working in widely different areas of tension, have much to their credit in containing and avoiding conflict.
65. The work of the Organization on the economic and social fronts is vitally important and much too little recognized or emphasized. The Secretary-General has said that something like 85 per cent of our total effort in men and in money goes into the economic and social fields and the field of human rights. In my view that is the right direction. Moreover the great specialized agencies have established habits of co-operation, and they provide invaluable assistance in all their many technical and economic fields. They allow assistance to be given and to be received by nations in proper dignity. This is the work which in the long run will create the conditions for a peaceful world.
66. I am proud that Britain plays such a full part in this political, economic and social work; we shall continue to do so. The fact that we are represented here by Lord Caradon, who is a Minister in the British Government, underlines the direct day-to-day consultation that takes place between New York and London. Other Ministers and other Members of our Parliament take an active part in the discussions in the General Assembly.
67. In the economic and social fields, Britain is still the second largest over-all contributor. In 1965 we raised our contribution to the United Nations Development Programme, to whose work I should like to pay a special tribute. To UNRWA and the High Commissioner for Refugees we are also among the largest contributors. We have maintained the level of our contributions, and we intend to increase our overseas aid during the coming year. Over and above the aid programme we had planned, we shall make a contribution of £5 million to the Food Aid programme resulting from the Kennedy Round. We intend to contribute to the Population Fund. We work closely with the International Bank and its affiliates, and we are ready to play our part in replenishing the funds of the International Development Association at a substantially higher level than in the past. And now we look forward to playing an active role in the second United Nations Conference on Trade and Development to be held at New Delhi early next year.
68. Perhaps this is the point at which I should say a few words about the shortcomings of our Organization. In the long run the national interest of every State lies in strengthening this body. The division of military power between two opposing blocs has in fact prevented it from playing a significant part in major issues of peace and war. That is true in Europe, it is true in South-East Asia and it is true in the field of nuclear policy. In those circumstances we can understand why the policies of States are determined more by their own vital interests and their own ideologies than by the collective will of the international community.
69. But this is a disappointing situation, one we cannot change, at any rate in the short term. The balance of power is not maintained, not preserved through our Organization. Peace depends largely on alliances and on the multilateral arrangements which each country makes to ensure its own security. For the time being, it is only through those alliances and arrangements that the clashes between ideologies and interests can be accommodated without conflict. Indeed, regional groupings are specifically provided for in our own Charter.
70. But I am not a believer in rigid blocs as the basis of a permanent security system. However, for the present, the machinery, resources and power of our Organization cannot by themselves provide a reliable security system. We must all, including the smaller nations here, work very hard to enable us to be able to do so. In the long run, the constructive efforts of alliances to achieve a détente can pave the way to a system in which our Organization plays a larger part. We all heard Mr. Gromyko refer in his speech the other day [1563rd meeting] to the disbandment of military blocs. I repeat, there is no question in my view of military alliances becoming set in a rigid mould. But those who advocate the immediate dissolution of those alliances are proposing, I fear, to remove the scaffolding before the arch has been completed.
71. These are the present limitations in the role of our Organization. In order to make progress towards the ideal of an effective world-wide United Nations authority, we have a tremendous amount of work yet to do. One place to start is in peace-keeping and in the peaceful settlement of disputes. The United Nations still lacks the ability to get to grips early enough with major international problems before they reach a critical point. I shall say something a little later about a number of the biggest immediate problems that face us. But meanwhile, another year has gone by without any debate at all on how to improve our machinery for the peaceful settlement of disputes. A year has gone by with only a fruitless debate on peace-keeping itself. Proposals that we and others have put forward — practical proposals for carrying out the provisions of our Charter — have so far got nowhere.
72. Our proposals may be in advance of their time. They are clearly in advance of many of our fellow Members. But they are not in advance of events. There could surely be no more frightening proof of the need for sound machinery for peace-keeping and, even more, for the peaceful settlement of disputes, than that which we had this spring. The United Nations Emergency Force was for ten years the key to peace between the United Arab Republic and Israel. Within three weeks of its disappearance the whole area was at war. We could have had no clearer warning of the need for effective peace-keeping machinery. It is not the Charter which is defective. But some still lack the will to make it work as it should and could.
