YouSaid · the spoken record

Hasluck

THE RECORD WRITES THIS SPEAKER AS HASLUCK

lines on the record: 159
first: 1964-09-24
most recent: 1968-09-24
sittings or episodes: 4
sources: un-general-debate

Every line below is reproduced as it was said and linked to the record it came from. Nothing here is summarised or generated. Directory · Search · Corrections

“We cannot move to a position in which we say in effect that it does not matter in the least whether a Member of the United Nations — in truth a new party to a contract — accepts the principles of the Charter or does not accept them. 131. It is the hope of the Australian Government that, over a period of time, mainland China will be accommodated within the international community. But the admission of Peking to the United Nations would not be a short cut to that ultimate objective. It would not automatically make mainland China accept new obligations, and the great problems of peaceful coexistence would remain. I find it difficult to believe that the mere assumption of a seat in this Assembly would make such practical difference in the conduct of Peking's policies. 132.”
1967-09-24 · UN General Assembly · General Debate, Session 22 (1967)
“We have witnessed the shameless treatment of foreign diplomatic representatives, and attacks on embassies, the provocative incitement to disorder in Hong Kong and the outbreak of fighting with India along the border of Sikkim. These events must surely reinforce the doubts expressed last year when the General Assembly decided not to make any change with regard to the representation of China in the United Nations. Even if it were assumed that the Peking régime wanted admission to the United Nations — and it has denied this — the effect of such admission on our Organization would be profound. We can only judge from what the Chinese régime has said and done how It would regard the principles of the Charter.”
1967-09-24 · UN General Assembly · General Debate, Session 22 (1967)
“A settlement on that basis could be complemented by a return to respect for the provisions of the Geneva agreements of 1962 on Laos, whose territory, as we have heard this morning, continues to be violated by the regular forces of North Viet-Nam. The Australian Government, however, is flexible as to the means by which negotiations or discussions might be opened, and as to the method of negotiation and participation in such negotiations. The essential point is that’ a political solution should be sought by whatever means is likely to succeed. 130. Once again, it is necessary to speak in this Assembly of relations with China. In the past year we have seen the effects of internal conflicts inside Communist China.”
1967-09-24 · UN General Assembly · General Debate, Session 22 (1967)
“The Australian Government has no interest in seeing a particular form of government, a particular ideology or social system established in South Viet-Nam. Our only concern is that no régime, no ideology or social system should be imposed by force on the people of South Viet-Nam without their freedom of choice. 129. For its part, the Australian Government has pledged itself, together with the Republic of Viet-Nam and the other Governments helping in its defence, to pursue any path which could lead to a secure and just peace, whether through discussion and negotiation or through reciprocal actions by both sides to reduce the violence. One possible way to peaceful settlement might be found in a return to the essential principles and provisions of the Geneva Agreements of 1954 on the cessation of hostilities in Viet-Nam.”
1967-09-24 · UN General Assembly · General Debate, Session 22 (1967)
“But we have no illusions about the nature of the conflict there and the importance of it not only to the Viet-Namese people, but to the entire region and to ourselves and to the world. Behind a just and guaranteed settlement, the peoples of the Asian-Pacific region, including Viet-Nam, could go about their task of building up their countries and strengthening their economies. Indeed, great progress is already being made behind the barrier which is opposed to aggression in Korea and Viet-Nam and elsewhere. But if a peace settlement in South-East Asia were not based on just and lasting foundations, all that we could expect in the area would be further propaganda threats, subversion and aggression in accordance with doctrines and principles which we have already seen operating over recent years. 128.”
1967-09-24 · UN General Assembly · General Debate, Session 22 (1967)
“They claim that agreement could be reached only on the basis of points which call for the unilateral withdrawal of forces supporting the Government of the Republic of Viet-Nam and the settling of the affairs of South Viet-Nam solely in accordance with the programme of the so-called National Front for Liberation, which is clearly unrepresentative of the great majority of the population of South Viet-Nam. A revealing statement by a North Viet-Namese major-general, Tran Do, in a document captured only this year shows that the North Viet-Namese "basic intention is to win militarily. We mean to end the war through military victories". 127. All of us are deeply moved by the suffering of war. A country like my own looks only for peace and co-operation with its neighbours and hopes for a lasting and just settlement in Viet-Nam.”
