80. I am particularly happy to congratulate Mrs. Pandit on her election to her high office, and I want to take this opportunity to wish her every success in her great and difficult task.
81. Representatives may well wonder why my country wants to participate in this general debate. As with many of the discussions in the United Nations, the general debate, at the commencement of each session, is primarily and most conspicuously dominated by the big Powers. It has become a routine kind of first round in the regrettable battle of words which has characterized every session in the past seven years and which has led to no fruitful results for a world suffering from fear and the heavy burdens imposed by armaments and defensive measures.
82. This Organization, whose high-sounding name of United Nations has today become somewhat ironical, is, however, supposed to be based upon and built up by the participation of all nations, large and small. Although the principle of universality is far from being practised as long as at least nineteen nations — and among them such important countries, culturally and historically, as Italy — are kept out, nevertheless we still have sixty nations which are Members of the United Nations. Some of them are great and powerful and hold a dominating influence in the world in general and inside the United Nations. They also possess the enormous means of destroying mankind, through weapons which can extinguish life on this planet. Other nations, to a different extent, hold influence and authority inside the United Nations according to their strength in arms, or according to their alliances with blocs inside the United Nations, or merely because of their service to the big Powers or numerous blocs.
83. Despite all this, despite all these weaknesses inside the United Nations, despite all pressure and political wrangling, every nation represented here — even the smallest one — has its responsibility and its duty to endeavour to enhance and serve the ideals and aims of the Charter. Each Member State has the solemn obligation to weigh its words and its vote, and to employ both, according to its. best conscience, in the service of peace and progress, and in no other service or purpose.
84. There are inside the United Nations many disturbing elements, and it is at times difficult for a small nation like mine, unwilling to belong to any voting bloc and fully aware of its small influence and almost powerless position in a gravely split world, to mark and follow its own course. But naturally, being one of the Western democracies, our course most frequently runs parallel to that of other democratic countries by reason of common ideals, a common inheritance, similar ways of thought, the similar desires and aspirations of our peoples, a similar outlook on life, and the same love for freedom.
85. When I speak of my country as a small nation, I do so without any excuse. It requires much more individual and collective effort, much more sacrifice and much more work for a nation of few to build up and maintain a society of culture, progress, high education and a fair standard of living in the modern world, with all its demands, than for nations of many millions or tens or hundreds of millions. We in Iceland are building on a civilization more than a thousand years old, having been an independent republic at the dawn of our history and for three subsequent centuries, and having preserved our thousand-year-old Parliament, which was of decisive importance in our struggle to regain our full sovereignty and re-establish our old republic.
86. Through the dark days of our history, when we were under foreign domination, however friendly the rulers wanted to be, Iceland acquired its knowledge and experience of colonialism. It is therefore natural that my people should always have a feeling of sympathy and understanding both for the peoples of the world who still remain oppressed and are exploited in one way or another, and for those who in recent times have lost their freedom.
87. The Icelandic people always desire to stand on the side of humanity and justice. The last session of the United Nations General Assembly was the session on Korea. Let it be known and placed to the credit of the so-often discredited United Nations that, through the deliberations and decisions of the last session of the General Assembly, the- Korean Armistice was reached, and we still hope that that armistice may lead to peace, irrespective of threatening clouds.
88. When we now glance at the agenda of this session of the Assembly, we see before us such matters as the Tunisian question and the Moroccan question, which are among the spectacular subjects on the agenda of the First Committee.
89. We also had these questions last year, and, after a debate which the accused party, France, completely ignored by being absent from the meetings when it was discussed, the Committee, and subsequently the General Assembly, passed resolutions [General Assembly resolutions 611 (VII) and 619 (VII)] intended to facilitate peaceful solutions by negotiations between the parties concerned. But fruitful results have not been achieved, and, indeed, France had served notice that it would entirely disregard any resolutions adopted by the United Nations. Since then, relations seem to have deteriorated and grave incidents have taken place. The General Assembly can only pass resolutions and recommendations. What, then, can the United Nations' do in such cases? Do discussions here help in any way to alleviate such grave situations? Or why are they held?
