49. Madam President, on behalf of the delegation of Ireland I should
like to congratulate you warmly on your election to preside over
the deliberations of this session of the General Assembly. We welcome
the choice of a distinguished citizen of Liberia to fill this
high office. Your many past contributions to the work of
the United Nations guarantee that you will discharge the
functions of the Presidency in a manner calculated to
advance the goal enunciated in your opening address — to
ensure that the Organization promotes “peace, the welfare
of all, and the effectiveness of the Charter as a whole”
[1753rd meeting, para. 63].
50. My delegation would like, at this time, to record our
sincere regret at the death of the President of the
twenty-third session of the Assembly. The Irish delegation
admired the great talents of His Excellency Mr. Emilio
Arenales and, despite serious illness, the dedication he
displayed as President. We were grieved that lie should pass
away at such an early age. Our sympathy goes out to the
delegation of Guatemala.
51. Representatives are no doubt aware, from my recent
appearances before the Security Council [1503rd meeting]
and the General Committee [180th meeting], that we in
Ireland are gravely concerned about the situation in the
north of Ireland. I shall speak on that later. At this stage,
and since this is the first occasion on which I have the
honour to address the Assembly on behalf of Ireland, I
should like to reiterate the strong commitment of my
Government to the objectives and purposes of the Charter.
That commitment has consistently informed our policies
and attitudes within the United Nations. It will continue to
do so and our aim will continue to be to promote the
vigour and efficacy of the Organization. My delegation,
therefore, regrets that during the past twelve months, to
quote from the opening sentence of our distinguished
Secretary-General in the introduction to his annual report:
“the deterioration of the international situation, which I
noted in the introduction to the annual report last year, has
continued” [A/7601/Add.1, para. 1].
52. It was in June 1968 that the Assembly, after a long
and detailed discussion at the resumed twenty-second
session, commended the Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of
Nuclear Weapons [resolution 2373 (XXII)]. That was a full
fifteen months ago. It is thus a matter of concern that the
Treaty has not yet become effective and also that it still
needs to be formally ratified by two of the three nuclear
signatories, and that a substantial proportion of the other
ratifications required for its entry into force have not been
deposited.
53. There has, it is true, been one encouraging development
in the field of nuclear non-proliferation, in that the
Treaty of Tlatelolco has received the requisite number of
ratifications and that the Agency for the Prohibition of
Nuclear Weapons in Latin America has now been established.
My delegation would like to congratulate the
delegations of Latin America on this achievement. We hope
that it will lead to others, and that it will, in particular,
serve to accelerate ratification of the non-proliferation
Treaty by many more States and, immediately, by the
remaining two of the three nuclear signatories. In expressing
this hope, we have especially in mind that the debates at
the resumed twenty-second session revealed a considerable
volume of opinion to the effect that the Treaty constitutes
an indispensable first step towards further measures of
nuclear disarmament. The need for speed is all the more
evident when we recall that eleven years have passed since
the proposal for a non-proliferation treaty was first
submitted by the Irish delegation under the leadership of
Mr. Frank Aiken [751st meeting, para. 82).
54. In this connexion, it is right to remind ourselves not
only that it is an explicit function of the Assembly under
Article 11 of the Charter to deal with disarmament but that
Article 26 implicitly enjoins Member States to limit the use
for armaments of the world’s human and economic
resources. The least that can be said is that the present
position in that regard is most disappointing. The
Secretary-General has pointed out that, while it was
estimated in 1962 that total world expenditure for military
purposes had reached the enormous figure of about
$120,000 million per year, the rate today is estimated at
about $200,000 million. It is not surprising that the
Secretary-General should feel that “even allowing for the
increase in the price level, this inflation of military
expenditure is both startling and depressing”
[A/7601/Add.1, para, 40]. Consequently, the Irish delegation
strongly supports the Secretary-General’s proposal that
the decade of the 1970s, already designated as the Second
United Nations Development Decade, should likewise be a
disarmament decade [ibid., para. 42]. Dedicating the same
decade simultaneously to these two purposes will serve to
bring out the link between them in terms of the best use of
economic and human resources.
55. The Irish delegation will continue to support the
conclusion of a comprehensive test ban treaty and generally
acceptable measures for the banning of chemical and
biological means of warfare as well as the spread of nuclear
and other mass-destruction weapons to the sea-bed.
