Barbados, 1969

62. Madam President, the delegation

of Barbados is happy to join those who have spoken

before in paying a tribute to you on the occasion of your

election to the high office of President of the twenty-fourth

session of the General Assembly. We see you as a

representative, not only of Liberia but of all Africa, and I

do not think I need stress the strong attachment which my

country has both to Liberia and to the great continent of

Africa. Speaking of this, on the last day of the general

debate, not only can I congratulate you on your election to

the presidency, but I can bear witness to the wisdom which

you have brought to your tenure of office.

63. I should also like to pay tribute to your distinguished

predecessor, Mr. Emilio Arenales, whose passing has been a

severe blow to the Americas and to the entire international

community. My delegation would also like to take this

opportunity to thank all those members of the Organization

who demonstrated their confidence in my country by

voting to elect Barbados to one of the Vice-Presidencies of

the twenty-fourth session of the General Assembly.

64. Madam President, in your inaugural address you spoke

very forthrightly of the “gradual decline of the United

Nations in the eyes of public opinion” [1753rd meeting,

para. 47]. It is a theme which has been echoed by other

contributors to the general debate. It is right and natural

that we should concern ourselves with the basic question of

the effectiveness of the Organization to which we belong

and in which we place so many hopes. Indeed, it seems to

us that the essential purpose of these annual gatherings is

precisely to cast a cold eye on the previous year’s

performance and to offer our own views on how to improve

its business in the coming year. Where my delegation parts

company with some of the perennial critics of the United

Nations is at the point where it is suggested that the

Organization has, in some quite mysterious way, failed the

peoples of the world.

65. It seems to us that this kind of criticism is based on

either ignorance or ill will. The ignorance involved is

usually of the utopian kind, with its assumption that the

United Nations is some sort of omnipotent and unreliable

giant who withholds the use of his magic wand whenever he

is in a bad mood. On the other hand, my delegation can see

nothing but ill will in the criticisms which are based on the

assumption that the Organization’s usefulness declines in

direct proportion to its universality; we cannot accept the

old-boy theory of international organization.

66. We categorically reject both interpretations of the role

of our international Organization. We also reject the

spurious analyses that flow from these interpretations. I am

confident that we in Barbados have no illusions about what

this Organization can do and what it cannot do. It is certain

that in the major areas of international politics no

organization can do what its members resolutely prevent it

from doing. The United Nations cannot take a major role in

the solution of the Viet-Nam conflict, because the Powers

which are directly and indirectly involved have, more or less

bluntly, told the Organization “hands off”. The United

Nations has declared Namibia an international territory, but

it cannot enforce this declaration until Great Britain and

the United States are prepared to exert their considerable

power, in any one of the many ways open to them, to turn

the arrogant racists in Pretoria away from their squalid policies.

67. There is a certain irony in recalling that in the debate

on Namibia held in this hall a little over two years ago, it

was the representative of the United States who called on

the international community to take concrete, effective and

practical measures in order to implement the Assembly’s

resolution on what was then called South West Africa. The

unwary must be asking indignantly why the United Nations

has never responded to that eloquent call. No doubt, as a

result, the Organization has declined one more notch in the

public opinion of which you spoke, Madam President. Of

course, the true answer is that the United States and Great

Britain are not presently disposed to take concrete,

effective and practical steps to dispossess South Africa,

even though they are fully aware that such steps would

have the moral backing of virtually the entire international

community. But somehow, that is never the answer which

“public opinion” receives.

68. That is not to say that my delegation considers that it

is the exclusive business of the so-called great Powers, or

the medium Powers, or any other group of Powers, to look

after the security and advancement of the world. That is

the business of the entire international community. We

must not deny the very special responsibilities of the more

powerful countries in nearly every matter that goes to the

heart of the world’s peace and prosperity. Although

sometimes the smaller countries may be justifiably criticized

for what has been called “posturing”, it is very rare to

hear of occasions in which their posturing has caused

widespread devastation of human lives and property or

systematic deprivation of human rights.

69. Now that the publicists are tiring of the miniskirt, the

mini-State has taken over the limelight. Speaking as the

representative of an unabashed mini-State, I am not certain

whether to be frightened or pleased by this sudden

prominence. It is frightening, in terms of our hopes for a

world of increasing interdependence, when we think of

some of the implications of this new fashion. For example,

what will happen to some of the very small and scarcely

viable territories when the mini-State debate is over? Will

they be left, isolated from the mainstream of international

concern, to be swallowed up by larger, more powerful

neighbours who will then answer every inquiry about their

fate with a bland reference to Article 2, paragraph 7? Will a

new doctrine evolve for an international concept, by which

any group of people with a population smaller than

X thousand, inhabiting an area of less than Y square miles,

and with a per capita income of less than Z dollars, would

automatically fall below the horizon of international concern?