73. We shall get nowhere on peace-keeping arrangements or on the work of this Organization in general until we do something much better about our financial arrangements. Unhappily, we have made no progress towards solving our deficit problem. Two years ago the Assembly asked for voluntary contributions to meet the gap. Britain came forward with a voluntary and unconditional contribution of $10 million, a considerable sum. Some other nations have more than played their part. But the general response, let us admit it, has been terribly disappointing. Pathetically little has been volunteered since 1965. May I say to my colleagues, those who have not yet helped, that they should consider urgently the need to make their voluntary contributions now. It is our common need, it must be our common purpose, to put the Organization on a sound financial footing. Only in this way can we enable it to meet the calls which we make upon it.
74. Now I turn for a moment to a problem of a different kind. The ordinary Briton feels puzzled, indeed resentful, when he hears that we of all people are being attacked about our attitude towards the great issues of freedom and independence. This is something which could seriously erode the strong support which exists in my country, and has always existed in my country, for the United Nations.
75. The fact is that we in Britain are great believers in freedom and in the right of all countries to choose their own future. Moreover, we put these views into effect; we do not just talk about them. And we believed in this long before this Organization was created. There are 750 million people in the world today whom we have helped to reach and maintain their freedom. The most recent examples are Mauritius, which is soon to be a fully independent nation; the new States of the Eastern Caribbean, which have chosen a free and voluntary association with Britain; and, of course, South Arabia, which despite its special and complex problems is soon to be independent, and where we have sought to work with and through the United Nations in the form of the Special United Nations Mission.
76. Having this proud record, I cannot see why, nor can my fellow countrymen see why, we should now be thought to want to depart from our firmly held beliefs. In our view every Territory has the right to be freely consulted about its future. It is only natural that those which remain in our responsibility today should contain some of the most difficult problems. We cannot simply just cast them adrift. We cannot, if I may say so, accept the simple dogmatism that seems so often to be heard in the Committee of Twenty-Four.
77. In our efforts to deal with these problems, we look for understanding from this Assembly and its Committees. But what at times have we found? Both in the Committee of Twenty-Four and in the wider forums of our Organization, it seems to us that there has too often been a reluctance to hear, willingly and without pre-judgement, the freely expressed views of the people of the Territories themselves. There has sometimes been a refusal to recognize and accept the full and thorough processes of popular democratic consultation.
78. Examples of this lie in recent decisions by the Committee of Twenty-Four on Fiji and on the Associated States of the Eastern Caribbean. These have illustrated, I believe, this reluctance on the part of that Committee to heed the voice of the colonial peoples themselves. But an even stranger example has been the case of Gibraltar. The Committee's recent resolution on Gibraltar seems to me to have been thoroughly bad. It ran directly against two principles which surely the Committee should have been the first of all to defend.
79. First, what the Committee calls decolonization cannot mean handing a people against their will to another Government. Is that what the Committee really wants to see done to the people of Gibraltar? Why?
80. Secondly, in handling these grave matters, we must all ask two questions. One is, "What is best for the people?" And we certainly cannot begin to answer that question until we ask the other, which is, "What do the people want?" But the Committee of Twenty-Four seems to us to take a startling different approach. It showed no enthusiasm at all when it heard that the people of Gibraltar were going to express their own views in a referendum. The rather extraordinary message which it sent to the people of Gibraltar was, "Do not express your views about your own future". I simply cannot understand this attitude. Nevertheless, I believe that on this matter Britain and Spain should continue to talk. I trust that we both share the wish that Gibraltar should not be a barrier between us. And for my part, I look forward to an early resumption of our discussions.
81. I said at the beginning that the United Nations can only be what we make it. It seems to me that it is clear that the United Nations can only take effective action when a wide measure of agreement has been reached among those directly concerned. Enough members must be convinced in frank discussion that the path suggested is the right one. Only then can that path be followed purposefully. No faction of this Assembly can impose its will on the rest if positive results are to follow.