56. The question of peace-keeping operations is again
before the Assembly. Member States will be aware of the
views expressed by the Irish delegation on this subject at
earlier sessions, and of our endeavours in recent years to
provide for a reliable and satisfactory system of financing
duly authorized peace-keeping operations. It is not necessary
for me to detail now the many arguments in favour of
such a system: the matter will be debated later in the
Special Political Committee and in plenary in connexion
with item 35. I will confine myself here to saying that my
delegation has noted the remarks in paragraph 80 of the
introduction to the Secretary-General’s annual report about
the uncertainty concerning the maintenance of the United
Nations Force in Cyprus, the main current United Nations
peace-keeping operation, because of the unsatisfactory
nature of the financial arrangements. We have noted too the
statements already made, in the course of the general
debate by a number of speakers, about the great importance
in certain situations of a peace-keeping operation, and
the necessity to put such operations on a proper footing.
57. The Irish people have watched with sadness and
distress the continuation of the tragic conflict in Nigeria — a
country with which Ireland has very close ties, stretching
well back into the last century, through direct and
continuing contacts between our two peoples. It is our
hope that a just settlement of the problem will be speedily
reached with the assistance of the Organization of African
Unity. We most earnestly and urgently appeal to all
concerned to strive, despite the political difficulties, to find
ways of maintaining and indeed increasing the flow of
international relief supplies so desperately needed.
58. This is the third regular session of the Assembly whose
agenda contains an item on the situation in the Middle East
arising out of the hostilities of June 1967. That no
substantial progress has been made in resolving that
situation is most disquieting, bearing in mind the possibility
of a recrudescence of major hostilities in the area. In that
event there would clearly be a risk of the big Powers being
drawn in for various reasons including the traditional
strategic importance of the Middle East. It is therefore
discouraging that the Secretary-General should record a
marked deterioration in the situation. My Government
noted with concern the anxious appeals he felt obliged to
make in recent months for the exercise of restraint by the
parties directly concerned and for the cessation of the
many grave incidents which have unnecessarily risked the
safety of the military observers along the Suez Canal. As
the Secretary-General has well said, the whole situation in
the area creates “a crisis of effectiveness for the United
Nations and for its Members” [A/7601/Add.1, para. 65].
The Irish delegation sincerely hopes that the mission of the
Special Representative of the Secretary-General in the
Middle East, Ambassador Jarring, will bear fruit worthy of
the patient and persistent efforts on which he has been
engaged, and that the Big Four, who have been seconding
those efforts for the past six months, will enable him to
bring his mission to a successful conclusion at a very early
date.
59. The Secretary-General’s introduction to his annual
report calls attention to the particular problem of the
hijacking of commercial passenger aircraft. It is a problem
to which no country can be indifferent and which is of
special concern to all Member States operating international
air services. We all know the great cost of operating regular
air services and what a heavy financial burden the disruption
caused by the practice of piracy in the air can place
on airlines, especially those of smaller countries, not to
speak of the addition to the already heavy responsibility of
airline pilots and crews. The Irish delegation therefore
associates itself with the appeals made by the Secretary-General
for a successful outcome to the efforts being made
by the International Civil Aviation Organization to remove
this threat to reliable air communications and to the lives of
innocent travellers.
60. A section of the Secretary-General’s introduction
which the Irish delegation finds of particular interest is that
relating to the exercise of his good offices. We subscribe
entirely to his statement, against the background of earlier
consideration of this point that “I have come to the clear
conclusion that I am competent under the Charter to use
my good offices” [ibid., para. 185]. Indeed we feel that the
legitimate role of the Secretary-General in this field is in
some ways broader than is sometimes conceded.
61. I may recall here the view expressed by the Irish
delegation on 28 September 1967 [1571st meeting] that
the Secretary-General should be entitled to appoint a
special representative without necessarily seeking further
authorization. This continues to be our interpretation of
the scope of Article 99. And in the same context I may say
that my delegation is of the opinion that the good offices
of the Secretary-General could be of very great value in
giving effect to one of the main purposes of the United
Nations. I have in mind the purpose set out in Article 1,
paragraph 4, of the Charter, which says that the United
Nations should be “a centre for harmonizing the actions of
nations in the attainment of these common ends”.