70. On the other hand, it is tempting to imagine that the

new limelight will perhaps help to illuminate some of the

less-known aspects of the Charter, such as Article 1,

paragraph 2, which I take the precaution of quoting

verbatim: “To develop friendly relations among nations

based on respect for the principle of equal rights and

self-determination of peoples...” If the debate on mini-

States can help in strengthening international concern for

the self-determination of peoples, my delegation will be

among the first to welcome it. It has certainly not escaped

the attention of my Government that the “mini-State”

question has arisen in the very year in which no newly

independent countries are seeking admission to this Organization.

Some great Powers apparently want to close the Ark

even before every species of animal is safely in. My

delegation cannot support the doctrine of limited sovereignty,

which is now becoming so fashionable, since we

believe that this Organization has within it resources

enough to accommodate all those sovereign States whose

Governments express their desire to be guided by our Charter.

71. Those who feel that the little State has no place in a

world assembly of equals, are doing harm to a sound

democratic principle. In my own country and among my

own people, our whole philosophy of government rests on

the principle that the ordinary man, the little man, is

entitled to all the opportunities for development which the

Constitution and the economy of our country provide. We

have no second class citizens and we take particular care to

see that all our citizens have free access to the highest

courts in our country. We even provide for their defence in

criminal cases, if necessary. Each citizen has access to the

best education and the best medical care we can provide,

72. Since our foreign policy is an accurate reflection of

our domestic system, it would not be possible for us to

accept an arbitrary distinction between sovereign States, a

distinction at variance both with the Charter and with the

principles of our own Constitution. We feel that the people

of the Seychelles or of Nauru have as much right to exercise

their sovereignty in this Organization as any other Member

State, and we also feel that it is incumbent upon all of us to

devise the appropriate machinery to enable this to be done

without placing onerous burdens on these States. My

delegation also believes that even if such States choose not

to join this Organization, they should still be entitled to full

enjoyment of its services and resources.

73. In short, we must look forward to a world assembly of

equals. It is perfectly true that the great Powers do not

relish this, but that is only because each of them has its

own reservations about the usefulness of this Organization.

Each of them can resort to the veto when this device is

judged to be convenient. The middle and small Powers

enjoy no such luxury, but must contain their impotent fury

at the use of this strange mechanism which makes some

States more equal than others. My delegation is perverse

enough to believe that world peace and security are better

guaranteed by the accession of new States, however small,

than by the unconscionable use of a device by which the

great Powers protect their special interests.

74. There is a basic distinction to be made between

self-determination of peoples and membership in the

United Nations, and too many of the arguments which have

been advanced in favour of a caste-system of States seem to

ignore this. In our view, the Organization must be very

careful that its consideration of the genuine problem posed

by the emergence of very small States does not slow down

the urgent process of decolonization.

75. In the Caribbean, we are only too familiar with this

question. Every single territory in that area which is waiting

on the threshold for full self-determination is an eloquent

argument for creative and imaginative action by this

Organization. We would suggest that the time has come to

put an end to the rather rigid and doctrinaire approach to

decolonization in which the United Nations now seems to

be deadlocked. We do not think it enough to demand of the

administering Powers for the traditional accounting of their

stewardship. As we see it, the Organization is sufficiently

experienced, and the Secretary-General’s authority and

prestige sufficiently strong, to permit the Secretariat to

play a more active role in the psychological decolonization

of the peoples for whom the Organization has a clear moral

responsibility.

76. For example, my delegation would like to see this

Organization make a start on long-range economic and

social planning for such territories, even if only by way of

blueprints. This would serve to show up the deficiencies of

the administering Powers in this respect and help to focus

international attention on the real needs of the peoples. We

hope that the administering Powers will eagerly co-operate

in such a project. If they do not, and if they content

themselves with the Pavlovian reaction regarding intervention

in matters of domestic jurisdiction, then the

international community will be able to draw the obvious conclusions.

77. The whole world applauded the scarcely believable

achievement of the United States in landing a man on the

surface of the moon. It was an event full of significance for

all humanity, and it demonstrated, in the most dramatic

way possible, the tremendous progress which mankind has

made towards mastering his environment. It was also a

dramatic demonstration of the distance that separates some

nations from others; the distance that has been described as

the “technological gap”. It is a fact of life that the world is

divided into the rich and the poor. It is our understanding

that it is one of the major concerns of this Organization to

find the means of harmonizing these discrepancies so that

all may live in peace, independence and prosperity together.

