64. Madam President,
it gives me great pleasure to congratulate you on your
election. Your experience and personal charm will ensure
that we shall get on with our work in an atmosphere of
confidence and good humour. Relations between my
country and yours have always been of the happiest, and
the United Kingdom was the first country in the world to
recognize the new State of Liberia in 1848.
65. I must also express my sorrow at the untimely death
of the last President of the General Assembly, Mr. Emilio
Arenales. None of us will forget the skill and the courage
with which he conducted the proceedings of the Assembly
at its twenty-third session while he was already in the grip
of a fatal disease.
66. To my regret, Madam President, I was not able to be
here to listen to your opening speech, but I have read it
since with close interest. May I quote one passage. You
said:
“...many of us tend to go happily from one agenda
item to the next without seriously considering the
possibility or even probability that the resolution adopted
will not be implemented.” [1753rd meeting, para. 54]
67. With this my Government warmly concurs. We ought
not to use words unless we believe they will produce
actions, and unless we believe that the result of those
actions will be practical and in accordance with our clear
capacity. It is all the more important to remember this in
view of the vast number of problems which surround the
United Nations—so many of them still unsolved and, in
consequence, causing those who observe the work of the
United Nations to fear that the Organization may become
impotent. Of these problems I shall deal with some in my
speech; time forbids that I should try to deal with them all,
but if I select some as examples, I trust it will not be
supposed that I underrate the importance, both in politics
and morality, of those which I cannot mention today.
68. We are surrounded by a jungle of problems. What must
we do to cut a path for mankind through that jungle?
First, we must make our procedure more businesslike. How
can we do our work with an agenda as congested as that
which now lies before us? Next, in deciding what we
should discuss we must exercise foresight; that is to say, we
must be ready to concentrate on new problems, such as
outer space, the human environment, and the peaceful uses
of the sea-bed. There are also new aspects of old problems
for example, the present state of the discussion over
disarmament in the realm of chemical and biological
warfare.
69. As to the sea-bed, the complexity of this issue,
apparent in the light of the work already done, increases
the need for Member States to formulate their policies. This
is particularly true for the questions of the limits of
national jurisdiction and the nature of the régime to govern
activities beyond those limits. For our part, we believe that
the best way to provide a firm legal basis for exploitation of
the sea-bed would be to set up a régime by international
agreement. This should offer advantages to all, giving
effective protection to the interests both of the signatories
and of those engaged in exploiting the natural resources of
the sea-bed. It should encourage full use of the potential of
that area of the globe. United Kingdom representatives
both in this Assembly and on the sea-bed Committee, will
do all they can to speed agreements to this end.
70. As to chemical and biological warfare, the United
Kingdom has submitted during the present session of the
Conference of the Committee on Disarmament a practical
draft convention prohibiting biological methods of warfare
We see this as a first move towards dealing with biological
and chemical weapons, and we shall study with close
interest the proposals put forward by my colleague
Mr. Gromyko in the statement he made to this Assembly
[1756th meeting].
71. Let me pursue this subject of disarmament in the spirit
of U Thant’s call for a Disarmament Decade. The Secretary-General,
in the introduction to his annual report on
the work of the Organization [A/7601/Add.1], made it
clear that the most urgent problem facing the world, and
particularly facing the Governments of the United States of
America and the Soviet Union, is to find some way of
halting the nuclear arms race. I was glad to hear
Mr. Gromyko say that his Government attached great
importance to restraining a strategic arms race; I hope that
very shortly we shall hear that a date has been fixed for
opening discussions on this subject between the Governments
of the United States and the USSR. We have recently
seen how much good can be achieved when agreement is
reached between these two, the most powerful countries in
the world; I am referring to the Treaty on the Non-Proliferation
of Nuclear Weapons [resolution 2372 (XXII)], in
the drafting of which the United Kingdom can also claim to
have played a creditable part. The United Kingdom has
signed and ratified this Treaty. We hove that signatures and
ratifications of one nation after another will proceed
rapidly.
72. Mr. Gromyko also pointed out the mutual relationship
between disarmament and security. Every agreement on
disarmament reduces the suspicions that torment the world
and makes further progress to peace easier. Any arrangements
which can be made to increase security make every
nation more willing to consider disarmament. We must not
therefore say that we cannot proceed on one of these
problems until the other is solved. We have to make
progress concurrently on them both.