1967-09-24 · UN General Assembly · General Debate, Session 22 (1967)
“The Government of the United States has offered to stop the bombing as a first step towards negotiations, provided that some reciprocal gesture is made, or some reciprocal restraint is observed, by the other side as an earnest of their good faith. 126. The regrettable fact is that every effort to start discussions has been rejected with scorn by Hanoi. The régime there still believes that it can achieve its conquest of the South through continued violence. North Viet-Namese leaders maintain that they have the right to continue hostilities in the South while demanding freedom from hostilities in the North. They assert that the United Nations has no role to play in ending the conflict.”
1967-09-24 · UN General Assembly · General Debate, Session 22 (1967)
“It is true that in this debate some have voiced their own hopes, some have made reports about what they have heard; but none has spoken in this debate with certainty, and none can so speak on such matters. The one place where convincing proof can be given is Hanoi. The one authority that can say with certainty what would happen when the bombing stopped is the Government of North Viet-Nam. The only words that have been heard from Hanoi to date are words of contumely and rejection. 125. South Viet-Nam and its allies have declared their readiness to enter into negotiations without conditions, or to discuss the conditions in which negotiations might be opened.”
1967-09-24 · UN General Assembly · General Debate, Session 22 (1967)
“If stopping the bombing should not in fact result in talks between the parties, will it then be advocated that some other inducement be offered — say, the withdrawal of some other form of warfare — and if that is not sufficient, will the stripping act continue to the point of total exposure until the opponent is lured away from his devotion to the use of force and is attracted to the method of peaceful settlement? But at that moment the defenders would then stand naked and their enemy might still not have started to talk. 124. Surely those who say that the bombing should cease in order to bring about talks ought to be able to give some convincing proof that the cessation of the bombing will in fact lead at once to the beginning of a process of peaceful settlement.”
1967-09-24 · UN General Assembly · General Debate, Session 22 (1967)
“By its own restraint, the United States of America has already withheld from full use of the power it has. Some critics appear to think that it is not enough for the United States to tie one arm behind its back; they think It should fight with one arm and kneeling, against an unrestrained enemy. 123. More of the speakers in this debate, however, appear to have made the point that bombing should be stopped in order to bring about some form of negotiation. Saying so, they have admitted that bombing itself is not an issue. This is not a war about bombing. In urging a cessation of bombing, they have recognized bombing as a military activity that, they say, might be handled in such a way as to give to the North an inducement to talk. Presumably, it is not the only possible inducement.”
1967-09-24 · UN General Assembly · General Debate, Session 22 (1967)
“But the way in which they end will have immediate consequences for all the nations of the Asian regions, either to brighten their hopes or increase their fears, and sooner or later the way in which hostilities end will make it easier or harder to find any solution to the major problems of peace and security and great-Power relationships throughout the world. 122. In this Assembly debate many references have been made to the bombing north of the demilitarized zone. Few, if any, references have been made to the constant movement of regular units of the North Viet-Namese Army into the territory of South Viet-Nam. The war has been carried into the South and, to interdict this movement and to increase the difficulty of maintaining it, air strikes are being made at selected targets in the North.”
1967-09-24 · UN General Assembly · General Debate, Session 22 (1967)
“What is happening in Viet-Nam is also of concern to other countries because of its relationship to major questions of world politics. We should all realize that what is happening in Viet-Nam is only part of a condition of international relationships that exists throughout the world. Whether the conflict there ends in one way or in another way, the major difficulties and the major contests will remain both in that region and throughout the world. The ending of hostilities in Viet-Nam will not in itself bring any termination to the greater conflicts, or remove any of the greater dangers that beset the whole of mankind in this nuclear age.”
1967-09-24 · UN General Assembly · General Debate, Session 22 (1967)
“It was only when North Viet-Nam created the National Front for Liberation, when it promoted guerrilla war and terror, and when it sent the regular divisions of its own army into the South and organized infiltration and supplies to support the measures designed to master the South by force, that we found a new situation in which the use of force required a response by force to stop it. It was then that Australia answered the request of the Government of South Viet-Nam for support in its defence and gave military aid. We are still giving that military aid, and while that situation remains, our support stands. We do not think our men have died in South Viet-Nam for nothing. We do not think they have died only for us, but for something greater than any single nation. 121.”