62. In that regard my delegation has noted with much
interest the statement made here by the Foreign Minister of
Sweden on 19 September 1969, that at the present time the
principle role of the United Nations as far as current
conflicts are concerned is:
“...to serve as a centre for the expression and
formation of international opinion, to encourage and
facilitate co-operation and agreement between the States
concerned and to offer the formal framework for such
co-operation and agreement” [1757th meeting, para. 3].
63. During the fifteen years since - my country became a
Member of the United Nations, Ireland - has endeavoured by
word and deed to prove its loyalty to the purposes and
principles of the Charter. We have honoured the obligations
of membership and we have striven to contribute to the
attainment of the ends for which the Organization was
founded. And the basic purpose for which the United
Nations was founded was and remains, the preservation of
peace.
64. We have not hitherto sought to bring before the
United Nations in a formal manner our greatest political
problem, the partition of Ireland, a problem at once
national and international. In the detailed debate which
took place in the Irish Parliament in July 1946 on the
question of seeking admission to the United Nations it was
agreed that, whereas under the Charter membership would
impose serious obligations, it would be wrong to look to
the Organization for national advantage only, and that it
would be misleading to suggest that the United Nations
would solve the vital problem of Ireland’s national reunification.
That was made clear. Our Parliament unanimously
recommended that the Government seek admission because
of our dedication to the purposes of the United Nations
and because of the great potential of the Organization for
advancing the cause of peace and establishing a better world
order.
65. We have ourselves sought to achieve reunification
through co-operation by means enjoined by the Charter. We
have not had, nor do we now have, any wish to achieve it
by force; nor would we have wished, without grave reason,
to ventilate in this forum the faults of the Belfast
Administration or the acquiescence up to now of British
Governments in those faults. We have had no expectation
of reunion through a verdict on the part of the world
community. Even if such a verdict were obtainable and
enforceable, we realize that it could well create a situation
in which some of our fellow citizens in a united Ireland
might feel embittered and alienated. We have no desire to
vitiate the spirit of co-operation which has begun to grow
between the two parts of our divided country or the
amicable relations which have developed between the
peoples of Ireland and Great Britain after centuries of strife
and confrontation.
66. That we nevertheless addressed two requests to the
United Nations in recent weeks in connexion with this
problem is due to the grave situation which developed in
Northern Ireland through the growing impatience and
frustrations of the minority at the persistent denial to them
of human rights and fundamental freedoms. It is a situation
which constitutes a real and present danger to the lives,
homes and livelihood of a substantial number of Irish
citizens in that area and a threat to the amicable relations
with Britain, to which I have just referred. But it still
remains our earnest hope that the goal which the great
majority of the Irish people ardently desire will be achieved
by mutual consent.
67. My Government has sought to create an atmosphere of
confidence and friendship between the two areas of Ireland
through economic and social co-operation. But this
co-operation, although it undoubtedly improved the climate of
opinion North and South, did not alter the basic economic
and political disadvantages of the minority in the North.
These disadvantages derive primarily from the institutionalized
system of economic, political and social discrimination
of which the minority have been the victims for the last fifty years.
68. The immediate plight of the minority is our most
urgent concern. For we are convinced that the heart of the
matter lies in the partition of Ireland, which originally
brought about the political structure of Northern Ireland
and gave the Unionist Party there the degree of autonomous
control which permitted them to discriminate against
the minority.
69. The Government of Ireland Act of 1920 which
established Northern Ireland — an Act of the British Parliament
for which no Irish Member North or South voted — and
the subsequent Anglo-Irish Treaty of 1921 radically
altered the relationship between Britain and Ireland. Although
the relationships between Britain and the now
independent part of Ireland resulted in sovereign control by
the Government at Dublin over twenty-six of the thirty-two
counties of our country, that is, over three of the four
historic provinces of Ireland and one third of the fourth
province, Ulster, the position of the Government in the six
North Eastern Counties remained one of subordination to
Britain. The 1920 Act installed a régime in power in the six
counties with tragic results, to which the whole world is
now witness. The division of Ireland was a poor and
unimaginative arrangement which, like other similar
arrangements before and since, contained within it the seeds
of perpetual dissension and discontent.
70. We believe that the division of Ireland and the present
denial of human rights to the minority in the six counties
are intimately interrelated, and until both issues are
honourably resolved there can be no true and lasting peace.
It must not be forgotten that the Government of Ireland
Act of 1920, although responsible for the present situation,
explicitly envisaged the reunification of Ireland. Indeed,
when he formally opened the Northern Parliament in June
1921, the late King George V of England expressed the
hope that this step would prove to be no more than
“the prelude of the day in which the Irish people,
North and South, under one parliament or two, as those
parliaments may themselves decide, shall work together in
common love for Ireland upon the sure foundation of
mutual justice and respect”.
