Australia

As an Australian, I am particularly glad to congratulate Sir Leslie Munro of New Zealand upon his election as President of the General Assembly. We know his ability and integrity and his long experience of the United Nations. The ties that bind Australia and New Zealand are strong. We have been close partners in peace and in war and in institutions designed as a deterrent to war. It is therefore a great satisfaction to us that the United Nations has chosen to honour one of our closest friends. 2. Our retiring President, Prince Wan Waithayakon of Thailand, has had an historic, as well as a most difficult, session of the Assembly. He has conducted our turbulent business with outstanding wisdom and distinction. 3. I also wish to take this opportunity to pay tribute to the Secretary-General, Mr. Hammerskjold, whose counsel has for the last five years been at the disposal of this Organization and will, we hope, continue to be so. 4. Apart from the resumed eleventh session on the problem of Hungary, which ended two weeks ago, it is only six months since we ended that most strenuous series of meetings at the end of 1956 and early 1957. This has been a momentous period. The last session of the General Assembly saw the withdrawal of the British, French and Israel forces from the Suez and Sinai areas in conformity with the views of the great majority of countries here in the General Assembly. 5. By contrast, at the same time the voice of world opinion was disregarded and treated with contempt by the Soviet Union when it ruthlessly crushed the spontaneous attempt of the Hungarian people to regain their liberty. 6. Last week [684th meeting], the Minister of Foreign Affairs of the Soviet Union urged the Assembly to adopt a declaration on the principles of peaceful coexistence between States. Mr. Gromyko proposed that five principles should be enshrined in a declaration to which all Members of the United Nations should adhere. These five principles are as follows: mutual respect for one another's territorial integrity and sovereignty; non-aggression; non-intervention in one another’s domestic affairs on any economic, political or ideological grounds whatsoever; equality and mutual benefit; and finally, peaceful coexistence. My only comment on this proposal at the moment is that, in the light of what the Soviet Union did to Hungary, this declaration, coming from the lips of the Foreign Minister of the Soviet Union, must represent the last word in callous cynicism. 7. I expect we have all read the report on Hungary [A/3592] prepared by the five-nation Special Committee on the Problem of Hungary, appointed by the General Assembly. To those who have not, I would commend it, particularly chapters II and XVII. It is one of the most important documents of our times. It is not a document of opinion, but of established facts, put together by the representatives of five small countries representative of every important part of the world. It reflects the true nature of the communist system of government and of the way the Soviet Union exercises its control over the internal affairs of countries that are in its grip. This five-nation report on the dreadful events in Hungary in October and November 1956 has been endorsed by an overwhelming vote in the Assembly. 8. I would expect that the Hungarian episode — to call it that -- and this report will have represented a greater setback for Soviet communism than anything that has happened in the last generation. It has shown that communism is detested even by those who have grown up under its shadow and who have known no other form of government. It has shown the Soviet Union that the sixty or seventy divisions, or whatever they are, of mercenary forces levied in the European satellite countries cannot be relied upon to support communism in time of war. 9. Perhaps more than all this, it has opened the eyes of the so-called uncommitted peoples of the world to the true nature of communism. The peoples of every country have put themselves, in their minds, in the place of the unfortunate people of Hungary. When we are asked what the United Nations has done to help Hungary, we can only say that we have done something to expose the true nature of communism and perhaps to make it more difficult for this sort of horror to happen again. 10. We Australians do not believe that the present regime in Hungary represents the Hungarian people. We believe that the so-called delegation of Hungary has no right to be amongst us here. I may say that Australia has welcomed 15,000 Hungarian refugees as immigrants in the last nine months and we are in the process of enabling them to reconstruct their lives in our country. On a population basis, Australia has taken a larger number of Hungarian immigrant refugees than any other country in the world. 11. I now turn to the great question of disarmament. This is a problem in which every ordinary man and woman in every country has an interest. Unlike some of the matters with which we deal, which are of primary concern to one or two nations or a group of nations, the problem of disarmament is of paramount concern to every human being. The average man lives in the shadow of the fear that at any moment the world may be plunged into its death throes. 