Mr. THORN expressed his pleasure that the General Assembly should be held in Paris and thanked the French people for their generous hospitality. The sole aim of his delegation was to help the United Nations to achieve the aims it had set itself, which were to maintain international peace and security; to develop friendly relations among nations; to achieve international co-operation in solving problems of an economic, social and humanitarian character, and to be a centre for harmonizing the efforts made by nations towards those common ends.
Nothing was easier or more sterile than to criticize international institutions but it must be realized that, whatever its defects, the United Nations was a vital organization whose action was felt in almost every part of the world. In that respect the Secretary-General’s annual report had made a great impression on his delegation.
The work of the United Nations could not be judged from day to day or even from session to session. Longer perspectives were needed to ascertain whether the United Nations had contributed to the alleviation of tension, to the promotion of respect for human rights or to the establishment of harmony in the conduct of nations.
Nevertheless, it could be said now that in some areas, such as Greece, the action of the United Nations had resulted in a diminution of international tension. In other areas, such as Indonesia and Kashmir, the Organization had attempted to play its pacific role with some success and some co-operation from the interested parties.
The tragic death of Count Bernadotte and of officials of the United Nations, which the New Zealand delegation deplored, had given evidence of the spirit of violence which was disturbing international relations. The United Nations had been created to conquer that spirit of violence, each instance of which was a challenge to the Members and could only inspire them to continue their efforts along the lines laid down in the Charter and especially in the Preamble.
The task of an international organization was not to promote the advantage of any one country, group, interest or doctrine but to affirm principles of international conduct which would enable human society to hold together. The world was deeply divided but the principles of the Charter made it possible to rise above that division. In spite of its structural defects, notably the veto provisions of Article 27, which were an obstacle to the fulfilment of the purposes of the Organization, it was essential that the Charter should be maintained and strengthened by every means short of departure from its principles. The representative of New Zealand therefore endorsed wholeheartedly the Secretary-General’s words that “... the United Nations has become the chief force that holds the world together against all the conflicting strains and stresses that are pulling it apart ”.
All the nations represented in the Assembly should seek to strengthen and preserve the Organization, in the knowledge and belief that they could, if they so desired, make it a truly effective instrument for harmony, and for serving the welfare of the world.
The essential principle of the Charter was that all Members of the United Nations should refrain in their international relations from threats or recourse to force, in any manner inconsistent with the purposes of the Organization. The present situation could not be regarded as satisfactory in that respect. During the past year there had been many instances in which such threats, more or less active and immediate, had weighed heavily on international relations and negotiations. Moreover, there was a provision in the Charter that all Members should give every assistance to the United Nations in any action which it might take, in accordance with the Charter. Could it be said that that obligation had been fulfilled by those who had withheld their co-operation from organs appointed by the Assembly to attempt the peaceful adjustment of situations likely to impair the general welfare or friendly relations between nations?
Nevertheless, while there might be ground for apprehension, the record was not one of unrelieved failure. Substantial achievements stood to the credit of the United Nations. Unfortunately, it was not the patient constructive work, nor the success achieved in spite of many difficulties, which were emphasized in the Press. Newspaper headlines frequently distorted the true picture, played into the hands of cynics and caused people to doubt whether the Organization could really play an effective part in solving problems and in inducing the nations to act in friendly co-operation. Nevertheless, much progress had been made, especially in bringing material advantage to millions of human beings.
Thus the Economic and Social Council had done much to offset the disappointments encountered elsewhere. It was directing and co-ordinating work in many fields. It was receiving and dealing with reports from the specialized agencies, thus carrying out work of which the following were examples.
The Food and Agriculture Organization was proving not only that international bodies could collaborate with one another, but also that advances were being made in co-operation among Member States. The FAO was studying the continuing food crisis in close collaboration with the World Health Organization and, in its attempts to relieve that crisis, it was also collaborating with the regional economic commissions, with the Economic and Social Council and with the interested Governments. It was giving technical advice on agricultural methods, the distribution of food-stuffs and the promotion of activities for increasing the world’s food supply. The FAO was doing very useful work and proving that international action was a reality.