90. We have other identical cases, where one of the parties concerned objects to a United Nations intervention and openly ignores any recommendation by the United Nations. Two of the items on the agenda of the Ad Hoc Political Committee for this session, which has just started — in fact half of the agenda of that important Committee — consists of questions relating to conditions in the Union of South Africa. The first one concerns the treatment of people of Indian origin there, and the second is the question of race conflict resulting from the policies of apartheid of the Government of the Union of South Africa.
91. The first question, concerning the Indians, has been discussed at six previous sessions, since 1946. Altogether, the United Nations has spent some two Months discussing this item alone, involving all the sixty delegations. Many eloquent speeches have been delivered on the subject indeed, many speeches from every corner of the world. Many resolutions have been passed and commissions have been set up. But, may I ask, of what avail?
92. The second item, concerning apartheid, only came up last year. It was then discussed during eight, days and a resolution [616 (VII)] was adopted. A commission was established to study the racial situation.
93. The reports of that commission and of the commission set up in connexion with the question of the treatment of people of Indian origin in the Union of South Africa [resolution 615 (VII)] can be expected to be negative. Many distinguished representatives have sat on these commissions, anxious to bring about satisfactory solutions. The representative of the Union of South Africa has always warned the Assembly that its intervention is unconstitutional and its resolutions, therefore, null and void. That has been a clear attitude, and a frank warning has been given. Article 2, paragraph 7, of the Charter has been invoked, and we all know that it debars the United Nations from intervening in matters which are essentially within the domestic jurisdiction of any State.
94. It has been useless to remind the parties of Article 56, which, as you know, reads: “All Members pledge themselves to take joint and separate action in co-operation with the Organization for the achievements of the purposes set forth in Article 55.” And, as we know, Article 55, in the interest of stability and well-being, stresses the necessity of “peaceful and friendly relations among nations, based on respect for the principle of equal rights and self-determination of peoples,” and therefore obliges the United Nations to promote, inter alia, higher standards of living and “universal respect for, and observance of, human rights and fundamental freedoms for all, without distinction as to race, sex, language or religion”. These are solemn obligations undertaken by all the members of the United Nations everywhere. It seems that the General Assembly is at least entitled to remind Member States of these serious undertakings.
95. But experience shows that there is nothing more it can do. It takes two to make an agreement. Discussions year after year have proved of little or no avail, and the time has come when the United Nations should make it clear that repeated discussions and the passing of resolutions are useless in cases where one or both of the parties are unwilling to co-operate and negotiate for the solution among themselves.
96. This has also proved to be the case about some aspects of the Palestine question, which, this year again, is the third item before the Ad Hoc Political Committee. There again, there has been no response from the parties to some of the resolutions adopted in previous years.
97. Thus, alt these cases have proved more or less hopeless. It is, indeed, doubtful whether repeated demonstrations of hopelessness and utter inability to settle questions enhances the prestige of the United Nations or increases respect for it or trust in it among the peoples of the world, most of whom would like to see the Organization strong and capable of helping suffering people in their pursuit, of justice and equality.
98. The power of the United Nations to settle disputes is supposed to be vested primarily in the Security Council, but we all know that, due to the present world situation, the Security Council possesses no real power and offers no effective help. The veto disposes of that. This is no bright picture of the United Nations as it approaches its eighth anniversary.
99. I have mentioned three items on the agenda of the Ad Hoc Political Committee. Let us look at the fourth and last question, the admission of new Members.
100. As I mentioned before, there are now at least nineteen countries outside the United Nations that have applied for admission. As we know, the Security Council must recommend the membership of each applicant. Ever since the lowering of the temperature in the cold war, or since 1947, the number of nations kept outside the United Nations has been increasing. The rule, however, according to Article 4 of the Charter, is supposed to be that membership in the United Nations is open to all peace-loving nations which are able and willing to carry out the obligations set out in the Charter. In spite of this declaration of universality, at least nineteen, countries are again and again barred from admission. They are even referred to with the derogatory phrase of “package”, and we are told to take it or leave it. There are, however, as I stated, certain minimum requirements and qualifications stipulated. To be peace-loving is one of them. This stipulation explains why it has not been possible yet to admit the Central People’s Government of the People’s Republic of China, which has been engaged in aggression in Korea, as resolved by the General Assembly in 1950 [resolution 498 (V)].