12. In the simplest terms, what every man wants, above all else, is to avoid another war. The mere reduction of armaments is not an and in itself; but it is an essential beginning. The world is bedevilled by the profound distrust and suspicion which underlie the failure up to now of the great opposing power groups to make real progress towards peace. The problem of disarmament is the nub of the greatest problem of mankind at the present time. 13. There is nothing to be gained by a vague optimism on a question as important as this. Nor should we mislead the peoples of the world by failing to deal with the realities. During 1957 we have seen some reason for hope in the work of the Sub-Committee of the Disarmament Commission. We hoped that the eleven years of stalemate in disarmament negotiations might be replaced by a limited agreement acceptable to the great Powers. Hope gave way to disappointment when the Soviet representative on the Sub-Committee refused to consider anything but the Soviet Union's own version of a first step in disarmament. 14. The Assembly has no doubt listened with great interest and close attention to the outline given by Mr. Dulles [680th meeting] of the joint proposals submitted by the Western members of the Sub-Committee on 29 August 1957/DC/113, annex 5]. These are: reciprocal inspection, by air and land, to safeguard against surprise attack; the suspension of the production of fissionable material for weapons under an adequate control system, and the progressive transfer of existing stocks of such materials to peaceful uses; the suspension of nuclear-weapons tests for two years and thereafter if the rest of the agreed programme is moving ahead as planned; the study of ways of ensuring that outer space is not used for military purposes; a beginning in the reduction of forces and the depositing of existing armaments in internationally supervised depots. These five points do not favour one side or the other. They should commend themselves to all those who want to reduce the possibility of war. 15. As we all know, the first reaction of the Soviet Government to these proposals was a hostile one. Heaven knows why. Is it too much to hope that the Soviet Union will, even now, listen to the voice of world opinion expressed through this Assembly? 16. The proposals and the interpretation made before the General Assembly by the USSR representative will no doubt be discussed in detail in the First Committee. I will confine myself here to a few observations. 17. The proposals made by Mr. Gromyko, were made to sound persuasive, but they do not seem to advance the discussion. They brought before the Assembly again ideas and arguments which the Assembly and the Sub-Committee of the Disarmament Commission have heard before and which have always been found to have a fatal flaw, that is, the lack of effective means of supervision. Once again the Soviet Union professes to be willing to forswear the use of nuclear weapons and to suspend nuclear tests if others will do the same. But a mere declaration that nuclear weapons will neither be used nor tested is not enough. 18. In the Australian view a disarmament agreement not accompanied by an adequate system of inspection and control would be worthless; but the Soviet Union has never been willing to accept the safeguards which would be necessary to ensure that a ban on the use of nuclear weapons would have any meaning. We do not ask that our word be trusted. Neither should we be asked to trust the word of the Soviet Union. 19. The very consistency of the Soviet Union's refusal to agree to international inspection and control naturally raises the suspicion that it has something to hide. 20. The Soviet Union attacks the "open skies" proposal [DC/71. annex 17] on the grounds that aerial inspection is really a means for the collection of military intelligence. Yet surely President Eisenhower's offer of reciprocal aerial inspection in order to ensure against surprise attack is one of the most hopeful ideas that has emerged from these long years of discussion on disarmament. The nuclear weapon puts a premium on massive attack delivered without warning, in the hope that the victim would be prostrated at once and incapable of launching retaliation in kind. The possibility of complete surprise would thus eliminate the deterrent. But complete surprise would at least be made more difficult under an "open skies" system of reciprocal aerial inspection. The United States has been ready to agree on an "open skies" system in order to render surprise attack unlikely. But the Soviet Union is not willing. This has been our constant experience. 21. I must confess, therefore, that when I think about the attitude of the Soviet Union towards the problems of disarmament I sometimes come pretty close to despair. But in dealing with a matter of such far-reaching and outstanding importance, despair is something that none of us can allow himself to entertain. We must keep trying, whatever the difficulties. 