Union of South Africa

Mr. Louw expressed his thanks to France on behalf of his Government for the hospitality extended to the delegation of the Union of South Africa. He recalled that the Huguenots of his country were linked by racial ties with France and wished to take the opportunity to express his Government’s good wishes to the French Government and people. The third session of the General Assembly of the United Nations was being held in an atmosphere of international uncertainty and tension, which was bound to affect its work. The present session might show how effective the United Nations could be as an instrument for the safeguarding of peace among the nations. It was also possible that its future might be decided by the spirit which animated its deliberations and by the decisions which it might or might not take. In these circumstances he considered it was in the United Nations’ interests that in the general debate problems should be faced squarely and opinions freely expressed. The gravity of international disputes or the importance of the problems to which such disputes gave rise must not be glossed over by the adoption of solutions which were mere expedients and served only to aggravate the fundamental disease. Discussion should take place in an atmosphere of complete freedom; it was in that spirit that he would take part in the General Assembly’s debate. It would be appropriate and useful to look back and consider to what extent the United Nations had come up to the expectations of its founders. It was time to take stock of the situation. There was an increasing tendency, however regrettable, to consider that the results achieved in the past three years did not permit any optimism regarding the future of the United Nations. In view of the dominating role played by the Security Council in the affairs of the United Nations, it was perhaps expedient to consider its performance and record as one of the main criteria of its success or failure. There was unfortunately little ground for satisfaction. The work of the Security Council appeared to the public to be nothing more than a series of continual dissensions, charges and countercharges, in an atmosphere of mutual distrust and intrigue. The world had followed the disappointing course of this work over the past three years with a growing feeling of disillusionment, frustration, and even exasperation; this was particularly true of the smaller nations, which had hoped against hope that the United Nations would succeed where the League of Nations had failed. In taking stock of the situation, it was necessary to go back to the time when the Charter had been drawn up, to San Francisco. The idea which had inspired the founders of the United Nations had been the establishment of an effective organization for the maintenance of international peace and security. The world had just experienced a war from which few nations had emerged unscathed and which had threatened to destroy civilization itself. In an atmosphere still charged with poignant memories of six years of war and suffering, an attempt had been made to create international conditions such as would enable mankind to live in peace and the peoples of the world to work out their destiny in harmony and co-operation. He would recall that the Charier bad been drawn up by the representatives of the great Powers and could not be amended without their unanimous consent. In drawing up the Charter they had accorded to themselves a dominating position in the Organization. These provisions were reluctantly accepted by the smaller nations, who were told that this was the only means of safeguarding collective security. The acceptance by the smaller nations of this status of political inequality had been regarded as an act of faith, but that acceptance had perhaps rather been dictated by a sense of despair combined with a fervent hope that the great Powers, with the devastations of the Second World War only just behind them, would, at last, appreciate how bitter were the fruits of power politics and would be prepared to work in the interests of peace and international co-operation. It was none the less a fact that the Charter had conferred on the great Powers prerogatives which were not shared by the smaller Powers and that this had been decided with the consent of these smaller Powers, with the assurance that this sacrifice would be in the interests of all nations. The prerogatives thus conferred imposed upon the great Powers definite obligations in the conduct of international affairs. Any failure to fulfil these obligations would be equivalent to a breach of faith and to a betrayal of the confidence placed in them by the smaller Powers in accepting the Charter in its present form. One of the essential features of the Charter was the unanimity rule applicable to the great Powers. It had been emphasised that this rule was one of the cardinal principles of the security provisions contained in the Charter and it was in that spirit that it had been accepted by the smaller nations, despite their grave misgivings. Experience had unfortunately shown that those misgivings had been well founded. Indeed the desired unanimity had often not been achieved. On the other hand the international situation was deteriorating and world peace was again being threatened. The smaller Powers might well ask whether their act of faith had been justified. He would now turn to the role of the General Assembly. As originally conceived, the General Assembly was, according to Article 1, paragraph 4 of the Charter, to have been « a centre for harmonizing the actions of nations in the attainment of these common ends. » It might be asked whether the Assembly had fulfilled the hopes placed in it or whether it had not rather become a centre of discord. It was a fact that certain States had made use of the General Assembly and of its Committees as a platform for the delivery of violent attacks upon other Member States, attacks which could only exacerbate feeling and give rise to international tension. Even more serious had been the use made of the General Assembly and its Committees for ideological propaganda and for poisoning relations between European and non-European races. Attempts had been and were still being made both in the Councils of the Organization and in the General Assembly itself, to intervene in the domestic affairs of Member States. At the present stage, the United Nations could hardly afford to alienate the sympathy of Member States by adopting resolutions involving unjustifiable limitations on the sovereignty of States, to which no Member State could reasonably submit and which constituted in effect a violation of the basic principles of the Charter. National pride and the right to conduct their own affairs were not merely the prerogatives of the great Powers. Smaller States were equally jealous of their sovereignty and prestige. He would also point to another tendency, that of extending the provisions of the Charter by means of resolutions and of criticizing certain Member States for their failure to respect such resolutions, thereby creating the impression that a recommendation of the General Assembly carried the same weight and authority as an enactment of a world parliament. He thought the facts to which he had referred tended not only to increase international friction but also to undermine the authority and prestige of the Organization itself. If that course of action were persisted in, the result would be a total loss of confidence and, eventually, the decline and collapse of the Organization. When the Parliament of the Union of South Africa had discussed the ratification of the United Nations Charter, grave doubts and even misgivings had been expressed on the score of certain of its provisions. In spite of these misgivings and hesitations ratification bad been agreed to, since it was felt that something had to be done to avert another conflagration. It was also hoped that after the recent experience of a devastating world war, those who had assumed charge of world affairs would not permit power politics to prevail over common sense. The trust which the Union of South Africa had placed in the United Nations had been somewhat shaken, but it was fully conscious of the fact that the United Nations was at present the only available international organ for the preservation of peace. The Government of the Union of South Africa was anxious to collaborate with other nations for the promotion of peace and would continue to support the United Nations in so far as that Organization was able to function to that end. It was not unmindful of the fact there were some items on the credit side of the United Nations account, both as regards intervention in certain international disputes and in the humanitarian sphere. The Government of the Union of South Africa was prepared to recognize the successes achieved, but the activities concerned were subsidiary to the main purpose of the United Nations, which was that of establishing world peace and of averting the conflagrations which had resulted in two world wars in the course of the past thirty-five years. If, therefore, the United Nations continued on the road it had hitherto followed, the Union of South Africa might have to consider whether it was in its interest to remain a Member of the Organization. Only frank discussion of problems squarely faced could avert the inevitable — the final collapse of the United Nations and a return to power politics with all its attendant evils of war, devastation and untold human suffering.