101. That a government in control of some 500 million people and such vast territory should be kept outside the United Nations indefinitely seems, however, unthinkable and ill-advised. It is to be hoped that the Government of the People’s Republic of China will prove itself able and free to demostrate its willingness to co-operate with the United Nations in achieving peaceful and friendly relations among nations, the removal of threats to the peace and the adjustment and settlement of international disputes. The Peking Government will have an excellent opportunity to prove its willingness and qualifications in that, respect at the political conference which, we still hope, will convene late next month. So much about China.
102. But what sensible reason is there to prevent all the other nineteen countries from entering through the unfortunately gloomy gates of the United Nations when they so desire? Why are countries like Italy, Finland, Ireland, Portugal — to mention only a few — kept out? No sensible reasons exist. Yet we all know the veto bars them all. And the matter still seems hopeless. If anyone doubts that assertion, let him look at the report [A/2400] of the Special Committee on admission of new Members. That committee, composed of representatives of nineteen Member States, came to the wise conclusion that it could reach no conclusion. This question therefore comes before this session as hopelessly as ever before — or even more hopelessly.
103. In my previous remarks, I have often referred to controversial articles of our Charter, which have rendered difficult or hindered fruitful or desirable work and results by our Organization. The Charter is now eight years old. It was created under the bright and romantic moon of the San Francisco approach. Those were happy days. But, alas, times have changed. It seems that many representatives were realistic enough to predict such changes of atmosphere. Therefore Article 109 of the Charter contemplates a conference for reviewing the Charter in 1955, when ten years of experience have been acquired. All man’s endeavours are fallible — errare humanum est. And experience also tells us that new times demand new measures.
104. A revision of the Charter in 1955 is indeed timely and warranted. But no one should expect any great changes. No revolution is being planned. The wise and far-seeing authors of the Charter created a safeguard against any irresponsible future action. According to Articles 108 and 109, any amendment to the Charter needs two-thirds of the votes in the General Assembly in order to come into force. Moreover, it must be ratified, in accordance with their respective constitutional processes, by two-thirds of the Members of the United Nations, including all the permanent members of the Security Council. Thus there can be no change in the Charter except through unanimity among the big Powers.
105. It is not unlikely that we shall be faced in 1955, as we are today, with two alternatives: either a United Nations principally and practically the same as our present one, or no such organization at all.
106. It is useless and deceiving to talk about any world organization without the membership of all the big Powers on both sides of the Iron Curtain, which barrage, let us hope and pray, will soon melt away in the warm rays of international understanding and the friendly coexistence of various economic systems, or if that does not come true, will have rusted to pieces from age and wear and an unsuitable climate.
107. Furthermore, if the United Nations is to achieve its lofty goal, if the great dreams of San Francisco are ever to become a reality, and if the ideals of the Charter are ever to serve and bless mankind, then the principle of universality must prevail. Let each country decide its own form of government; there must be room for them all under the great dome of the United Nations. The United Nations must never become a mere gathering of hostile voting blocs, where the gates are closed to others and minds are closed. The United Nations must never become a Russian halleluja propaganda society or an exclusive American club.
108. It can be justified, and it is natural, that the big Powers should maintain their veto when military action is contemplated. The burden and sacrifice of fighting would always be theirs to the greatest extent. But the veto is dangerous, unreasonable and frustrating in such questions as the admission of new Members.
109. One of the most important items before us, or, more correctly, the most important question, is disarmament. Again, we must admit that this has been treated in all previous sessions. Or, rather, no treatment has been found possible since 1946, when the ice-cold winds of the cold war began blowing. No result has been reached. Resolutions have, however, been passed — a whole bunch of often high-sounding resolutions. Some of them — those which were naive enough — -have even gained unanimity: 60 votes in favor, none against. And speeches and words have flowed year after year. All kinds of words — friendly words, warning words, angry words — have flowed. To no avail. The production of armaments has flowed, too, incessantly and ever increasingly; all kinds of armaments, from small ammunition to the most destructive weapons — those intended for individual killing, for mass murder, for wholesale slaughter, to the point of the complete destruction and extinction of huge areas of land and human life. All kinds and all sizes of ammunition are available, to suit any place and any congregation of human beings.