22. A more hopeful development in these past six months — and one that has been strongly criticized by the Soviet Union — has been the European Common Market Treaty and the associated proposals for a European free trade area. 23. Europe has passed through difficult years since the end of the Second World War in 1945. The worst of those difficulties has been relieved by generous assistance from the United States. Flowing from this there has been a growth of a new spirit of co-operation in Western and Central Europe, a new recognition of mutual dependence and common interests. 24. For many years far-sighted Europeans have dreamed of the day when the trade barriers between European countries would be lowered, and the free movement of goods across the political frontiers would facilitate the increase in productivity that is essential to the raising of living standards. 25. With the adoption of the plans for a European Common Market this better day is now dawning. Western Europe, once itself the target of communist aspirations, is showing a way to be prosperous and at the same time free. The economic recovery of Europe is already well advanced, and the foundations are now being laid for an increase in production and trade in Europe that will not only bring greater prosperity and security to its peoples, but also will renew and expand its capacity to assist the economic development of other regions of the world. 26. We in Australia welcome this development. While we have special interests of great importance as large-scale exporters of agricultural products and raw materials, which we must conserve, we nevertheless see great promise in the constructive efforts that Western Europe and the United Kingdom are making to create by stages a powerful and prosperous European economic community by means of a common market and a free trade area in combination. 27. We rejoice in the new hope that this development brings to the peoples of Europe. We realize very well the importance of European economic progress as a factor in the political stability and security of the whole world. We know, too, that in the course of time Europe’s progress will bring new opportunities for trade with many overseas countries. 28. I would hope that, along with the growth of Europe's economic strength, there will come a quickening of interest throughout Europe in the problems and needs, for instance, of Asia. In the past, Europe has contributed substantially to the development of Asian countries through capital, enterprise and special skills. But the needs of Asia are very great. I hope that we shall see an increasing participation by Europe in the providing of technical and other assistance to the under-developed countries of Asia. 29. In referring to the European picture, let me also stress Australia's interest in the question of German reunification. We feel that Europe is prevented, from fulfilling its important role in world affairs while one of its greatest countries is subject to an artificial division, which we all know does not accord with the wishes of its people, and especially the people of east Germany. 30. As one considers the attitude of the Soviet Union towards European co-operation, as well as its stand on other issues, one is impelled to reflect once again upon the Soviet protestation of support for the principles of "peaceful coexistence". It should now be abundantly clear to the world that when the Soviet Union uses the phrase "peaceful coexistence", it has in mind something different from the ordinary meaning of the term. As Dr. Johnson said, "Sir, you must define your terms." 31. Two years ago I tried to frame a definition of this phrase. I said: "…coexistence must mean that no one country or group of countries shall attempt by force of arms to harass or subdue another ... no country shall attempt, politically or otherwise, to undermine the allegiance of the people of another country from its government" [620th meeting, para. 25]. I believe that the sense of this definition is what the democracies mean when they use the term "peaceful coexistence". 32. However, we have learned from experience that in communist statements many terms are used which possess a twofold meaning. Taken in their ordinary sense these terms get a generous response from liberal and progressively minded people throughout the world. But we have come to realize that many expressions have a special meaning for those in the Communist countries. The phrase "peaceful coexistence" is one of these. 33. Mr. Khrushchev and other Soviet leaders have thrown light on the Soviet interpretation of "peaceful coexistence" in recent times which makes abundantly clear that this expression means to them something entirely different from what it means to us. To the Russians "peaceful coexistence" is consistent with political, economic and ideological struggle. From what these leaders have said, it is clear that they regard "peaceful coexistence" as a form of "cold warfare" waged against the peoples and Governments of the free world --in other words, anything short of the actual use of force. In fact, the Hungarian experience would seem to mean that even this distorted definition of "peaceful coexistence" does not apply to the relations between the Soviet Union and the members of its European bloc. 34. I take no satisfaction in saying these things. I do so because I believe it is essential that the free world should not be misled by the use of the term "peaceful coexistence" in the mouths of international Communist leaders. 