82. Sometimes I think we fail to see the warning lights. The Assembly, or its Committees, are then tempted to think that a resolution is a substitute for action. But sweeping declarations which take no account of facts and of significant sections of United Nations opinion do nothing, I suggest, to further the aims of the Charter. On the contrary, they set them back. They destroy confidence in the right-mindedness of the United Nations, and then that confidence has to be laboriously recreated. Resolutions of this kind produce no results, I think the Assembly's action on South West Africa [resolution 2248 (S-V)] last spring illustrates clearly what I mean. I should like to come back to that in a moment.
83. Let me turn to another matter first which my Government believes is of concern to our Organization and to all its Members: that is the question of violence against diplomatic missions which is now endangering the relations between so may nations. This, the world's greatest diplomatic assembly, must be concerned, I think, when centuries of diplomatic experience and practice are put wantonly at risk.
84. This past year has seen a new rash of mob violence, of blatant disregard for the immunities which are essential for the civilized working relations of diplomatic representatives. Worse than all this, these acts have been condoned, if not promoted, by governments. The attack and burning of our diplomatic mission in Peking, the manhandling of our Chargé d'Affaires and his staff were matters of grave concern. The wives and families of our people in Peking have still not been allowed to leave, although I am hoping for an early and favourable decision on this.
85. Nevertheless, having said what I have, I want to add that, despite the serious effect which all these recent events have had on Anglo-Chinese relations, we still hold firmly to the view that the Chinese People's Republic should be seated in this Assembly. Its continued exclusion from the international community will benefit neither the people we represent here, nor, for that matter, the Chinese people themselves.
86. But it is not only in China that embassies have been attacked and diplomatic representatives subjected to indignities and worse. Nor can any of us be happy when private nationals of one country are held in detention by the government of another country for months without charge and without justification. We have been among the victims of this kind of disgraceful behaviour, though, of course, we are by no means alone. But are we the real victims? Is not the real victim the structure of international confidence and understanding which has been built up so patiently over the years? It is impossible under these conditions to get our real business done. It is no good our meeting here, with proper protocol and politeness, if damage and destruction to diplomatic establishments is being condoned outside. And let me add this, if I may. The world is subjected to a mass of constant, deliberate and sometimes malevolent propaganda over the radio and television. This too destroys the trust and work between peoples. I believe we should express our condemnation of this perverted way of doing business.
87. May I now say a brief word about a quite different matter — the problem of the balance among all the different countries of the world. At present there are two giant States. The gap between these giants and the rest of the world is not good for the world; it is not good for the two super-States themselves; it Is not good for other countries that are sensitive about what they believe to be their weakness. For this reason, we in Britain welcome the regional groupings which have grown up everywhere — in Africa, South America and other parts of the world. This is also why we believe in a wider European grouping than exists at present.
88. It was for this reason, above all, that Britain applied earlier this year for full membership of the European community. This great decision has been endorsed by the overwhelming majority of the British people. I believe that, as a result of our joining the European community, Europe will be able to speak with a much stronger voice in the counsels of the world, and I believe it will also enrich and strengthen thereby our ability to support the United Nations Organization in its many activities.
89. I said earlier that I would talk about the specific conflicts which face this Assembly. As I said, many of the problems have been caused by unwillingness - on the part of all of us in the United Nations — to become actively involved in major international problems before they reach a critical point. When the inevitable crisis comes upon us we often seem content to apply a palliative which cures the symptom without attacking the root of the complaint. The great international problems of the world do not solve themselves. Time is not, in this respect, the great healer. These problems can be solved only when nations and peoples bestir themselves and really work for solutions in a hard-headed and practical manner. Let us bring this courageous practical approach to the world problems which I want now to comment on.