73. I have said that, first, we must make our procedure
more businesslike and second, we must exercise foresight.
The third requirement is that we must resolve to show in
our actions respect for resolutions adopted by the Security
Council. I say this having in mind two problems which are
not problems for the future but which hang round us
today, unsolved and threatening. These are Rhodesia and
the Middle East.
74. In Rhodesia, the illegal régime remains in power,
having rejected the repeated offers made by Britain of
terms designed to secure an honourable settlement. It
remains in power, a tyranny, unashamedly based on racial
doctrines. All tyrannies are odious, but at the present point
in history those based on racial doctrines are the most
odious and the most dangerous. Mankind is distinguished
from the brutes by his capacity for compassion, for justice
and for reason. To tyrannize over anyone is to depart from
compassion. To deny anyone his political rights is to depart
from justice. But to do these things on the basis of bogus
theories of racial supremacy is to depart from reason as
well.
75. But although this régime remains at present in power,
it lives in isolation from the world, earning the detestation
of the world and cut off by the operation of sanctions from
the bright economic future which should be the birthright
of its peoples but which is denied to them by the operation
of racial doctrines. We in the United Kingdom have made
very clear the legal and diplomatic nature of this isolation.
The Governor, Sir Humphrey Gibbs, having served most
valiantly, has now rightly resigned his Office. We have
recalled our mission from Salisbury. Rhodesia House in
London stands empty. These were right and necessary
measures. What more needs to be done? I know there is a
body of opinion in this Assembly which believes that the
United Kingdom should use force to bring down this
régime. But to light the torch of war in southern Africa
would lead to every kind of terrible consequence without
any guarantee whatever that the outcome would be swifter
or politically more desirable than could be achieved by the
present course of action, that is to say, the steady and
resolute application of sanctions. This is why I have spoken
of the importance of observing Security Council resolutions.
There stands on our records resolution 253 (1968)
of 29 May 1968. From that resolution sprang a Committee
charged with the supervision of sanctions. All Member
States should do everything in their power to co-operate
with that Committee. The Government of the United
Kingdom, mindful of its special responsibility, has given
maximum assistance. We have so far submitted over fifty
reports of cases of suspected sanctions’ breaking. The
action taken by the Committee on these reports has been
encouraging and in an increasing number of cases has
frustrated Rhodesian exports. It is on these lines we must
proceed. To pass resolutions demanding the use of force, or
demanding a total economic confrontation with other
States in southern Africa, is to commit the error against
which you, Madam President, warned us in the passage of
your speech which I quoted earlier. It would be particularly
foolish to commit this error when we have near to our
hands a practical and effective way of proceeding, which is
to see that the important resolution 253 (1968) is rigorously
observed both in letter and in spirit.
76. I turn now to another and even more urgent problem,
that of the Middle East. Since we all discussed it a year ago,
there has been much diplomatic activity and unhappily
little progress. And meanwhile there has been continuing
violence. The cease-fire has in fact broken down. There
have been many acts of violence in which hundreds of lives
have been lost and thousands of lives have been disrupted
and distorted. All this violence makes future settlement
even more difficult to obtain. Yet a comprehensive political
settlement is essential.
77. Let me say something about the method, the form and
the content of a settlement. As to method, we had hoped
that the patient work of Mr. Jarring would succeed.
Certainly through no fault of his, it has not brought
success. So when early in this year it was proposed that the
representatives of the United States, the Soviet Union,
France and the United Kingdom should meet, we gladly
accepted that proposal. Since then, there have been
discussions between the United States and the Soviet
Union. Now the view of my Government is that we should
not be dogmatic as to the method of settlement. Consultations
of four Powers or of two Powers, the work, in
co-operation with them of Mr. Jarring, may all be helpful—
and if at any stage with the help of Mr. Jarring the parties
to the dispute could get into discussion, so much the better.
In our view nobody ought to say, “We rule out any
particular method”, and nobody ought to say, “We insist
on one method and one method alone”. If at any time one
method proves impossible, we must all be prepared to try
others.