35. In the Middle East, the United Nations still has much unfinished business. It is true that the Suez Canal has been reopened at an earlier date and at less cost that was originally expected. This was made possible first by those Governments — including that of Australia — which made advances to the United Nations in the form of temporary finance, and secondly by the efforts of the Secretary-General and his staff, with the able assistance of Lieutenant-General Raymond A. Wheeler. The world's trade and shipping is again moving through the Canal, but under protest, for the Egyptian Government is operating the Canal under the terms of a unilateral declaration made by Egypt on 13 July 1957 that falls short of the six principles unanimously approved by the Security Council last October [S/3675]. In the long run, it is in Egypt's own interest that the whole world should have confidence that the Canal will be available to all nations and that it will not be affected by arbitrary decisions of the Egyptian Government. 36. The relations between Israel and its Arab neighbours underline the precarious nature of the peace in the Middle East. I wish to pay a tribute to Canada and to those other countries which contributed to the strength of the United Nations Emergency Force under the direction of General E.L.M. Burns of Canada, and to the efforts of the United Nations Truce Supervision Organization in Palestine; also to the United Nations Relief and Works Agency for Palestine Refugees in the Near East. These field organizations of the United Nations have played a significant role in the continuing task of keeping the peace against a background of deep-seated emotional tensions. 37. Perhaps no region of the world stands in greater need than the Middle East of a period of calm, a cooling-off period, in which men of goodwill can seek solutions to the problems that have so often threatened to engulf Israel and its neighbours in a major war. This is the moment which the Soviet Union chooses to go fishing in these troubled waters. The rise of a Communist-dominated regime in Syria, and the remarks of the Soviet representative in the Assembly, are danger signals that the other countries of the Middle East and, indeed, of the whole world, dare not ignore. Once again the Assembly must affirm the right of nations to settle their own affairs and be ready to condemn aggressive policies. The United Nations would not wish to see another Hungary in the Middle East. 38. Let us remember what Mr. Selwyn Lloyd, the British Foreign Secretary, told us yesterday [685th meeting] about the recent official Soviet broadcasts and Press statements bitterly attacking the Governments of Jordan, Lebanon, Iraq and Iran and calling on the peoples of those countries to rise up and overthrow their Governments. Each of these vicious attacks was broadcast in the language of the country concerned, and was beamed by radio at that country. 39. I would like to ask the Soviet Foreign Minister how he explains these deliberate and malicious attempts to interfere in the most provocative possible way with the internal affairs of these countries of the Middle East? I would like to ask him how he squares this dangerous, subversive propaganda with his sponsorship of a draft declaration on "peaceful coexistence" [A/36731. calling upon us all to refrain from interference in each others domestic affairs for any motives of an economic, political or ideological character? If the Soviet Union hopes to be able to hold its head up in the General Assembly, these things need explaining, if they can be explained. 40. On the other side of the balance sheet, there have been, in these last six months, two events which give us all, I am sure, satisfaction. I refer to the admission of the free and independent, sovereign countries of Ghana and the Federation of Malaya to the United Nations. As the representative of Canada said [678th meeting], it is a satisfaction to see a colony turned into a nation, like Ghana and the Federation of Malaya, instead of a nation turned into a colony, like Hungary. 41. Those of us who have been members of the Commonwealth for many years have been encouraged by the spontaneity with which former members of the British Empire which have recently gained independence have sought membership in the Commonwealth. The Assembly must have been impressed by the generous references to the Commonwealth which were made last week by the representatives of Ghana and of the Federation of Malaya. 42. One aspect of our growing Commonwealth that strikes me as particularly important is that, as former colonies achieve self-government in the Commonwealth, they establish not only their independence in relation to the United Kingdom, but also a new relation of equal status and direct co-operation with the other members of the Commonwealth, an equality and cooperation that cut across all differences in race and culture. We in Australia value very highly this direct association with each and every member of the Commonwealth, and we believe it brings us all mutual benefits. 