90. First, the Middle East. It is deplorable that over three months after the end of the Arab-Israeli war we in the United Nations have not been able to agree on a constructive resolution tackling the main causes of the conflict. The debates in the fifth emergency special session this summer and the proposals discussed privately at that time showed clearly that the weight of international opinion was for a balanced approach from which stability might emerge. Let us now build on this common ground.
91. I should like to repeat what I said when I was here before: Britain does not accept war as a means of settling disputes, nor that a State should be allowed to extend its frontiers as a result of a war. This means that Israel must withdraw. But equally, Israel's neighbours must recognize its right to exist, and it must enjoy security within its frontiers. What we must work for in this area is a durable peace, the renunciation of all aggressive designs, and an end to policies which are inconsistent with peace.
92. As I suggested in June [1529th meeting] and as the Secretary-General has himself recommended [A/6701/Add.1, para. 48], there should be a special representative of the Secretary-General in the area, charged with making direct contact with the parties to the dispute. His would be no easy task. But that makes his appointment, we believe, the more necessary and the more urgent.
93. Without delay we must tackle the question of ensuring the free use of international waterways. The denial of this right was one of the root-causes of this summer's trouble. As things stand, no country enjoys the use of the Suez Canal. Unless this route is quickly available again, there must inevitably be damaging changes in the pattern of world trade. The economies of the world would permanently reduce their dependence on routes of communication which can be blocked or interrupted for a long time.
94. A perhaps even more urgent problem, if that is possible, is the problem of the people — the individual people — who have suffered personal loss and the disruption of their lives. The Assembly rightly expressed urgent concern for the refugees during its fifth emergency special session. Last month a limited step was taken towards the alleviation of the problem when some former residents of the West Bank were allowed to return there. It is a matter of great regret to my Government and to myself that there has not been more progress in the return of innocent people to their homes. I heartily endorse the Secretary-General's plea that the humanitarian aspects of the refugee situation be divorced from the political and military aspects.
95. Looking to the future, imagination, co-operation and resources — all will be needed. I believe that this Organization can play a decisive part in launching a constructive scheme for development in the Middle East which could show the way to wipe out that human misery which we call the refugee problem. What we need is a new and comprehensive and imaginative approach to the whole problem.
96. I believe that Jerusalem too requires a special mention here. The British position was made quite clear when, with the vast majority of the Members of this Assembly, we voted this summer for the resolutions calling on Israel to do nothing to prejudice the status of Jerusalem. We stand by what we then said. This is not an issue between Israel and Jordan alone; three great religions of the world turn to the Old City as a sacred place.
97. Speaking of actions tending to prejudice the status of Jerusalem, I am bound to add that I was concerned by the report which I read yesterday in The New York Time, according to which Israeli settlements are to be established in the occupied territories. I feel that the implications of this are clear and disturbing.
98. It may well be that a wider United Nations presence will have a part to play in all this. Under the devoted leadership of General Odd Bull, UNTSO has done so much to restore calm where it has been allowed to operate. Perhaps this should be built upon. We would hope that the need for any such force would be short; we hope that a stable peace and good-neighbourliness will grow in the Middle East. We all know that the Secretary-General is right when he says in the Introduction to his Annual Report that "The essential precondition ... in the Middle East is an end to incitement to hatred, the achievement of calm and a recourse to reason” [A/670l/Add.1, para. 51]. We think that a United Nations presence could be crucial to the first steps on this path.
99. My own view is that a settlement in the Middle East can come only through the United Nations Organization, and that we, the Members, must without delay seek to agree on the framework within which the Organization is to operate.
100. I turn now to the intractable problems of southern Africa. We have often clearly stated the principles in which we believe, and I restate them now. First and foremost, any form of racial discrimination is totally abhorrent and unacceptable to us. It follows from this that the system of apartheid in South Africa is detestable to us. And on the problem of South West Africa we have stated our conviction that South Africa has forfeited its right to administer the Mandate over that international Territory. We have, moreover, persistently endorsed the principle of self-determination as the basis of any acceptable solution of the problem of the Portuguese territories in southern Africa. And in Rhodesia we have insisted, and will continue to insist, on racial non-discrimination and guaranteed progress towards majority rule and full democratic government. We shall not accept any form of independence for Rhodesia unless it is acceptable to the people of Rhodesia as a whole. I am, of course, firmly against the use of terrorist methods in solving political problems. This is not the way to make progress. But the tragedy is that if certain policies are pursued, they can become, or seem to become an invitation to terrorism.