1967-09-24 · UN General Assembly · General Debate, Session 22 (1967)
“Those nations which live alongside the victims of aggression see the issue more starkly, for what is already happening to one neighbour may happen to others. 120. Australia had no part in the earlier events. We hoped that the Geneva Agreements would lead, with the good offices of all Powers that could play a helpful role, to a new course ending in political stability, security, and perhaps eventually the reunification of Viet-Nam in circumstances that would allow the advancement of the economic and social welfare and the true political independence and liberty of its peoples. We started in 1952 to give the civilian aid which we have been providing, and we have continued to give that civilian aid.”
1967-09-24 · UN General Assembly · General Debate, Session 22 (1967)
“Should argument concerning the future of a country and a people cease as soon as one side to the debate abandons the way of negotiation and peaceful settlement and tries to impose its view by unilateral use of force, both hidden and open? Should a small nation yield without resistance when its independence is threatened by force, knowing that it cannot rely on the help of anyone? Now, those are not small and local issues. They are issues that concern every small country that values its own freedom and wishes to maintain its own freedom, in any continent and at any time. 119. Those are the issues which Australia, as a small nation itself, considers important. Surety those who come from distant places and enjoy a sheltered peace can see that.”
1967-09-24 · UN General Assembly · General Debate, Session 22 (1967)
“I say nothing of the suppressive measures that might follow, although the history of the Hanoi régime immediately after the division at the 17th parallel was one of giving very short shrift to those who did not fall into line and of allowing no representative institutions; and since then the methods it has encouraged, supported and directed in the South through its instrument, the Viet Cong, have been the methods of assassination and terror. 118. Should the people of South Viet-Nam have the freedom to choose their own form of government and their own way of life? Should solutions to international differences be imposed by force?”
1967-09-24 · UN General Assembly · General Debate, Session 22 (1967)
“I think the pragmatic political test on both these questions — "What is the issue? Should we be mixed up in it?" — is the Churchillian one. When Churchill was asked whether Britain should go on fighting after the fall of France in 1940, Churchill answered: "What would happen if we did not?". And his decision to keep on fighting was fateful for many nations represented here today. Apply that question to Viet-Nam. What would happen is clear. The separate existence of South Viet-Nam, temporary though it may be, would end on terms not negotiated freely but imposed by North Viet-Nam. The Government of Hanoi would become the government of the whole of Viet-Nam. The 14 million people of South Viet-Nam would be brought under Communist rule by force, without any chance to exercise their own choice.”
1967-09-24 · UN General Assembly · General Debate, Session 22 (1967)
“We could go back for many years in time and discuss many different conditions, events and influences which have a bearing on the present situation, and it is true that we will not understand the nature of the conflict, nor will we have a hope of eventually achieving a just and lasting peace, unless we study the causes in that sense. But, surely, the immediate and relevant question arose with the outbreak of hostilities. There was a fire, and the question whether the fire should be fought or whether it should be allowed to take its course without any arm being raised to check its on-rush became the new issue. 116. In some countries — and in my country it is a minority — the debaters take this question of what is at issue and mix it up with the question, "What has this got to do with us? Should we be in it at all?". 117.”
1967-09-24 · UN General Assembly · General Debate, Session 22 (1967)
“First let me say that as the result of the debate throughout the world, and particularly inside those free and democratic countries which are supporting South Viet-Nam, that question of what is at Issue has been kept alive in this struggle in a way that seldom happens in wartime once a conflict begins. For the most part, the debate so far has not reduced itself to the question of winning or losing the fight. It still concerns itself with the question, "What is the fight about?". 115. May I suggest respectfully, however, that the vital question, "What is at issue?" is not the same question as the one, "What caused the war?".”