43. In the United Nations, as in our direct dealings with each other, it is our practice to maintain close consultation. But the Commonwealth is not a bloc or a caucus that works out a course of action that all members are bound to follow. It is well known that we do not vote as a bloc, for it is our tradition to appraise problems on their merits. 44. I am glad to state that Australia is continuing to play its part in the support of the international voluntary aid programmes of the United Nations. Subject to parliamentary approval, it is the Australian Government's intention to pursue the following plan of contributions: to the Expanded Programme of Technical Assistance for 1958, $625,000 — this is an increase of 25 per cent over our pledge for 1957; to the United Nations Children's Fund for 1957, $502,000 — this is an increase of $54,000 on Australia's contribution last year; to the United Nations Relief and Works Agency for Palestine Refugees in the Near East for the twelve months ending 30 June 1958, $112,000; to the United Nations Refugee Fund for 1957, $112,000. 45. As many will be aware, Australia is in addition making a substantial contribution to the success of the Colombo Plan. In the financial year 1957-1958 the Australian Government hopes, with parliamentary approval, to appropriate over $11.5 million for this purpose. 46. Australia has made sustained efforts to assist the people of Hungary by practical means. In addition to the $290,000 which we gave nine months ago, we will in the current year provide $56,000 for assistance to refugees from Hungary. 47. Asa developing country, Australia has many calls on its financial resources, but within the limits of our ability, Australia will continue to be a loyal supporter of international voluntary aid programmes. 48. Before I finish, let me say a few words about all this business of international affairs as it must appear to the ordinary man and woman. After all, we here in the United Nations are not supermen who have interests that are above and apart from those of the peoples of the countries that we represent. We are ordinary human beings who are, for the time being, trying to do the best we can in the interests of the survival of our respective peoples and of their progress towards a better life. It can be put, I think, as simply as that. Yet the results are often most disappointing. 49. The average human being treats other average human beings with reasonable courtesy, honesty and directness. He finds it difficult to understand why nations cannot also so treat each other. There can be distrust between individual human beings, as there can be, and unfortunately is, between nations, whether justified or not. Such international distrust may, and probably does, exist because one country is fearful of attack by another. This presumably is at the basis of the as yet unsolved problem of disarmament - indeed I can say that I hope it is, because there is another and more awful alternative, which, pray God, is an unjustified thought, and that is that the Soviet Union may have it in mind to attack and to attempt to overwhelm the West by sudden and colossal violence before existing weapons of retaliation can be brought into action, and so seek to implement its stated aim of communizing the world. The evidence of the discussions of the past few years in the Sub-Committee o? the Disarmament Commission could be so interpreted. One hopes that this interpretation may be wrong, because if this were the basic reality, then there would be no future for the world. 50. But, on the more charitable view that the attitude of the Soviet Union towards the limitation of armaments is based on the fear of being attacked by the West if it makes a false move, however unjustified this fear may be, I cannot bring myself to believe that this situation cannot be resolved. I cannot believe that the wit of man cannot devise fool-proof and knave-proof safeguards that will enable the threat of the use of nuclear weapons and even of the use of so-called conventional forces to be progressively whittled down, without risk to either side. 51. We all know the importance of atmosphere, of the climate of the relationship between two individuals or two nations or two groups of nations. Biting or offensive words during the course of a negotiation can bedevil the chance of agreement. If each side sincerely wants to diminish the chance of war, if each side wants the limitation of armaments, then surely it could be tacitly understood that neither should attack the good faith of the other in respect of any particular disarmament proposals, even if it does not like them. It is perfectly possible to say that you cannot agree with a certain proposal without doing so in terms that give deep offence to the other side. 52. Let us have a moratorium, a truce, an armistice, in respect of name-calling, which, after all, has only a momentary effect, until the other side thinks of a more wounding piece of abuse. 53. This is not the time or the place to put forward specific proposals on disarmament, but I hope that my colleagues will agree that the things I have been trying to say have some basic relevance to this, the greatest current problem of mankind.