24. As is customary and as is proper in the general debate, the many important statements made during the last few days from this rostrum have covered a wide range of subjects. This, as I say, is both customary and proper, for it is on this occasion every year that the more general aspects of world affairs, as well as this Organization’s activities with regard to those affairs, can correctly and effectively be reviewed. The statements which we have heard have therefore, in the main, been in character with statements made in previous general debates, not in content but in the general scope of the ground covered. This does not, of course, detract from their importance, for these matters continue to be a. source of great concern throughout the world.
25. The matters — the very important matters — dealt with by the different speakers may, I believe, all be related to our one major problem, namely, the achievement of peace and the establishment of security: a peace which will be real, and a security which will enable all mankind to live without the ever-present threat of war and the suffering which is attendant on modern armed conflict. This, indeed, has increasingly become the keynote of general debates, and is no less the keynote of the present debate.
26. The first speaker in the debate, the distinguished Secretary of State of the United States, dealt cogently with these matters, when he reminded this Assembly [434th meeting] of the many complex and dangerous problems which threaten peace and which continue to render security impossible of achievement. His was a solemn appeal — an appeal which was also taken up by a number of subsequent speakers — and it is the nope of my delegation that that appeal will be heeded, above all by those who, by their words and especially by their deeds, are responsible for the sorry state in which the world finds itself today.
27. We realize that the problems which exist, and which stand in the way of peace and security, are problems of the greatest magnitude, as well as of the greatest complexity. Yet it is our sincere belief that, with sincerity of purpose and a strong enough desire to achieve world peace, these problems can be resolved. The desire to achieve peace, we are told, is shared universally. But if peace is to be achieved, that desire must be reflected not only in the words but also in the deeds of all governments, more especially of all those governments which bear the primary responsibility for the achievement of this all-important objective of international endeavour.
28. I repeat, therefore, that it is the fervent hope also of my country that the words which we have heard from this rostrum will be heeded and that no country, no government, will, for whatever reason, persist in activities which continue to militate against the achievement of this goal.
29. I have said that, while differing in content, the general scope of the important statements we have heard are in character with similar statements in past years. This year, however, there has been a relatively new note discernible in the debate, a note which, in fact, is reflected also in our agenda. I refer to the many references made to, and the arguments for, a revision of the Charter of the United Nations. This note, it is true, is not entirely new. It has been sounded in previous years. It is nevertheless one which has never before emerged so distinctly from our general debates.
30. There are good reasons for the statements which we have heard on this point. As has been pointed out, the date set in the Charter for consideration of its revision is drawing close. In 1955, this Organization will be called upon to consider whether or not, in the light of our experience since San Francisco, the Charter in its present form is adequate and, if not, in what way it must be revised or amended in order to render it adequate for the purposes for which the Organization was created.
31. This, however, is not the only reason why speakers have referred to the question of the revision of the Charter. There is, I would submit, abundant proof of a growing consciousness that the United Nations has not succeeded in bringing about those relations between nations which are essential if the high hopes of its founders are to be fully realized. Indeed, it is clear that there are many who fear that, unless the Charter is revised, this Organization may not survive.
32. Here it should be borne in mind that it is not only from speakers in this debate, and from what appears on our agenda, that we learn of a growing conviction that, if the United Nations is to function effectively, its Charter will have to be revised and its defects will have to be repaired. We need but read the Press and scrutinize reports of statements throughout the free world by statesmen and leaders in practically every walk of life to realize how generally this view is held, and how strongly it is supported. For never since San Francisco has the United Nations, or, more correctly, its capacity in world affairs, compelled wider and closer scrutiny than at the present moment. Much of what we hear and much of what we read is criticism, though not always criticism which is designed merely to condemn or to destroy. It is often constructive criticism, born of experience and inspired by loyalty to the cause of peace and a sincere belief that this Organization can be made to work efficiently.
33. It is true, as so many tell us, that there are defects in oar Charter. For, while our founders built well at San Francisco, it is experience — and only experience — which could prove the adequacy or inadequacy of their work, and that this was appreciated at San Francisco is clear from the insertion in our Charter of Article 109.
34. Those responsible for the United Nations Charter were united in a common task to bring about a form of international collaboration and co-operation, through common membership of the United Nations, which would outlaw war as a means of settling international disputes and which would be conducive to an international climate in which mankind would be secure from armed attack. This has been, as history proves, the constant purpose of civilized man, given a new urgency by the horrors of the last world war, and thus, as we know, it became the main preoccupation of those assembled at San Francisco and, in consequence of their labours, the cornerstone of our Charter. Today it avowedly remains our primary objective — one which, we all admit, must be achieved if, as was indicated by Mr. Dulles, mankind itself is to survive. It was therefore for the preservation of peace and the establishment of security that the United Nations was primarily created, and it is essentially for these purposes that the Organization continues to exist.