101. So these are our guiding principles. Our faith in those basic principles is undiminished. It is well that they should be clearly restated; but at the same time as we restate our principles, we must also be honest with ourselves and with others about the limitations that exist on the effective action which is open to us. If we are to arrive at practical solutions to the practical problems which confront us, we must face up to and recognize those limitations for what they are. I do not wish to shirk the task of stating them again honestly and bluntly now.
102. First, in solving the Rhodesian problem, we have said frankly from the beginning that we are against the use of force. Secondly, in dealing with all these problems of southern Africa, we have always made it clear that we cannot and will not now contemplate an economic war with South Africa. There may be honest disagreement with our reasons for holding these positions, but I assure you that as seen by us they are justified and inescapable, It is essential to recognize that those limitations do exist. To call for action in solving the problems of southern Africa without at the same time recognizing the limitations on the scope of that action is to invite at best frustration and at worst a betrayal of the trust placed in us.
103. It is a matter of great regret to us that in approaching the problems of South West Africa, the United Nations Organization has not been prepared to confine itself to action which is clearly practical and positive. We supported limited but constructive proposals for that Territory, including a proposal for the United Nations to have a special representative there, and we continue to believe that such a step might well have led to some progress. I have already spoken of the resolution [2248 (S-V)] adopted at the last special session of the General Assembly on South West Africa. That resolution seems to us to contain what is now clearly impossible of achievement; it thus offers no solution to the problem. This illustrates — let me repeat it — the futility, as we see it, of attempting collective action by this Organization which disregards the real limitations on what we can do.
104. So of all these problems I am now discussing, the top priority for Britain must be Rhodesia. Here we shall continue faithfully to pursue the action we have advocated and to carry out the measures we have put into effect. It may be difficult to measure exactly at any moment the progress we have made, but I should not wish anyone here at the United Nations or in Rhodesia itself to doubt the determination of my country to see the matter through to an honourable conclusion. There can be no going back. We ourselves in Britain have carried out our obligations under the Security Council resolution 100 per cent. Indeed, we have gone much further than the letter of those resolutions would require. It is only right that Britain, with its special responsibilities for Rhodesia, should set an example. But we are entitled to ask that others should also join wholeheartedly in the mutual effort to which the overwhelming majority of us have set our hand.
105. And now may I turn to an issue which is not formally on our agenda, but which is certainly one of the major problems in the world today, and to which Members of this Assembly can and must help to bring a solution — Viet-Nam.
106. The past year has been filled with killing and destruction and marked by a range of abortive efforts to bring about peace. It is tragic that the North Viet-Namese authorities have declined to grasp the many opportunities to negotiate which have been offered and still remain open to them. There has been no reduction in the fighting. There has been no progress towards a solution. There has been progress of another sort: the people of South Viet-Nam have shown their determination to follow constitutional processes in the midst of war. They want a régime of their own choice. The need for a solution is more urgent, I believe, than before.
107. Viet-Nam itself cannot afford to let the war continue; and no more can any of us, for the conflict distorts relations among us and hinders the growth of peaceful co-operation. It is the duty, I submit, of all who have influence to use it to find a way of stopping the fighting, and to do that soberly and in full recognition of their international responsibilities. The use of violent and excessive language towards any of the parties in this conflict contributes nothing to the search for peace.
108. In this situation my Government hopes that all concerned with the conflict will acknowledge the need for compromise — not compromise on principles but compromise in moving towards negotiation. We will support any initiative which offers a chance of progress. We have warmly supported the persistent efforts of the Secretary-General and the plan he put forward last March. We are ready to meet with the Governments of the Soviet Union, India, Canada and Poland, as proposed by the President of the World Federation of United Nations Associations so very recently. In the same spirit we welcome the desire of the President-elect of South Viet-Nam to try once again to bridge the gap between Saigon and Hanoi.