1967-09-24 · UN General Assembly · General Debate, Session 22 (1967)
“I would not suggest for a moment that any of us can or should rejoice that the world of power should be as it is, but I submit that we are victims of illusions or of prejudice if we make pronouncements and utter condemnations in disregard of the facts of power and the operations of power politics which the Charter itself recognises as being the condition of the world with which we have to grapple. 113. I say, therefore: let us talk like politicians and diplomats with a job to dos and not like sensation-mongers or propagandists. Let us at least allow patriotism to all of those who are d lending what they love and who, because they love it, are dying for it. 114. What is at issue in Viet-Nam?”
1967-09-24 · UN General Assembly · General Debate, Session 22 (1967)
“Surely we are using double standards and surely we are falsifying the issues if, recognizing the realities of power today, we find it improper or worse for one small nation to be protected by a great ally but unexceptionable for some other small nation to be protected by its ally. Some critics have become vituperative about the United States of America for helping South Viet-Nam to defend itself. Again there is surely a double standard and a disregard of reality if we find it villainous for one Power to carry out its policies and discharge its responsibilities as a great Power but commendable for another one to do so. 112.”
1967-09-24 · UN General Assembly · General Debate, Session 22 (1967)
“We in the Asian region, at least, know that the precarious balance of power has recently been disturbed by the centralizing of authority and the growth of strength in mainland China, and we know that countries on the fringe of China from Korea to India have felt the direct effects of Peking’s aggressive policies. Are such realities of power as these to be recognized only in one hemisphere and not in another? And are arguments that peace and security are global to be true in European or Atlantic power situations but not true when crises of power arise, as they have arisen, in Asia and the Pacific? 111.”
1967-09-24 · UN General Assembly · General Debate, Session 22 (1967)
“Were we right, we Australians, when we answered a threat in Europe, but wrong when, once again, in the face of a similar threat in Asia we respond to the call of a neighbour, and fact that issue of the overthrow of independence by force in disregard of the will of peoples? Even in the early postwar years it was seemingly good for small countries in one continent to enjoy a guaranteed security with the aid of a Great Power, but somehow it seems to be regarded differently when the same strength is invoked to bring a hope of security to small nations on the other side of the globe. 110. I also ask whether some of us maybe forgetting the realities of the world in which we live. Unfortunately, this is still a world in which peace is kept and security is maintained by military power.”
1967-09-24 · UN General Assembly · General Debate, Session 22 (1967)
“Are they not also to be upheld among these newly independent peoples which Europe once ruled as colonies but which have now reasserted their ancient identity and who are now seeking to choose their own life and to established it in their own territory? Does it cease to be the business of all of us when aggression takes place and freedom of choice is destroyed by force in the lands where the hope of independence is newly risen? Are force, subversion, terror and direct assaults on liberty recognizable only when they threaten a community that has settled down to the stability of a long-protected security, but unable to be seen when they disturb a struggling people which is still beset by fear?”
1967-09-24 · UN General Assembly · General Debate, Session 22 (1967)
“We remember the ideas that Europe taught us, such as that peace is indivisible, aggression has to be resisted or it will grow, the rights of small nations should be respected no less than those of the great; self-determination; the need for mutual security. Indeed in two world wars that started in Europe, Australia sent men across the world to fight and die in Europe for what Europe had taught us was right. 109. But are these truths to apply only to selected regions of the world and to old, established nations? Were we right to stand up for them in Europe but wrong to stand up for them in Asia?”
1967-09-24 · UN General Assembly · General Debate, Session 22 (1967)
“We have been privileged, and we esteem the privilege highly, to have been accepted by Asian countries as a regional member of organizations in Asia and the Pacific and we work together with our neighbours in many efforts to advance the welfare of all our peoples. In trade, diplomacy and mutual security our co-operation with Asian countries grows year by year. So I believe we can speak with knowledge and some understanding as a result of consultation in depth with them. They are our neighbours. 108. What of Europe? Europe colonized our continent. Over the years Europe taught us. We remember the lessons we learnt — respect for political independence; respect for treaty obligations; respect for territorial integrity.”