78. Next, as to the form of the settlement: this must place
inescapable obligations on all the parties to live at peace.
with each other and to respect each other’s frontiers, and to
these obligations all parties must be manifestly and irrevocably
committed.
79. Third, the content of a settlement: here again, we
must remember the importance of respecting Security
Council resolutions. The content of the settlement must
put into effect all the provisions of the important resolution
[242(1967)] passed in November 1967—withdrawal, just and
lasting peace, and indeed everything in that resolution.
The problem has been to fashion from that resolution a workable
package, or programme or list of parallel actions to be
performed by the parties—use whatever term you please—
which would ensure that all the provisions of the
resolution would be carried out. Now surely respect for the
resolution means this; that when anyone, any nation, is
attempting to frame such a package he must say to himself,
“I will not reject any particular proposal merely because I
think it would be distasteful to any party to the dispute to whom.
I may be favourably disposed. I will rather ask myself about any
proposal these questions: ‘Is it fair, is it workable, will it be
durable, is it in conformity with the Security Council
resolution?’ ” This is the spirit in which anyone who
attempts to play any part in solving the problem must
urgently approach his task. And the parties concerned must
realize that this is so; they must not expect any nation
whether in four-Power or two-Power talks, or any other
forum, to act merely as an advocate. They must act more
constructively than that.
80. I have mentioned two problems with which the United
Nations is vitally concerned. There are other problems to
which unhappily the skill and experience of the United
Nations have not been applied. Viet-Nam is one of these.
On this let me say at once how much I welcomed President
Nixon’s statement to the Assembly [1755th meeting]. He
made it clear that as part of a final and fair settlement the
United States would withdraw all its troops and that
meanwhile the United States was making an immediate
withdrawal of some of them. It would be a blow to peace
and to atl the purposes for which the United Nations stands
if such constructive gestures by the United States were
ignored or misunderstood. We must, therefore, ask for
equal statesmanship from those on the other side.
81. But, as President Nixon further pointed out, it is not
only on the battlefield that violence and cruelty occur. We
have now throughout the world piracy in the air, bomb
outrages, arson, kidnapping and other acts of reckless
cruelty. The world is in danger of reaching that condition
which Shakespeare described:
Blood and destruction shall be so in use
And dreadful objects so familiar
That mothers shall but smile when they behold
Their infants quartered with the hands of war,
All pity choked with custom of fell deeds.
82. Is not that how so many of us feel when we read the
news from so many parts of the world morning after
morning; is not that the condition to which we all fear we
may be coming?
83. If any person or any nation imagines that any cause in
which they believe can be forwarded by acts of this kind,
then let them take note that lawless violence is a wolf that
can come to every door. There are many grievances in the
world; there are many causes in which men and nations
believe; but if everyone who has a grievance to proclaim or
a cause to promote assumes that he can do so by piracy and
murder, then no nation and no individual are safe. We must,
therefore, have international action to deal with this
menace.
84. But if part of our work is to try to end conflict and to
restrain violence, another and more hopeful part of our
work is to develop the possibilities of peace. I want
therefore to say something about the problem of world
poverty.
85. First, let us not despair. This is a terrible problem, but
we have made progress. The First Development Decade,
which lasts until the end of 1970, has the target of a 5 per
cent growth rate of gross national product for the developing
countries. By 1968, two years before the end of the
Decade, that growth was, on the average, 4.7 per cent. We
cannot say therefore that the Decade has been a failure.
Yet, although we must not despair, neither must we be
complacent. That average growth rate which I mentioned
conceals, as all averages do, wide ranges. In some countries
the growth has been so devoured by population increase
that the average man in those countries will feel that no
progress has been made. Next, let us realize that the
struggle against world poverty must be a joint effort by the
richer and more fortunate countries and by the developing
countries. For example, it is for the developing countries to
mobilize the domestic savings which must finance the
greater part of their development. It is for them to ensure
the efficient and equitable collection of taxes. It is for them
to pursue proper policies in the field of population.
