5. Before embarking on the main text of my statement this afternoon, I have a few brief remarks on the statement just made by the representative of Guinea. I shall not comment on the contents of that statement, apart from saying that his remarks are unfounded and out of place at the present meeting. I have to state that the demonstration is without any doubt in conflict with the traditional practice as well as the dignity of the United Nations. South Africa is a founding Member State of the Organization and as a Member State is constitutionally and in every other way entitled to representation in the United Nations. This is South Africa's right and my Government has every, intention of exercising it. My delegation cannot allow itself to be deterred by manifestations of this nature, or by any other form of intimidation, from exercising that right.
6. Mr. President, may I extend to you the heartiest congratulations of the South African delegation on your election as President of the General Assembly of the United Nations, The General Assembly can indeed congratulate itself on choosing a statesman of such stature, wisdom and experience to be its leader in these crucial times.
7. I would also like to welcome the three new Members to this Organization, the Gambia, the Maldive Islands and Singapore. We wish them success in fulfilling their national ambitions and also in playing their role in the comity of nations.
8. The founders of the United Nations who assembled at San Francisco in, 1945 did so in an atmosphere of realism — realism born of bitter experience. They also met with the solemn determination that the experience of the gruesome and most destructive war in the history of mankind should never recur. The Second World War was drawing to a close; no nation, whether it had actively participated or not, had escaped its painful consequences; the scars would never disappear, certainly not from the minds of millions of men, women and children who suffered its tortures and lived under its terror. A harsh and cruel lesson had been learned: war, whatever its causes or its outcome, left no victors. Its only legacies were destruction, suffering and the seeds of further hatreds and revenge. Soon Hiroshima and Nagasaki would demonstrate the advent of scientific and technological means of destruction which, in the event of another world conflagration, might well result in the extinction of human life itself.
9. It was the obvious task of the San Francisco Conference to seek means which could ensure that "succeeding generations" would be saved "from the scourge of war", that nations would pledge themselves in future "to practice tolerance and live together in peace with one another as good neighbours"; that every effort should be made to maintain international peace and security by agreeing to settle international disputes by peaceful means and to respect the sovereign equality of all nations. This was the world order which was considered as the essential aim if power politics and aggression were to be removed from international life, if freedom in its full sense was to replace oppression, if poverty and the attendant forms of human misery were to be alleviated and ultimately eradicated — in so far as it lay within the power of man to do so; in short, if harmonious and fruitful coexistence among the nations of the world was to be achieved.
10. This was truly a gigantic task, especially in view of the natural differences firmly embedded in the various identities of nations, differences which could not and cannot be removed even by external interference and domination. For any attempts to do so would constitute a complete negation of the fundamental concept of freedom and have throughout history proved to be a basic cause of friction and aggression. There could be no question of devising artificial panaceas. The immutable laws of nature had to be accepted and a solution sought along realistic lines which would hold out hope of general acceptance and the achievement of permanent peace and security.
11. And so, with patience, realism and resolution, the Charter was drafted and accepted, and the United Nations created, in order that peaceful and constructive international co-operation along the lines inscribed in the Charter could displace the dangerous practices of coercion and domination, as well as the many other evils of the past. Thus it was hoped to ensure a form of peace which would enable each nation to attain the fulfilment of its rightful aspirations.
12. As one of the founding Members of the United Nations, my own country shared in the hopes of all the others who met on that memorable occasion in 1945. For we in the Republic of South. Africa have as large a stake in peace as any other State, big or small, and we know full well that it is only in the security of peace that we, like all other nations, can maintain our freedom, survive and progress towards our rightful destiny. This is no selfish aspiration, for we, like others, are prepared to play our part in international life, and are convinced that we also can contribute to the achievement by others of their rightful destinies. The sincerity of this aspiration — that we too are dedicated to the cause of freedom and denounce foreign aggression in all its guises — requires no further proof than that recorded in history. We ourselves have had to struggle for our own freedom and many South Africans have also fought for the freedom of others. There are monuments in many foreign lands which serve as silent testimony to this.
13. I can assure the Assembly that my country will remain dedicated to the cause of freedom and will always endeavour to assist in creating a realistic pattern for future relations between nations, namely, a form of coexistence in which domination, international friction and war will have no place, This vision we shared with others at San Francisco.
14. It is appropriate that the Assembly should consider how far the world has progressed in reaching the goal set two decades ago and whether the efforts of statesmen, both inside and outside this Organization, have in any way succeeded in the removal of those conditions that lead to friction and thus paved the way to a durable form of peace and security. The answer lies of course in the facts of the world as it is today: in the measure of our ability to live together peacefully as sovereign independent States, big and small, powerful and weak, no one being subservient to the other; and in the extent to which international co-operation has been rendered fruitful in all matters of common concern in the interest of mankind as a whole.
15. Now, what are the facts?
16. A development to which one should at the outset refer is that many nations have in recent years achieved their independence and that others are advancing along the road to self-determination according to the dictates of their own distinctive ways of life. This we must welcome, for each nation has the right to live its own life, provided it does not seek to impose its will and institutions upon others. We must likewise understand the desire of nations which have for so long been subjected to foreign rule to stand on their own and to assert themselves to the fullest extent.
