110. Who of us present In this hall yesterday was not deeply moved by the message, solemn and profoundly encouraging, given to the General Assembly and to the world by His Holiness Pope Paul VI? The very visit was of immense significance. It affirmed his recognition of the achievements of the United Nations in the past twenty years and his faith in its indispensable future: the conviction that the Organization "represents the obligatory path of modern civilization and of world peace". His message went to the heart of the moral and political problems of our time. As its beneficent light gradually floods into the consciousness of the leaders of the nations, it will increasingly illuminate the search for the roads to peace.
111. Seven centuries ago, Mr. President, a considerable compatriot of yours, the Venetian Marco Polo, accompanied by three Ambassadors of the great Kublai Khan, whose countryman has just preceded me in this debate, sailed from China to Cambodia and other parts of South-East Asia. His tale begot a vision. That vision, becoming ever more beautiful, and improbable, as the centuries passed, lured on Columbus and many other voyagers. One of the incidental offshoots was the uncovering to European eyes of my country, New Zealand. We do indeed come back to Italy wherever we turn.
112. Need I add that it seems to my delegation to be especially appropriate that this year — in succession to the distinguished Foreign Minister of Ghana, who so ably presided over the difficult nineteenth session — our President should be the Foreign Minister of Italy. We feel indeed fortunate to have as our guide you, a scholar-statesman, who have played such a creative part in the resurgence of Italy and of Europe.
113. The United Nations has survived two recent crises. To begin with, the General Assembly has got back into business in a manner which has left intact for another day the positions of principle of those who take differing views of the relative authority of the Security Council and the Assembly and, beyond that, of the role of international organization in a world of sovereign States. Secondly, the Organization has, through the recent work of the Security Council and the Secretary-General, made a significant contribution to world peace through its role in the crisis between India and Pakistan.
114. It would, perhaps, be difficult to imagine a situation closer to that envisaged by the framers of the Charter when defining the responsibilities of the Security Council than that which confronted the Council last month. The Council acted as my Government has always hoped and expected it would. The permanent members found a sufficient area of agreement to act in unison. They acted. Admittedly, there are still serious difficulties even in the immediate problem of establishing the cease-fire and still more of tackling the underlying political problems. But these difficulties are inherent in a situation which involves not only a complex of basic and possibly conflicting principles but also the interests and pride of two very great countries. But at least the Council, and therefore the United Nations as an institution, has set the stage on which fundamental problems can and should be negotiated.
115. In my country, we felt great regret and concern at the outbreak of serious fighting between India and Pakistan. New Zealand has enjoyed the most friendly of relations with both these great Asian States, fellow members of the Commonwealth, ever since their emergence as independent nations in the years shortly after the end of the Second World War — a time, which, for reasons based on the fundamental changes precipitated by the events of that War, brought a growing New Zealand interest in the problems of this region. We have viewed with anxiety the conflict which has for so long divided India and Pakistan. It is our earnest hope that the spirit which moved both countries to agree to bring about a cessation of hostilities will prevail. Such a cessation is essential if the underlying political problem is to be settled peacefully and justly and in a manner which will not damage the independence and nationhood of India or Pakistan. It is essential to a settlement which will lay a better foundation for the co-operation of these two great peoples in the decades and centuries which lie ahead of them. It is essential to a settlement which will enhance the name of both in the eyes of the International community.
116. In this conflict, the world once more has had cause to realize the value of this Organization in the preservation of peace — the very heart of its purposes, though not of course its only purpose. It may be argued that all the Powers involved in the Kashmir crisis, directly or indirectly, might have pursued the same objective as they have over the past few weeks. But surely it was the United Nations that enabled the accord of purpose which emerged to be developed and harnessed so quickly and so effectively through the Security Council.
117. I have said that the preservation or restoration of international peace is the central purpose of this Organization. All others, while deeply interconnected in the rich and varied structure of international life are none the less ancillary. What are the prospects that the United Nations will succeed in this purpose in the future? Can we discern the challenges which it is likely to face?