110. And who wants this? The United Nations was founded “to save succeeding generations from the scourge of war”. What has it done to slow or call off the armaments race? Nothing. It has proved to be entirely unable and impotent to do anything in this vital matter. No wonder some people talk about the United Nations as merely a debating club. Why is United Nations unable to do anything to alleviate the tension? And what will happen if armaments production should reach what the distinguished Foreign Minister of Australia called [436th meeting] the saturation point? When the toys pile up, does not the child want to play with them?
111. Yet so many talk about peace, and the people everywhere pray for peace. And the great leaders of the world have spoken. Let me remind you all of the three great speeches of the three most powerful leaders of today, whose decisions and actions will influence our fate and future more than any other human activities.
112. Mr. Eisenhower said in Washington on 16 April 1953: “First, no people on earth can be held — as a people — to be an enemy, for all humanity shares the common hunger for peace and fellowship and justice. Second, no nation’s security and well-being can be lastingly achieved in isolation, but only in effective co-operation with fellow-nations. Third, every nation’s right to a form of government and an economic system of its own choosing is inalienable. Fourth, any nation’s attempt to dictate to other nations their form of government is indefensible. And fifth, a nation’s hope of lasting peace cannot be firmly based upon any race in armaments, but rather upon just relations and honest understanding with all other nations. . . . Every gun that is made, every warship launched, every rocket fired signifies — in the final sense — a theft from those who hunger and are not fed, those who are cold and are not clothed . . .” These words are eloquent, noble and clear.
113. Sir Winston Churchill said in the House of Commons on 11 May 1953: “I must make it plain that, in spite of all the uncertainties and confusion in which world affairs are plunged, I believe that a conference on the highest level should take place between the leading Powers without long delay ... It certainly would do no harm if, for a while, each side looked about for things to do which would be agreeable instead of being disagreeable to each other ... It would, I think, be a mistake to assume that nothing can be settled with Soviet Russia unless or until everything is settled.” The last few words were quoted here this morning [443rd meeting] by the representative of the United Kingdom. I continue the quotation from the speech of Sir Winston Churchill: “A settlement of two or three of our difficulties would be an important gain to every peace-loving country . . . We all desire that the Russian people should take the high place in world affairs which is their due without feeling anxiety about their own security. I do not believe that the immense problem of reconciling the security of Russia with the freedom and safety of Western Europe is insoluble . . .” Those are magnanimous words of great vision by Britain’s “grand old man”.
114. Mr. Malenkov said on 8 August 1953: “The President of the United States stated on 16 April, in his speech to the American Society of Editors, that there was no controversial problem, big or small, that could not be solved if there was a wish to respect the rights of other countries. This was an important statement. It could only be welcomed . . . The basic interests of strengthening peace and international security demand that the great Powers make every effort to ensure real progress in reducing armaments, the banning of atomic and other arms of mass destruction . . . We firmly maintain that at the present moment there is no disputable or outstanding issue that could not be settled in a peaceful way on the basis of mutual agreement between the countries concerned. This refers also to those issues under dispute that exist between the United States of America and the USSR. We stood and stand for a peaceful coexistence of two systems. We consider that there is no objective ground for a collision between the United States of America and the USSR. The interests of the security of both countries, as well as international security, the interests of the development of trade between the United States of America and the USSR can be safeguarded on the basis of normal relations between both countries . . .” These words of the leader of the great Soviet people are clear and outstanding.
115. So when these three leaders give the world such parallel encouraging statements, when they all seem to be seeking to get together, why do they not do so? That the world must know, it demands to know. The time has come to face facts. When we hear, day after day, over the radio and read in newspapers that over eighty leading cities and centres of population here in America are being singled out as targets for atomic attacks, and as we can imagine that such visits would be returned in the visitor’s own territory, has not the time arrived for facing facts and for awakening to this deadly outlook? We cannot continue to live in a fool’s paradise. But it seems clear that the decision lies with the big leaders, and so does the responsibility.
116. The speeches we have already heard in this general debate by the distinguished and influential leaders of the United States delegation and the Soviet Union delegation have also been in a rather conciliatory vein. And such was the tone of the speech delivered a few hours ago by the distinguished representative of the United Kingdom. So the doors seem to be open. At least they are not closed. We are most anxious to see that the doors are approached and that the negotiation chamber be entered. Is it to be the single door for the great leaders, or one of the many doors of our great mansion here, or is it to be the door of the conference room of the political conference on Korea? Any entrance will do, if the negotiators enter in the right mood and in good faith.