86. These are the things which nations must do for
themselves. But the international part of the job remains
vital. All of us must ensure that the methods of the
international Organization are efficient and economical. We
await with interest the reports of Mr. Lester Pearson on
development aid and of Sir Robert Jackson on the capacity
of the United Nations development system. I hope we can
all agree that those reports should be thoroughly and
urgently discussed and necessary changes introduced without
delay.
87. But there is no good in talking about reports and
policies unless we are prepared—particularly those of us in
the richer countries of the world—to do something practical.
The United Kingdom Prime Minister gave a pledge
very recently that our Government would not reduce its
development aid programme. As our resources permit, we
shall try to raise the already substantial level of our
voluntary contributions to the development assistance
which is provided through United Nations channels. Last
year I said here that we were increasing our contribution to
the United Nations Development Programme in 1969. We
shall make a further increase of half a million pounds in our
pledge for 1970, bringing our total contribution to nearly
£6 million. We also propose to increase our contribution to
the United Nations Children’s Fund. Taxpayers in the
richer countries of the world sometimes complain about
contributions of this kind, and of course they are entitled
to claim that those contributions should be efficiently used.
But we must all be prepared to say to those who doubt the
wisdom or the necessity of aid: “Do you want to live in a
peaceful, civilized world?” Everyone who is asked this
question answers yes. What we all have to understand is
that if we want to live in a peaceful, civilized world, we
must be prepared to pay a fair rent for it; and the fair rent
for living in a peaceful, civilized world is a sustained.
informed and practical concern for the welfare of mankind
and, in particular, for those who have so far lived in the
degradation of poverty.
88. One thing remains to be said. I have spoken of the
need to make our procedure businesslike, to exercise
foresight, to respect Security Council resolutions, to apply
ourselves generously and imaginatively to the problem of
poverty. The thing that remains and that gives life and spirit
to all this is respect for human rights. The Charter requires.
this; we all believe or profess to believe in human rights.
First, these rights are important to the individual; a man is
not completely a man if he cannot think as he pleases,
speak his mind, organize peacefully for the ideas in which
he believes. But these human rights are not only something
which the individual ought to have; they are essential for
the progress of the human race. Mr. Gromyko referred to
the tremendous and beneficial impact on mankind of the
ideas of Copernicus, Galileo and Einstein. Fortunately for
Copernicus he lived at a time and in a place where new
thought, challenging accepted philosophy, could be published
and discussed. Even poor Galileo, despite his sufferings,
lived in a world where his ideas could be proclaimed
and not suppressed. Fortunately for Einstein he was able to
escape from the tyranny of the Nazis to the freedom, first
of Britain and later of America. For us in Britain, as for so
many countries in the Commonwealth, freedom and democracy
are not a mere mechanical process of votes and
elections; they are an assertion of human rights. In Britain
we do not claim to have a philosophy which provides, with
blind, dogmatic certainty, all the answers to all the
problems. On the contrary, we assert that no one knows yet
what the right answers are to all the problems. Therefore it
is important to keep the doors open to new ideas, the
windows open to the fresh air of new thought. Only by
such tolerance and freedom can mankind hope to advance.
Further, we do not claim that there are no defects in our
country, that there are no matters about which people may
not justifiably complain. What we do claim is that every
dissatisfaction, every grievance, can be the subject of free
discussion and, finally, of democratic decision.
89. Give me your indulgence if, in this connexion, I
mention one particular British problem, that of Gibraltar:
small on the map, small in its population, but of great
importance for the principles involved. The people of
Gibraltar have the right to say what they think, to agree or
disagree with each other as they see fit, and to choose for
themselves whether they will live under British sovereignty
or under that of another. This is right; this is in accordance
with the Charter. It is this which it is Britain’s duty to
defend.
90. But the main issue of human rights goes far beyond
this particular problem. I have referred to some of the
problems which threaten mankind. To each of them we
must try to apply the resources of diplomacy and the
techniques of the United Nations. But on the great scale,
mankind will not solve its problems unless the human spirit
is left free. I have described how deeply we in Britain are
committed to that principle. I know very well that this is
not true of us alone: that many other nations, in many
times and places, have defended this principle. But my
country, often at great risk, has done its best to hold the
door open for freedom of thought and the entry of new
ideas. Unless that door remains open, the United Nations
can not fulfil its purposes.