118. We are all well aware of the changes of the past two decades, of the upheavals which the world has seen since San Francisco, of the way in which the Organization has been strained and altered in composition and attitudes by the strength of the new forces released. It is not likely that the tests of the next decade or two will be any less severe. The decolonization process, now nearing completion, has already raised the number of sovereign States from 50 to about 120. The actors in the next momentous phase of our human drama are now nearly all assembled on the stage. The play Is still to be written, but there is no doubt that the themes will include the spiralling population of our planet, the ever growing gulf between rich and poor, the affront and waste caused by discrimination and denial of human rights and the menacing accumulation and proliferation of weapons — huge themes to accommodate in one play, on one small stage, but the very stage Itself is threatened.
119. Members of the United Nations now face a challenge outside the scope of the assumptions on which the Organization is based. In 1945, there was a degree of international accord which today no longer exists. In that vital respect, the world has regressed rather than advanced In the past twenty years. In 1945, nations — both Governments and peoples — were weary of war. They had seen what modern war could do, and they wanted no more of it. New Zealand, which both in the years 1939-45 and before that In the years 1914-18, had fought hard and sustained terrible casualties, 'fully shared that sense of revulsion. The Charter was based upon it. Its fundamental assumptions are set out in its opening pages. They were accepted by all Member States. In the Charter it is taken to be self-evident that war is a scourge from which the world must be saved.
120. Practice and precept, of course, do not always coincide precisely. Yet despite the problems of the post-war era—the cold war, the crises, and the fighting—there has been throughout, a widely based acceptance of the assumptions of the Charter; the more so since the nature of a nuclear war and the danger of it, and the inevitable consequences of it, have looked over the awesome brink and know well that no man in his senses talks lightly about nuclear bombs. But there are some who are talking lightly about war and even about nuclear bombs; who are even actually saying that the more countries that have them the better. Worse, these doctrines — reinforced only recently by the reported statements of Chinese communist leaders — are emanating from a region which has over one half of the world's population, which faces terrible problems of poverty, which is confronted by enormous tasks of development, and which at present is in a state of marked political instability. Can these new doctrines be allowed to imperial the whole structure of international co-operation?
121. So far the principles underlying the Charter have been broadly accepted by the international community. True, tensions remain unabated. Aspirations remain unsatisfied. Peaceful change seems unconscionably slow in coming. Justice sometimes seems to turn a blind eye or to disappear in a fog of compromise. There are differences among Member States about political and legal doctrines, about definitions. What is "domestic jurisdiction"? What is "coercion"? What is "intervention"? What is "aggression"? These are all problems which reveal differences of approach to particular issues. But whatever the apparent extent of the differences, they have until quite recently all been based on a common assumption: that there are norms of international behaviour which ought to be laid down; that States should abide by these norms; that despite differing ideologies and political systems, the relations of States can be and should be reconciled within the boundaries of international law and the principles underlying this international Organization.
122. We would not seek to deny that in certain circumstances — where people are persistently refused their basic rights — they may have no recourse but to fight for them. But it is another matter when outsiders claim, on doctrinal grounds, the right to intervene in the process. The Charter, it is plain to us, imposes clear prohibitions against the threat or use of force as weapons of national policy. This does not mean that political and social change should be inhibited, nor that the inherent right of individual and collective self-defence is denied. The role of this Organization — a role which Members must face up to more resolutely if we wish to avoid great disasters — is to aid peaceful change by providing the means whereby differences can be reconciled and injustices removed without resort to armed force.
123. There is, beyond this, another and very serious danger: the trend, which is already apparent in several instances in the world today, for a State to pursue its own national interests under the cloak of aiding a struggle for independence.