What seems to us to be happening, year after year, is that

not only the “gaps” are growing, but totally new gaps are

being created.

78. The small and under-developed countries need a

greater and more imaginative effort by the Organization to

help close the gaps. We wonder, for example, how many

technicians from the under-developed areas of the world

contributed to the success of the American moon shot, and

to many of the other brilliant achievements of science in

other developed countries. I do not know the figures and

we do not grudge the developed countries the use of these

talents. I make the reference merely to point to one of the

underlying and perhaps insoluble difficulties inherent in

under-development, which was first highlighted by a leading,

if somewhat unorthodox, economist many centuries

ago: “Unto every one that hath it shall be given, and he

shall have abundance. But from him that hath not shall be

taken even that which he hath.”

79. Not only are the rich becoming richer, but they are

acquiring an astonishing variety of keys by which to unlock

even further riches. Unless this process is rationalized, the

day may soon come when poor nations will be permanently

consigned to the role of helots. The Consensus of Viña del Mar,

to which my Government was a signatory, sets out

this danger very clearly in the fields of trade and aid. It is a

danger that takes other forms as well, and my Government

is especially proud that it was the initiative of a mini-State,

Malta, which led this Organization to undertake, for the

first time, a study of the uses of the sea-bed and the ocean floor.

80. This is, of course, a matter of prime importance for an

island-State like Barbados, and we look to the United

Nations as the sole forum in which the matter can be

debated and discussed with a view to removing this

important resource from the catch-as-catch-can arena of

power politics. It would be disastrous if the juridical

anarchy over marine rights, which prevailed in the seven-teenth

century, were to be allowed to prevail in this

century in the areas under the sea. We know that it is only a

question of time before large-scale exploitation of the

sea-bed begins, and the technologically advanced countries

are obviously the best equipped to glean the rich prizes

which are waiting to be gathered from the ocean floor. It

seems to us that there is literally no time to be lost in

asserting a claim to these vast potential riches on behalf of

all mankind and we hope that this Organization, acting as

the conscience of the international community, will be able

to offer a constructive substitute for marine imperialism

and oppose those who would wish to fish in troubled

waters. For these reasons my Government firmly supports

the internationalization of the sea-bed and the ocean floor

beyond the limits of national jurisdiction. My delegation

will also lend its support to any convention which prohibits

and outlaws the improper use of the seas and oceans for

military experimentation.

81. My Government has consistently deplored the fact

that the world’s wealth is so inequitably distributed. Far

from proving a satisfactory solution to this pressing

problem, the performance of the 1960s, so often referred

to as the decade of development, has been for many

developing countries a decade of disillusionment. We are

persuaded that the forthcoming decade of development will

be no less a disappointment and that the intentions of

Article 55 of the Charter will be no nearer fulfilment,

unless there is sufficient political willingness on the part of

those countries whose dynamism, power and resources are

greater, to come together and rescue the hundreds of

millions of humans in Asia, Africa and Latin America from

their long torment.

82. We know that ingenuity is not lacking in devising new

methods for going forward together, and we know that

resources and technology are available. Their effective

application will be best achieved through the knowledge

that the safety of each is dependent on the safety of all,

and by the exercise of good faith which is more valuable

than the most binding treaties, especially treaties in which, in

the words of Thucydides: ”The strong do what they can

and the weak suffer what they must.”

83. We should not delude ourselves that the resources

needed for development can be effectively mobilized,

unless existing conflicts which threaten world peace can be

speedily terminated and potential conflicts smothered

before they develop. If we cannot do this, the resources

which we wish to command will continue to be dissipated

in military adventures, which in themselves increase the

chances for a third world war. My delegation, therefore,

earnestly appeals to all our brothers in Nigeria to lay down

their arms and hasten to the conference table. We also urge

the contending nations in the Middle East to seek, in a

spirit of compromise, an early settlement to a dispute

which has for so long impoverished their countries and

permitted the great Powers to keep these countries in pawn

and, at the same time, to fight their own wars by proxy.

84. You yourself, Madam President, have given this

Assembly an inspiration to continue the search for peace.

In placing your indefatigable service at the disposal of both

sides in the Nigerian conflict, you have taken an initiative

which deserves the whole-hearted support of the General

Assembly. My Government welcomes your timely gesture

and offers to you all its resources for the undertaking of

this urgent business of bringing peace to an African

country. My delegation, further, invites all States to give

public support to your efforts, with the same unanimity

which summoned you to preside over the destinies of this

Assembly with such grace and distinction.