1967-09-24 · UN General Assembly · General Debate, Session 22 (1967)
“We have chosen to take a side, but we are certainly no less willing or less capable of joining in a debate about the morality or the purposes of the war than are those who have not chosen to take any side or than those who have chosen to favour some other side. We are no less honourable than those who have made no decision at all. Indeed, we may be better equipped to talk because, as well as having applied a moral test to our own actions, we have a closer and more intimate knowledge of situations and events than those who have no first-hand experience of the war and of the countries affected by it. 107. As well as knowing the war at first-hand, Australia perhaps may also have an advantage in having associations with the Western as well as the Eastern Hemisphere. Australia is linked by history with Europe; by geography with Asia.”
1967-09-24 · UN General Assembly · General Debate, Session 22 (1967)
“Unfortunately, in our view, this respect has not always been given and some of these new States have been harassed by conflicts which were the result, not of their own internal and domestic stress, but of external pressures and interferences. Subversion, infiltration, foreign intervention to exploit local differences and sometimes even direct attack have added to their insecurity. 106. It is against this background that I want to speak of the current conflict in South-East Asia and particularly the aggression against the Republic of Vietnam and its resistance to that aggression. I should declare plainly at the outset that Australia speaks as a nation which has made its own decision to support South Viet-Nam, is contributing both troops and civilian aid for that purpose, and is firm in its decision to do so.”
1967-09-24 · UN General Assembly · General Debate, Session 22 (1967)
“The Australian Government is even more deeply concerned by the erosion of the principle of respect for the territorial integrity and political independence of States. Throughout the world since the war we have seen the emergence of new States and the re-establishment of old States. We have seen nations in all continents striving to achieve their national identity in accordance with their history and their interest and to establish relationships with one another and to cooperate for mutual advantage. They can only do this successfully in a world in which each and all of us respect the established principles of international relationships.”
1967-09-24 · UN General Assembly · General Debate, Session 22 (1967)
“It is always open to representatives in the General Assembly to make clear, in voting on any resolution, how far these two conditions are fulfilled. The mere adoption of a resolution by the General Assembly will not give its terms the character of law. There have been instances in recent years in which the General Assembly, after considering items of a predominantly political character, has adopted resolutions in terms that could be regarded as interpreting, or making explicit, what would otherwise be only implicit in certain provisions of the Charter. It seems to us to be especially necessary, in such instances, that States should make clear not only whether they accept the provisions of the draft resolution but also whether or not they accept them as law. 105.”
1967-09-24 · UN General Assembly · General Debate, Session 22 (1967)
“I refer here to the establishment of the Special Committee on the Principles of International Law, whose task it has been to study and prepare texts for consideration by the General Assembly as a declaration formulating and elaborating seven Charter principles of international law concerning friendly relations and co-operation among States. 103. Customary international law consists of that body of rules which have been accepted generally by States as legally binding on them. A rule does not qualify under this heading unless, first, it can be shown to have been accepted generally by the international community and, second, that it has been accepted by members of the international community as law. 104.”
1967-09-24 · UN General Assembly · General Debate, Session 22 (1967)
“The General Assembly may indeed entertain an expectation that Members of *he United Nations will attempt to abide by a resolution generally supported by a large majority. But this is still in the sphere of expectation rather than of legal duty. 102. May I also comment briefly on the pretension that international law can be made by resolution of the General Assembly. In recent years the General Assembly has adopted, in performance of its duty under Article 13 of the Charter, a procedure directed towards eventual additions to the body of general or customary international law.”
1967-09-24 · UN General Assembly · General Debate, Session 22 (1967)
“Looking back over the past two decades, I observe a tendency to substitute the political views of a majority of Members for any attempt to interpret clearly and to apply uniformly the terms of the Charter. I ask: is this good for the Organization, for its Members or for international relations in general? I also question whether it can be effective. The General Assembly has power under the Charter to make recommendations, but it has never had the power to bind the membership by a majority vote. As the United Nations Office of Legal Affairs said in 1962, a resolution of the General Assembly cannot be made binding as such upon Member States merely by the device of terming it a "declaration" rather than a "recommendation".”