Other organizations in existence before the United Nations, such as the International Labour Organization, the Universal Postal Union and the International Telecommunications Union, were carrying out international action in their respective fields which would have seemed impossible a few decades earlier.
The International Labour Organization, which had proved itself long before, was taking active steps to raise the living standard of workers and had given humane and enlightened leadership to governments throughout the world. For example, at its recent conference in San Francisco, the International Labour Organization had agreed on a convention on freedom of association, a convention which had been generally acceptable to the trade unions represented and which, it was to be hoped, the Member States would ratify.
Recently in Geneva, the first assembly of the World Health Organization had taken place, a great moment in international collaboration. WHO was training people for public-health administration, and it was working for the suppression of malaria, venereal disease and tuberculosis. It aimed at developing maternal and child welfare, the distribution of sanitary equipment and measures in connexion with hygiene. That work commanded attention and respect.
The United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization had also made a positive contribution to work on the international level. In war-devastated countries it was aiding reconstruction by the distribution of books and other educational materials and by attempting to solve the problems affecting children who were victims of the war. As an organization UNESCO was young, but it had already proved that international action could be successful in several educational fields.
Mr. Thorn also mentioned a technical organization - the International Civil Aviation Organization. Members of the United Nations could not fail to be impressed if they examined the great progress in international co-operation in civil aviation. It was a record of success, for ICAO had contributed in bringing safety and convenience to the many persons who now travelled by air.
The International Refugee Organization, of which New Zealand was a member, was carrying out the tasks assigned to it despite the failure to give it the full measure of support to which it was entitled. Displaced persons had been led and looked after and arrangements were being made for their repatriation to their own countries or their settlement in other countries. Was not that yet another example of how nations could work together to solve a serious world problem?
Mr. Thorn next spoke of the International Children’s Emergency Fund, set up by the United Nations, to which New Zealand had given its full support. It had been financed from the remainder of UNRAA’s funds, from contributions from governments, and from moneys contributed privately as the result of the United Nations appeals. Those funds had made it possible to feed under-nourished children in a dozen or more countries. Who would not say therefore that very great progress in human solidarity had been achieved? That form of international action was the more commendable because the Fund, in conjunction with the World Health Organization, was helping to fight tuberculosis in war-devastated areas.
Besides the specialized agencies in association with the Economic and Social Council, there were commissions of the United Nations quietly working in several special fields. The Social Commission, for example, was dealing on an international level with such problems as penal reform, housing and social welfare, particularly of women and children. It was giving fellowships and conducting seminars that would disseminate information and raise the standards of social welfare and security administrations.
The representative of New Zealand also paid tribute to the work of the Narcotics Commission, whose efforts were well known because it had been part of the League of Nations. But the problem of traffic in narcotic drugs was always present and its control was complicated at the present time by the manufacture of synthetic drugs. The Narcotics Commission had a delicate task which it was performing with success, and its methods of work provided a model of international co-operation.
There was also the important question of human rights. The Commission on Human Rights had been sketching out a convention and drafting a bill of human rights, and the work already done was bearing fruit throughout the world.
It was possible to cite further concrete examples of successful United Nations work. For example, there was the Economic Commission for Europe, which consisted of representatives of eastern and western European countries, working together on Europe’s economic reconstruction. That Commission’s work should lead to an increase of industrial and agricultural production, to the better use of raw materials and man-power, and to an expansion of better-balanced trade within Europe itself and with other countries. The Commission was working in an area which bristled with difficulties and provided yet another example of successful international co-operation. The Economic Commission for Asia and the Far East was only beginning its work, but it had already focused attention on the great problems in the areas with which it was concerned. The same could be said for the Economic Commission for Latin- America, the first session of which had been held recently in Santiago in Chile, and at which there had been a definition of that continent’s problems which would provide a guide for fruitful policy in the future.
The representative of New Zealand submitted that his by no means complete enumeration of constructive international endeavours should encourage those who had placed their hopes in the United Nations. Progress did not necessarily need to be dramatic. If it was as yet hardly perceptible, it was none the less real, for it was bringing tangible benefits to peoples. It would give the United Nations prestige in the eyes of the world and provide the support on which the better world they all desired could be built.