117. I have spoken at some unusual length and I regret that I have, in some respects, presented an unpleasant picture, darkened by deep shadows and grave clouds.
118. There are, however, some brighter and more encouraging views that should not be forgotten — some more positive factors about the United Nations.
119. In the political field, while we may not have achieved great affirmative successes, I firmly believe that the United Nations has succeeded in averting great disasters. The first major effort in history at promoting collective security by common action through an international organization has been tried, and has succeeded. In Korea the United Nations fought, not for a military victory, but for the victory of an idea — the idea of collective resistance to prove that aggression does not pay. The aggression has been repelled. We now have an armistice, which we hope will lead to permanent peace. The United Nations action in Korea alone has justified the existence and proved the worth of the United Nations.
120. In the economic and social fields, the United Nations has moreover had great success in many specified fields. I refer to the long-range programmes for mutual help and international co-operation for prosperity and progress.
121. It is gratifying to note that many Member States show interest in the observance and promotion of human rights and have been active in implementing and enhancing some of the principles of our great Universal Declaration of Human Rights, which we adopted in Paris in 1948 [resolution 217 (III)]. In many countries, the ideals of this encouraging great declaration still remain remote from practice. However, the trend is progressive.
122. We are hopeful that the United Nations International Children’s Emergency Fund will be able to continue its noble work to bring relief to hungry, poor and orphaned children in war-tom and impoverished countries. My people have been happy to contribute from the beginning to this worthy cause. We have done so on a comparatively big scale, both officially and by individual collections. We are doing so this year and we hope to be able to continue our contribution.
123. It is also to be hoped that the programme of technical assistance, which has proved of such great value and benefit in all corners of the world, can be continued and increased.
124. Just imagine how much technical assistance the United Nations could have given, how much material progress it could have brought about everywhere, if it had had at its disposal only a little part of the $80 billion spent on armaments during the last few years. Think of all the social, welfare it could have spread. Think of all the needy, ill-clad and ignorant little children it could have provided with the prospect of a brighter and more worthy future. And such saving from armaments would indeed have relieved the adults of the burden of. fear and given mankind the light of a life worth living.
125. Just think of this: the total annual expenditure of the United Nations amounts to only approximately what a world war would cost in money for half a day. Certainly, it is a fact that the United Nations is the least expensive effort ever made to save the greatest number of people from the greatest disaster ever imagined.
126. But a much larger share of the funds now being earmarked for armaments is required for economic development all over the world to expand production and trade and increase the standard of living where such improvements are most needed. The increased consumption of the needy means increased trade for the countries with surpluses, and trade is mutual aid. United and working together, we have the resources to remedy most of the ills of men.
127. Some of my remarks may sound too pessimistic. I can only hope and wish that they will be proved to be so. Much of the criticism of the United Nations in every country is based, on the unfortunate fact that people do not generally know that the United Nations was founded to maintain the peace, not to create it. The big Powers were supposed, at the conclusion of the Second World War, to present the United Nations with peace at the commencement of its existence. They failed to do so. Therefore the United Nations has become what I might describe as an ambitious young man, from whom too much is expected, but for whom too little is done. But we must have patience and allow the young man to grow in strength, experience and wisdom.
128. One of the tasks of the United Nations is said to be the building up of sound world opinion. But we must realize that it is practically impossible to build up any world opinion in a tragically split world, where half the peoples are free to learn and listen and form their own opinion, whereas the other half is dominated and controlled.
129. In conclusion, let me state that responsible people, in every country and every community, desire and are decided to march onward to peace and progress, happiness and a better life. They demand to know whether they are being led towards this desired goal by the powerful leaders of the world, or whether they are being misled. Are they being led towards a better world, or are we all being driven like a flock of sheep to the slaughterhouse? The answer to this question we must find out for ourselves and act accordingly, boldly and without hesitation. It would be the gravest error and most dangerous irresponsibility merely to acquiesce and deceive ourselves by saying “time alone can tell”. We must ourselves, to the extent humanly possible, be masters of our own destiny.