1967-09-24 · UN General Assembly · General Debate, Session 22 (1967)
“99. I should like first to congratulate the President on his election. This was a tribute to his personal qualities and to the country and the people whom he represents. As I speak late in this debate, I can add to my congratulations a tribute to the President for the distinction of the leadership which he is giving to us in our deliberations. I should like also to voice our appreciation of the work of the outgoing President, Ambassador Pazhwak of Afghanistan, who presided over so many long and difficult sessions. 100. My second duty is to express the continued adherence of the Australian Government to the United Nations Charter, and its intention to do all it can to uphold its principles. 101. I should like to say a cautionary word about the work of the Assembly.”
1967-09-24 · UN General Assembly · General Debate, Session 22 (1967)
“Having no will except that which its Members give to it, the United Nations reproduces the tensions and the strains of international affairs. Organizations that are formed by the membership of political States cannot have virtues higher than those of international politics. We should not perhaps expect too much. What we do have, however, is a Charter in which the statement of purposes and principles gives us always a central point of reference. What we do have is an organizational framework and a meeting place where nations talk together and try to work together. We should call for tolerance and patience and a constant striving for a common faith; and although these are not days of quick achievement, let us all continue to work as best we can for peace, for security and for the welfare of all our peoples.”
1966-09-24 · UN General Assembly · General Debate, Session 21 (1966)
“The report is relevant to international work in the field of economic development as well as to some other matters. 96. In conclusion, I just want to say this: Australia keeps in the forefront of its foreign policy support for the purposes and principles of the United Nations. We value the associations we form within the Organization and at the meetings of its specialized agencies. It was against that background that some time ago we made known our deep appreciation of the services of the Secretary-General, and expressed the hope that he would continue in office. Should U Thant find it possible to do so, that would be highly agreeable to us. 97. It is quite understandable that the United Nations, having no life except that which its Members give to it, should show evidence of the maladies that are present in the world today.”
1966-09-24 · UN General Assembly · General Debate, Session 21 (1966)
“First, I express the hope that the Advisory Committee on the Application of Science and Technology to Development will press on with its work in a way that will have a practical impact upon national and international development programmes. Secondly, I think it is important that the work of the United Nations in the economic field should be efficient and that resources should not be wasted on administrative machinery where they could be better devoted to development itself. We have to guard against fragmentation of work in the United Nations family, and there are a few disturbing signs of this. I draw attention also to the valuable report of the Ad Hoc Committee of Experts to Examine the Finances of the United Nations and the Specialized Agencies.”
1966-09-24 · UN General Assembly · General Debate, Session 21 (1966)
“The strong economies have to be kept strong and vigorous at the same time as the weak economies are being strengthened. We can all swim well together, but we can also all sink together. The great Powers have a responsibility — as well as an enlightened self-interest — to use their strength for the common good. They can do this only if they themselves can maintain a high level of economic activity. So I say the example for both great and small Powers to follow is one of growth and not restriction. 95. This morning I shall not expand our views on major aspects of this great problem, but I wish to refer in passing to two ancillary matters arising in the United Nations itself.”
1966-09-24 · UN General Assembly · General Debate, Session 21 (1966)
“One is the production of more food and the free availability of food at prices remunerative to the producer and practicable for the consumer. While we are all engaged either as givers or receivers in international aid programmes, aid is not the permanent and complete solution. The fuller development of resources, particularly in the developing countries, with the attendant problems of access to markets, capital investment, the sharing of technology and the availability of technical and managerial skills, challenge us all to more resolute efforts to work together constructively. In that work Australia will endeavour at all times to play its due part. 94. In our view, too, these problems are inseparable from the total problems of world economic conditions.”
1966-09-24 · UN General Assembly · General Debate, Session 21 (1966)
“Briefly, but most emphatically, I want to say that the fruits of peace will not be gathered for all peoples in all lands unless concurrently, with great energy, with a deep and penetrating wisdom and a common purpose, we can work together to help each other master the tasks of economic and social progress, remembering that the gain from economic success is not to enable only a few to benefit, but to allow the whole international society to live a better life. Full prosperity cannot be achieved or maintained by any nation, great or small, in isolation from others. The economic handicaps suffered by any one nation are a handicap to all. We need each other; we are important to each other. 93. We can see plainly certain problems.”