71. It was a hope which reflected the conviction expressed
some years earlier by the then British Prime Minister,
Mr. Asquith, that “Ireland is a nation; not two nations, but
one nation“. He went on to say:
“There are few cases in history, and as a student of
history in a humble way, I myself know none, of a
nationality at once so distinct, so persistent, and so
assimilative as the Irish”.
72. I have already said that it is the policy of my
Government to seek the reunification of Ireland by
peaceful means. In so stating I am but echoing what has
often been said elsewhere by those qualified to speak for
the Irish people, and most recently by our Prime Minister a
few days ago. The unity we seek, he declared, is not
something forced but a free and genuine union of those
living in Ireland, based on mutual respect and tolerance and
guaranteed by a form or forms of government in Ireland
providing for progressive improvement of social, economic
and cultural life in a just and peaceful environment.
73. The united Ireland we desire is one in which there
would be a scrupulously fair deal for all. Differences in
political outlook or religious belief need not set people
apart. They exist in most countries and they are no barrier
to effective and constructive co-operation. The real barriers
are those created by fear, suspicion and intolerance.
74. Reiterating what the Prime Minister stated on that
occasion, I may say that the events of the past months have
made it evident to all that while disrupting the unity of
Ireland the 1920 devolution of powers has not provided a
system of government acceptable, as fair and just, to very
many of the people in Northern Ireland. The truth and
validity of this assertion are amply demonstrated by a
recent objective report. I refer, of course, to the report of
the Commission appointed by the Belfast Administration
and headed by the distinguished Scottish judge, Lord
Cameron. The report makes clear the urgent need for change.
75. We are concerned that the grievances of so many of
our fellow Irish men and women be quickly remedied and
their fears set at rest. We also have a legitimate concern
regarding the disposition to be made by the British
Government in relation to the future administration of
Northern Ireland. Our views on how peace and justice can
be assured in our small island are relevant and entitled to be
heard. Our direct interest in this matter has been recognized
publicly by the British Prime Minister, Mr. Harold Wilson.
76. Speaking at the Council of Europe in Strasbourg in
January 1967, Mr. Wilson said:
“I know, just as my predecessors, that no one would be
happier than Great Britain if this problem were solved by
agreement within the Emerald Isle. I am sure that I am
speaking for everyone in expressing the hope that over
the next few years we shall see an intensification of the
process of coming together which has begun during the
last three or four years“.
And, again, Mr. Wilson referred to
“the real duty of all those in Northern and Southern
Ireland, without propaganda and with a genuine desire to
solve the problems, to get together and solve the Irish
problem so that” — as he expressed it — “we can all express
our warm blessing to them for solving it“.
77. These are generous sentiments. At the same time we
must not overlook the fact that the ultimate responsibility
for the present situation in Northern Ireland rests in
London. The British Government has recognized this. It is
our earnest hope that the British Government will persevere
in its determination to see that the necessary reforms in the
North — the reforms which are required by the United
Nations Charter — are speedily and irreversibly effected and
that they will soon come to deal with the root cause.
Because of our direct interest in these questions, it would
be only natural that the British and Irish Governments,
both Members of the United Nations, should consult and
work together in the spirit of the Charter in order to arrive
at a just and lasting solution.
78. If I have spoken at some length about the problem of
Northern Ireland, the reason is that the partition of our
country, a historic unit, has been a constant — indeed a
major — preoccupation of our people, whether at home or in
the many lands in which great numbers of them now reside.
That my Government has felt constrained to raise the
matter formally now is due to the gravity which the
situation has assumed in these last months. The question,
we genuinely believe, is one which is a proper concern of
the United Nations, involving as it does infringements of
the principles of the Charter.
79. Before concluding I wish to say how deeply touched
the Irish delegation was by the very friendly reference to
our problem made by the Foreign Ministers of France
[1763rd meeting] and Iceland [1762nd meeting], two
countries for which the Irish nation has a warm sympathy
arising from ties of kinship and of intercourse extending
over many centuries.
80. I conclude by expressing the most earnest hope that
the deliberations of this session of the Assembly will be a
source of encouragement and help to resolve their last
outstanding problem between two close neighbours.