United Kingdom, 1969

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.