124. With this in mind I turn to the policy of "confrontation" which Indonesia has pursued against Malaysia. This policy has been directed towards purely national goals which are not compatible with the Charter, but it has been presented in terms of opposition to a fantasy of "neo-colonialism". New Zealand's view of the opportunist policy of "confrontation" was made clear in the general debate last year and it has been the subject of numerous public statements since. I therefore do not wish to dwell at length upon it. But I must say that we do not believe that it proceeds from a deep-seated, compelling national aspiration of the Indonesian people. It is, rather, at variance with their needs and interests and could cease without the sacrifice of any basic Indonesian interest. We believe that the Indonesian Government was correct in realizing that its policy was incompatible with the Charter of the United Nations, but we profoundly regret that they chose to withdraw from the United Nations rather than to review the policy.
125. The recent agreement of the Governments of Malaysia and Singapore that Singapore should become an independent State associated with Malaysia in the pursuit of certain common policies demonstrates clearly what has throughout been obvious: that Malaysia threatens the interests of no neighbouring countries, and that the policy of "confrontation" has therefore no legitimate justification. New Zealand has expressed its full support for the territorial integrity of Malaysia. When, however, the peoples and Governments concerned freely agreed upon a new relationship, we immediately accepted their decision, whereas we had not been prepared to see a dismemberment imposed from outside by armed force. New Zealand retains its close friendship with both Malaysia and Singapore, and we welcome the action of this Organization in unanimously agreeing to admit Singapore to membership.
126. The norms of international behaviour embodied in the principles underlying this Organization are now, however, under even greater challenge than arises in the instance of "confrontation". Powerful voices are now promulgating a new and more ominous doctrine. The so-called "war of liberation" is being put forward from Peking on a world-embracing scale as the panacea for the future. People for whose benefit it is said to be designed may unfortunately get killed in the process. But no matter; in the recent words of one eminent and dogmatic military figure, "temporary suffering is repaid by lasting or even perpetual peace and happiness".
127. We are today witnessing the attempt to impose, by the power which grows out of the barrel of a gun, such a "perpetual peace and happiness" on a people who show no signs of wishing to receive this new gospel. What is happening in Viet-Nam, in the view of my Government, is not just a civil war. The extent of external direction and support for the insurgent forces in South Viet-Nam is such as to constitute aggression. It is a form of aggression which may be much harder to define and identify than the conventional, overt military attack across a boundary; but it is none the less aggression. For what is the difference, in intent and in consequence, whether forty thousand armed men are marched openly across a border, or are infiltrated across the same frontier for the same purpose? Should the world remain indifferent to acts of aggression when they are called "wars of liberation"?
128. New Zealand has long given assistance to the Republic of Viet-Nam in the economic and social fields. Recently, at the request of that Government, New Zealand agreed also to extend the limited military assistance that its resources and other commitments permit. This decision was taken in consonance with a longstanding New Zealand attitude towards the challenge of aggression, upon whatever ideology it may be based. No more than any other small State can we remain indifferent to the fate of others. As a small country, we cannot guarantee our own security. We are vitally concerned - as we have been since the days of the League of Nations — with the establishment of the rule of law in international relations and in the maintenance of collective security.
129. It goes without saying that New Zealand would welcome, as we believe would all the Governments concerned in meeting this attack, a peaceful settlement of the Viet-Nam question. We believe that the people of Viet-Nam, North and South, should have the chance to make a meaningful and genuine choice concerning their form of government, free from intimidation and terror. This choice should include the right freely to agree on the future relationship between North and South, including, if they so desire, unification. These are essential elements which would need to be considered in substantive negotiations.
130. Unfortunately, there is still no sign that the insurgent forces in South Viet-Nam and their backers in Hanoi are yet willing to consider any settlement Which amounts to much more than acceptance of terms which would put the seal of success on their campaign. They have as yet shown no readiness to depart from this stand despite approaches from a number of quarters about the possibility of negotiation or mediation. As a member of the Commonwealth, we must particularly regret their failure to respond to the approaches of the mission constituted from among Prime Ministers assembled from every continent at their conference in June this year. We must not despair of the hopes for a peaceful settlement, nor should we harbour any illusions. It is the communist side which talks almost joyfully of fighting for twenty years. It is this side which denounces the United Nations and the principles which have been the generally accepted norm for these last twenty years. That Is surely something which must be of the utmost concern to the whole international community.