109. Much has been said about the bombing of North Viet-Nam. I join with those who would dearly like it to stop. Therefore, I regret that the leaders of North Viet-Nam have never said what they will either do or refrain from doing to help the process of peace if the bombing is stopped. I am conscious, as we all must be, that there are millions of people in South Viet-Nam who crave for the shadow of killing and misery to be lifted from them.
110. Last year when I spoke here [1436th meeting], I outlined the basis on which I thought a solution to the conflict could be built. This year, Mr. Goldberg has set out [1562nd meeting] the elements of a settlement on a basis approaching my own, and I welcome, if I may say so, his clear exposition. In my view, the fundamental principles embodied in the plan I ventured to offer a year ago must still hold the field, and all the parties should be able to recognize and accept them.
111. There must be a cease-fire. There must be negotiations. The final solution must be political. And there must be international confirmation of the arrangements agreed upon by the combatants. I see no reason why a balanced settlement embracing those principles should not be achieved on the basis of the Geneva Agreements. Both the United States and the North Viet-Namese have said that this basis would be acceptable to them. I cannot see the reason why the power of world opinion represented by this Assembly should not be aligned behind those principles and behind a plan of the kind I outlined so that the combatants may be encouraged towards the conference table. And I see no reason why negotiations should not take place immediately, though, of course, we must all accept that their progress would be immeasurably eased if all hostilities had ceased beforehand.
112. I appeal to all the Governments represented here which agree with me to make that known, in whatever they think best, to those engaged in this conflict who have so far ignored both the need and the opportunities for negotiations. Taking the world picture as a whole, the key-problem is how we stop war and how we make peace. Success or failure will determine not how posterity Judges us, but whether there will be any posterity. And I do not say that lightly.
113. The project which has dominated disarmament negotiations in the past year has been the nonproliferation treaty. We have all been, I believe, heartened by the large measure of agreement which has been reached between the United States and the Soviet Union. The tabling by their representatives in Geneva of agreed texts is the most encouraging step in the field of international arms control since the test-ban Treaty of 1963. It is the fruit of much hard work, both here and in the Eighteen-Nation Committee on Disarmament. To a large extent, the draft treaty reflects the views of the other parties to those negotiations, as well as the views of the two sponsoring Powers. Discussion is proceeding now in Geneva, and I will not make any detailed comment here, except to say that it is the hope of my Government that that treaty will be concluded in the very near future.
114. A non-proliferation treaty is, of course, not an end in itself. Apart from its intrinsic value, it will open the way to negotiations on the central problem of controlling and stopping the nuclear arms race. Unless it is followed by progress in that direction, there is a risk that the treaty will not long endure. But equally this progress is dependent on the successful conclusion of the treaty.
115. I have tried to contribute to the discussion of some of the specific problems which are uppermost in all our minds. But it will be clear from what I have said that underlying all these thoughts is a grave preoccupation over the future of this Organization, It seems to me that the time has come for all of us to ask ourselves again what the United Nations can do, and how long a time we have in which to try to do it. If we work together and put first things first, we can change the face of the world. The trouble is, I believe, that we are behaving as if there were no hurry and as if we could safely take time to advance our particular national, regional or Ideological interests. I believe this is an illusion. We do not have time to spare. We must consider, with a very deep sense of responsibility, whether we are equipped to work for peace with the necessary urgency. Are our procedures the best we could have? Are we making the necessary financial sacrifices? Are we possessed of the consciousness of the dangers overhanging us, and the opportunity we have here to work for their avoidance? If we fail, there is nothing to look forward to but anarchy. If we do not look first to our common interests, we are not doing what we should to safeguard the particular interests of our separate nations. This Organization, as some have said, is what we make it. It can decline into impotence or, if we revitalize it, it can save humanity from disaster.