35. When, therefore, we reflect on the events since San Francisco and on the dangerous differences and tensions which continue to plague the world, it is no more than natural that the United Nations, as it now works, should be generally viewed with a growing sense of comprehension, also in the most responsible quarters.
36. It is true — and this cannot be over-emphasized — that the Organization has much to its credit: that in Palestine and in the Balkans its record has been reassuring, that in Korea its momentous achievement in crushing armed aggression is impressive. But all this cannot satisfy us or satisfy our critics when, in fact, experience tends to show that we are inadequately equipped to achieve, to at least a great degree, our primary purpose of ensuring a lasting peace and effective security, or when such success as we have achieved, and do achieve, cannot in all respects be ascribed to the efficient working of our Organization.
37. In Korea, for instance, the United Nations was enabled to resist aggression only because of a fortuitous circumstance, a fortuitous circumstance which enabled the Security Council to function constitutionally and therefore to function at all. For, as ha.' so often been pointed out, had it not been for the deliberate absence of the Soviet Union representative, the veto would surely have been applied and the United Nations would once again have been prevented from acting in accordance with the dictates of the Charter — and this because of the will of only one of its Members.
38. Moreover, it cannot be denied that the debates in the United Nations have not always been a source of encouragement to those who undertook to expel the aggressor from South Korean soil. Nor can it be denied that the attitude adopted by some in these debates has often served to render the aggressor nations excessively intransigent in our protracted negotiations to bring an end to bloodshed and to bring peace to Korea. These negotiations are still proceeding, and this Organization’s attitude and actions with regard thereto continue to be widely and closely scrutinized by all who sincerely look to the United Nations to play the part for which it was designed.
39 Defects in our Charter must therefore be repaired when the proper time for revision comes, in 1955, Among these defects we have, of course, the veto. Mr. Dulles referred to it specifically, to what he termed the dissatisfaction felt especially by the smaller nations at San Francisco with what they regarded as an excessive award of power to the permanent members of the Security Council. In my own country there was strong criticism at the time of this compromise, which, it was felt, would incapacitate the Security Council in the event of great-Power disagreement. There are no doubt other defects which will require reparation — when the time comes. My Government is therefore glad to see that steps are already being envisaged for looking searchingly into these matters and that early attention will therefore be given to this very important matter.
40. It is the view of my Government, however, that this task should be approached with the greatest circumspection and that, in attempting to assess the adequacy or inadequacy of existing Charter provisions, the greatest care should be exercised not to be led astray by failures in the Organization which may not be due to Charter deficiencies but to what I might term functional mistakes. My Government believes that the present position is due not so much to defects in the Chapter as to unhealthy practices which have developed in the Organization despite the provisions of the Charter in its present form. In other words, it believes that the position with which we have to contend today may well be the consequence not so much of defective Charter provisions as of the abuse of those provisions. Therefore those who would seek to evaluate the adequacy of existing Charter provisions in the light of practical results must be careful to determine, first of all, whether those provisions have ever been properly applied.
41. Take, for instance, the veto — a device which, few can deny, has proved to be inherently unsound and which should therefore be removed from the Charter. Yet even here, we must admit, it is the reckless abuse of this provision that has brought it into such serious disrepute. I believe that few, if arty, of those present at San Francisco ever dreamt that the veto would be invoked in order to stultify the operations of the United Nations whenever a proposed action was displeasing to one of its great Members. Who could have foreseen, for instance, that the veto would be invoked to keep out of this Organization so many of the older and more experienced nations of the world which qualify for membership in every single respect, and without whose presence here this Organization cannot be expected to function as originally intended? It is therefore not only the inherent failings of the veto provision which have made it so objectionable, but also its improper use, its abuse.
42. There are other, perhaps better, examples of abuse. As the representative of the Union of South Africa, I automatically turn to Article 2, paragraph 7, of the Charter, which, I submit, has been violated more consistently than any other provision.
43. There are, of course, many who regard this provision with distaste, as an unnecessary limitation on the authority of the Organization; who, because they seek to convert the Organization into a sovereign world parliament, would welcome the disappearance or removal from the Charter of this restrictive provision. Those who are thus inclined are of course entitled to their views and their aspirations, and can at the proper time endeavour to persuade their fellow members as to the wisdom of their aims.
44. As things stand today, however, there are spheres of national activity into which this Organization cannot legally intrude, where it is without competence. This was the clear injunction inscribed in Article 2, paragraph 7, and it was because of this injunction that the smaller countries found it possible to accept the Charter in its present form. This, despite repeated statements to the contrary, is clearly borne out not only by the explicit terms of Article 2, paragraph 7, but also by the documents of the San Francisco Conference.