17. In this connexion the question arises, however, whether political independence by itself is always accompanied by freedom in the full meaning of that concept — freedom which not only concedes the right of peoples to govern themselves, but which also includes the right to buttress their independence politically, and to develop their own institutions in a manner which will enable them to escape from the clutches of poverty, disease and illiteracy. It is therefore important that no form of assistance to developing peoples, whether it be technical economic or otherwise, rendered to achieve that goal, should be made available in such a way as to lead to an invasion of their sovereignty or to detract from their right to plan their own futures for their own happiness and well-being. Where assistance is rendered, it must be in the spirit of co-operation and good neighbourliness and therefore free from foreign domination, in whatever form. To ignore this must inevitably lead to the charge of neo-colonialism, which is nothing more than a form of domination rendering formal political independence somewhat hollow and barren. In saying this I fully realize that the charge of neo-colonialism is often implanted in the minds of some of the new nations by those who strive to exploit dissension.
18. In assessing the present international scene we observe manifestations of instability and intolerance which render conditions in 1965 more dangerous than those in 1939 which plunged us into war. Indeed, the world is also suffering from a malaise which threatens to develop into a complete negation of everything we sought to establish in 1945, There are forces which seek to create a new world imperialism and employ as their tools the envy, greed, ambition, intolerance and covetousness in others, as well as their misfortunes and the differences which inevitably arise in international intercourse.
19. Armed conflict continues to harass the world and threatens to engulf mankind in a universal cataclysm unless its true causes are removed. The war against poverty, hunger, disease and illiteracy has not yet been won and these could well assume greater dimensions, bringing intolerable conditions of life to many who already barely exist. Subversion continues and even increases to an extent which threatens international relations as well as the existence of orderly and progressive national life.
20. All these disturbing facts and evils are due to a variety of causes, some of which are often obscure and not readily identifiable. Yet there are certain causes which are nearly always manifest wherever there is international friction or internal strife.
21. One of these is the ideological struggle for the minds of men. For years this struggle has frustrated well-nigh every effort to achieve international harmony. It has prevented the United Nations from achieving the fundamental objectives designed for it at San Francisco, and has consistently kept the spectre of war in the foreground. In fact, despite all efforts to achieve disarmament, the world today bristles with the most dangerous weapons in history. Major issues have often had to be dealt with outside the United Nations. In very few cases have issues been permanently resolved; the tensions and the causes in which they find their genesis have merely been relaxed temporarily and those Issues continue to impede man's struggle towards peace and security.
22. The nature of this ideological conflict is known to all. It can truly be said that it continues unabated because communism continues to seek universal acceptance, and because it seeks to do so by forceful, subversive and other insidious means. Where the peoples of the communist States have accepted a communist form of government for themselves, that is of course, their own internal affair. But when their Governments seek to impose a communist form of government on others, then those of us who are irrevocable opposed to communism have every reason to object and to take such measures as we deem fit to protect ourselves against its infiltration into our respective national lives.
23. If we consider the measure of communist infiltration in every continent of the world and the manner in which the fundamental principles of government freely accepted and established in non-communist States are being subversively eroded, we cannot but regard communist activities, as they manifest themselves in these countries and in international life, as a continued threat to world peace.
24. I should like to add here that, however vigorously we reject and abhor communism, South African spokesmen in the United Nations have consistently and assiduously sought not to aggravate the already dangerous international situation by adding fuel to the flames of the cold war. We cannot, however, remain silent in the face of the threats which communist imperialism presents today, not only to world peace in general, but more particularly to the orderly development of the continent on which the Republic of South Africa is situated and where our future lies. Due to the location of our country in Africa, we are perhaps more aware than others of the threat of communist subversion on that continent, and we therefore feel in duty bound to draw attention to this increasing danger.
25. Those peoples of Africa, including those in multinational South Africa, who are attempting to devote their full attention to the many problems with which they have to cope as nations in various stages of development, are continuously exposed to this peril and hampered in their efforts to create and maintain those conditions essential for the achievement of their legitimate national aspirations. It is no secret that the communists strive to create chaos, for chaos constitutes the most fertile soil for their Ideology. We in South Africa are well aware of these facts and of the manner in which communist organizations endeavour to disrupt orderly government and development. Moreover, they take a leading part in the continuous denigration of our efforts to solve our complex problems — efforts which, as I explained in this Assembly last year, are making it possible, in increasing measure, to provide better standards of living, education and other important services to the various nations at present living within our sovereignty and to set them on the road to full self-realization.
26. I believe that I cannot more effectively stress my reference to the dangers of communist intervention in the affairs of other nations, whether on the continents of America, of Europe, of Asia or of Africa, than to refer to a statement by Mr. Chou En-lai when he toured Africa recently. Towards the end of his visit he stated that: "revolutionary prospects are excellent throughout the African continent". This statement constitutes a clear proof of Peking's ambitions and intentions with regard to areas where nations, some of them young, some small, are struggling against already great odds to strengthen their freedom, foster their own identities and build their own future.