131. We for our part will resist violence because we do not despair of the possibilities of peaceful change. We have only to look about us to see one aspect of a change which has occurred In the last twenty years without shattering the basis of international order. Membership of the United Nations has become the endorsement of sovereignty for many newly Independent nations. Three new States have been admitted at this session - the Gambia, the Maldive Islands and Singapore — and we welcome them.
132. New Zealand has played a part In aiding this tide towards independence, through the Trusteeship System and through our support of the Declaration on the ending of colonialism. This year the people of the Cook Islands, a small territory in the Pacific hitherto under New Zealand administration, exercised
their right to self-determination under United Nations supervision. These 20,000 people chose to become fully self-governing and freely associated with New Zealand rather than to be a separate, sovereign State. The special feature of this arrangement is that the New Zealand Parliament has legislated away all its power over the Cook Islands. Thus these 20,000 people are free at any time of their choosing to establish themselves as a sovereign State or to move into any other status that they might desire and that might become practicable.
133. The other larger territory for which New Zealand was responsible, Western Samoa, with a population of 130,000, became a separate sovereign State three and a half years ago. It has joined the World Health Organization and the Economic Commission for Asia and the Far East, but by deliberate decision it has not yet exercised its right to seek membership of the United Nations. Arrangements have been made by which Western Samoa receives most of the benefits of United Nations membership without the need to incur certain financial obligations which this small country can ill afford. The Cook Islands also has needs which the United Nations family is in a position to help it meet and we are sure the necessary relationship can be established so that help is given. The problem of the relationship of very small territories to the United Nations is one which is becoming increasingly relevant.
134. Among the most important of the future tasks before the United Nations as a whole and before some of its more powerful Members in particular is that of disarmament. I do not wish to discuss this complicated question in detail: that is a task which will arise on the group of agenda items referred to the Assembly's First Committee. But certain problems are pre-eminent: the danger of the further proliferation of nuclear weapons, and the need to secure a comprehensive test-ban treaty. Without some progress soon on both these issues, we may well find that the arms race has entered a new, more dangerous and even less predictable dimension. The importance of these two primary objectives is, I think, widely — although, regrettably, not universally — accepted.
135. Nor, again regrettably, is there universal acceptance of the short but important step forward which was made with the conclusion of the partial test-ban Treaty. As New Zealand has made clear since the eighteenth session of the General Assembly in 1963, both New Zealand and the South Pacific countries and territories with which it Is associated view with apprehension and with concern the continued plans of France to test thermonuclear weapons in the South Pacific on a fast approaching date. Even more sombrely do we view the possession of nuclear devices, few and ineffective though they may be at present, by a country — mainland China — which has cast itself as outlaw and rejects the norms of International behaviour hitherto taken for granted.
136. I conclude by again expressing the satisfaction of my Government that the General Assembly Is once more back in business. It has a heavy agenda, in the literal sense: the plenary sessions and the Committees will this year find their time and effort heavily taxed. But it has an even greater agenda in the figurative sense. It has the vital task of preserving world peace; of containing conflicting national aspirations within certain recognized bounds — the very condition of our continued existence in the nuclear age; of satisfying legitimate aspirations of dependent peoples for freedom and independence; and of helping to map out an agreed strategy which will cause a rational and effective assault to be made on the age-old problem of poverty, wherever it exists; and which will, in fact, make a proper and more equitable use of the world's resources, both human and material. This edifice, as Pope Paul VI said to us yesterday, must never fall. The Organization alone, however, cannot grapple with these tasks. It requires the positive support of Member Governments, using it as an instrument to further not merely national interest but international co-operation. That, not a harsh doctrine of conflict, should be our goal.