45. Yet the United Nations has, at the instance of a voting majority, consistently intervened in matters in which it is enjoined by the Charter not to intrude. This, surely, is improper action which is not due to defective Charter provisions but to the abuse of the Charter. The views of my Government on the subject have been stated often enough in the past. I may be called upon to state them again on a more appropriate occasion. I shall therefore not pursue this point in my present statement. I must add, however, that my Government welcomes the growing evidence that this urge to intervene in the domestic affairs of Member States is causing widespread concern. This evidence comes from the most responsible sources, both inside and outside the Organization, and it would be well to heed the warnings of those who realize that, if the United Nations is to survive as an instrument of peace, this dangerous course of intervention in the domestic affairs of States will have to cease. Here I need but refer the Assembly to what was said recently by the United States representative, Mr. Lodge, in the General Committee [87th meeting], and since then, in the General Assembly [436th meeting], by the Minister for External Affairs of New Zealand, Mr. Webb.
46. The United Nations has been called a "town meeting of the world”, where all those present seek to promote peace, international goodwill and co-operation. How often do those who attack the internal affairs of Member States seek to achieve these purposes? How often do they not seek to hurt and engender suspicion and hostility? How often do they not, despite the call for tolerance, seek to exploit the United Nations by exacerbating feelings instead of harmonizing differences? We need but read the records of the past few years to find abundant evidence of this, of how the affairs of Member States are misrepresented, sometimes deliberately, in order to justify these unwarranted attacks. In this connexion, may I add that I was impressed this morning [441st meeting] by the remarks which were made by Mr. Pearson, our former President, on this specific point.
47. There are other matters which require our urgent attention. Among these the most prominent is perhaps the need for economy, the need for restricting our operations in a manner which will not place membership of the United Nations and its specialized agencies beyond the financial capacity of Member States. The representative of Cuba spoke very eloquently on this point this morning. It should be recognized that the multiplicity of agencies, commissions, committees and other bodies is placing a burden on Members which they — or at least some of them — just cannot afford. Material costs are involved which countries like my own could often devote more justifiably to the immediate and essential welfare of their citizens. The large sums which we are called upon to contribute to maintain international organizations, very important as they are, often compel us to suspend progressive developments which the interests of our people need and demand. The appeal to place a limit on these costs is therefore urgent. I have in mind not only material costs. My country, as no doubt others, often finds it difficult to participate effectively in all the diversified international activities. Our qualified manpower is not as abundant as in the larger and more affluent countries.
48. Equally important is the difficulty of statesmen absenting themselves for long periods from their capitals where their attention may be more pressingly required. Here I have in mind, especially, the protracted nature of our Assembly sessions. I believe it is generally recognized that, for this Organization to operate as originally envisaged, it should also afford an opportunity for those who in their respective countries are responsible for policy to consult with each other on matters of common concern. And what has been our experience? Has it been possible for foreign ministers and other cabinet members always to attend our sessions? This, I submit, is a matter which deserves close attention.
49. It is not, of course, the intention of my delegation to suggest that the United Nations and its agencies should be denied the opportunity of serving the more pressing needs of humanity. It is essential, if we are to live together in good neighbourliness, that we should help each other wherever we can. This precept is enshrined in our Charter and has inspired the actions of so many of our friends. My own country, I may say, is also endeavouring to do what it can. We are committed to co-operation aimed at the co-ordinated development of that region of the world of which it is a part.
50. The views which I have placed before the Assembly today are offered in a constructive spirit, and not in one of faultfinding or condemnation, The South African delegation subscribes to the view that the United Nations is capable of becoming our greatest and surest instrument of peace and security. It is our view, however, that this is only possible if the Organization is made to work — -if it is rendered more efficient and effective than, in fact, it is today. And we maintain that this can be done.
51. I have drawn attention to certain difficulties which, as far as my Government is concerned, make it difficult always to participate fully in the work of the Organization. I have endeavoured to show that, however impatient we may be to press forward with the many tasks entrusted to the Organization, we should not undertake too much, for by doing so we may well be dissipating our energies and our resources. I have also tried to sound a note of warning, a warning that, in approaching the question of revising the Charter, we should not act precipitately, for it is our firm conviction that our failures are not always due to imperfections in the existing Charter; they are due also to unwise, and often unconstitutional, action. No matter how perfect the Charter, the United Nations will never function effectively unless our procedures also are healthy and unless we adhere scrupulously to the provisions of the Charter which was drawn up by our founders in San Francisco.