27. The representative of the United States, a few days ago, drawing attention to a recent call to arms by the Communist Chinese Minister of Defence, observed that this manifesto "leaves no room for difference of tradition, of culture or of national aspiration, or for the legitimate right of every people, large and small, to choose its own...way. It leaves no room for genuine self-determination" [1334th meeting, para. 59].
28. My delegation cannot but associate itself with this statement, for the tendency to ignore the separate identities of different peoples and to expect heterogeneous communities to share a common national consciousness and loyalty is a further cause which lies at the root of many serious problems in various parts of the world.
29. We are all agreed, and it is fundamental to the Charter of the United Nations, that each nation has the indisputable right to live its own separate life, to run its own affairs, and to maintain its own identity, its own culture, religion and traditions. It follows that a nation is also entitled to do whatever it deems necessary in order to safeguard and protect its own heritage. A good illustration of this is the universal practice of controlled immigration to ensure that a nation will be able to assimilate the new elements without jeopardizing its distinctive national character.
30. I need not remind delegates of the examples in history where the same considerations led to the creation of separate States owing to divergent identities and incompatible aspirations of different peoples in one and the same State. There maybe other solutions, and all constructive attempts to make adjustments to suit particular circumstances should therefore be viewed with understanding.
31. Simply to ignore the separate identities of all peoples, and all the rights which are inherent in such identities, provides precisely those opportunities which are so readily and effectively exploited by others who, for motives of their own, invoke the right of self-determination in order to create dissensions and internal conflicts.
32. But what is more, nations cannot against their will be forced by foreign intervention to share a single statehood. History provides us with recent examples of how constitutional unions or federations, which had been artificially created and were therefore not the product of evolution and the free will of the peoples concerned, have collapsed.
33. This brings me to another practice — indeed an evil — which must be removed if there is ever to be any form of coexistence in which peace and security will be possible and the nations of the world enabled to co-operate constructively in order to promote the prosperity and happiness of mankind. This is the growing obsession to interfere in the domestic affairs of sovereign independent nations. South African representatives have often in the past found it necessary to deal with this practice in this forum. My delegation therefore subscribes to the strong pleas which have been made in the current debate that this odious practice be discontinued. We welcome the renewed attention given to this basic principle of the Charter. Indeed, it is a cornerstone of international co-operation, without which there would have been no United Nations. It has been recognized by other international institutions, including the Organization of African Unity. Article III of the Charter of this Organization explicitly declares that "Member States... solemnly affirm and declare their adherence" to the principle of "non-interference in the internal affairs of States".
34. We have also noted with special interest the pronouncement by the Foreign Minister of the USSR that "there can be and should be no justification - ideological, economic or any other — for interference by States in one another's internal affairs". [1335th meeting, para. 60.]
35. The practice of foreign interference, which leads to subversion from without, has rightly been condemned by this Organization as the worst form of aggression. And yet, despite this clear and forceful condemnation, interference and subversion continue unabated and in some cases even receive support, directly or indirectly — perhaps unwittingly — from quarters which normally conform to accepted international practice. One can but express astonishment that this should be so, for it must be realized that the path of subversion inevitably leads to the negation of the inalienable rights of others and thus ultimately to international strife.
36. Diversity is a fact of international life, and we must accept it as such. Indeed, if I may borrow a striking phrase from the late President Kennedy, "we can help make the world safe for diversity". This ideal, it will be agreed, cannot be achieved if outside interference in the domestic affairs of others is permitted to continue. This practice must be eliminated. If not, it can result only in international chaos.
37. In speaking with so much emphasis of the need to accept and recognize the separate identity of nations if real peace is to be achieved and maintained, I have not been unaware of modern scientific developments which have reduced so much the effective size of this globe. That we live in each other's backyard, as the saying goes, is correct; but it is equally true that families like to gather by themselves in their own homes. Thus juxtaposition of opposites is itself one of the causes of confusion in men's minds. Both trends are inescapable, and we dare not ignore either of them.
38. I believe that what I have already said is sufficient to underline some of the dangers which the world is facing today and which must be removed if we are to live together as good neighbours. There are of course many others which require urgent attention. But I will not elaborate on these, and would like to conclude by outlining briefly certain principles which, in the view of my Government, constitute a healthier approach in international life and could well be reaffirmed. First, every nation is entitled to its own separate identity and existence; second, in the exercise thereof every nation must respect the unimpaired enjoyment of those rights by others; third, in view of the very complicated and ever-increasing problems in this modern world, a greater realization of the practicalities of any given situation is essential. This would lead to more fruitful international co-operation in the various specialized^ fields and so promote the prosperity and happiness of mankind. Fourth, the United Nations, proceeding along the course set at San Francisco, should avoid exacerbating disputes between nations and, as envisaged by its founders, strive to become "a centre for harmonizing the actions of nations". In the words of President Johnson, it would then indeed be "a workshop for constructive action and not a forum for abuse" [1284th meeting, para. 68].