1966-09-24 · UN General Assembly · General Debate, Session 21 (1966)
“Let me say only this: in the final meeting of the League of Nations Assembly in 1946 Australia took an active part in negotiating the resolution under which the international obligations of all the Mandatory States were held to continue after the League ceased to exist. Today we regard South West Africa as a Non-Self-Governing Territory, one in respect of which there are specific international obligations. We shall follow the debate in the plenary meetings concurrently with this general debate, with deep attention and care and as occasion may require we can express our further views on this subject in those meetings. 92. Earlier in my speech, I spoke of the need for peace as a foundation for the future. I have necessarily been preoccupied with some of the immediate dangers to peace.”
1966-09-24 · UN General Assembly · General Debate, Session 21 (1966)
“What I have just said determines the Australian position on Southern Rhodesia, It was stated by us some years ago in the United Nations before the Rhodesian question became the burning subject which it is today, Australia has refused to recognize the unilateral and illegal declaration of independence by the regime in Rhodesia, In response to the request of the United Kingdom Government, which Australia, recognizes as being sovereign in Rhodesia today. Australia was one of the first countries in the world to apply sanctions against Rhodesia. 91. Since the General Assembly is now debating South West Africa concurrently in plenary session, I shall not occupy time in this general debate by speaking in any detail on this subject at the present moment.”
1966-09-24 · UN General Assembly · General Debate, Session 21 (1966)
“There are before the present session of the General Assembly a number of items relating to southern Africa: Southern Rhodesia, the Portuguese colonies, South West Africa and South Africa itself. On the principles and objectives relating to all those countries, the Australian position can be stated very simply. Australia believes that a society and form of government cannot, and should not, persist where a minority dominates a majority and where basic human rights and opportunities are denied to any of the population. We believe in basic human rights and participation for all persons in the life of a country. We believe that neither a majority nor a minority should be oppressed, or denied human rights or shut off from opportunities of participation, in government. 90.”
1966-09-24 · UN General Assembly · General Debate, Session 21 (1966)
“We are also, of course, aware of the difficult problems of Africa, particularly through our own diplomatic missions there and because we have common membership with many African countries in the British Commonwealth of Nations. Australia has contributed to technical assistance programmes in Africa. We have African students in Australia, We have had welcome visits also from many Ministers and distinguished citizens of African States. African educationalists and technical experts have assisted us with their advice on the administration of the dependent Territory of Papua and New Guinea. We look forward to all these contacts and more between our country and Africa increasing. 89.”
1966-09-24 · UN General Assembly · General Debate, Session 21 (1966)
“Australia, I think we can claim, is not neglectful of its obligations in respect of the rest of the world apart from its own region. In the field of security, outside that region, Australia has participated in two world wars, making very substantial contributions and suffering losses in Europe and the Middle East; and it was a big contributor through UNRRA to the relief and resettlement of Europe. At present Australia has a police contingent in Cyprus and has been, and still is, a financial contributor to programmes like the relief of Palestine refugees, the United Nations Emergency Force and to United Nations operations and programmes in Cyprus and the Congo. We have tried to take our place in world affairs. 88.”
1966-09-24 · UN General Assembly · General Debate, Session 21 (1966)
“Surely we cannot, in common humanity, quite apart from political considerations*, acquiesce in turning this island and its people over to Peking, nor should we acquiesce in such a change In its representation in the United Nations as would call into question its right to exist as an international entity and to enjoy the protections belonging to a Member State of the belonging to a Member State of the United Nations. 87. Hitherto, I have spoken entirely of Asia. Australia is a country of the ECAFE region, and so it is natural that we should think primarily of the region to which we belong. But we are part of the world as a whole. The future of individual nations, including ourselves, is vitally affected by relations between the great Powers and by developments in great issues like disarmament and nuclear weapons.”
1966-09-24 · UN General Assembly · General Debate, Session 21 (1966)
“Taiwan is a prosperous and developing country and if Peking took it over its people would undoubtedly suffer materially, quite apart from the savage reprisals they would undergo. We have all read with horror of what the Red Guards are doing today on the mainland of China to stamp out the slightest diversity of thought or conduct, even after eighteen years of rule by Mao Tse-tung. It needs little imagination to think of what those same Red Guards would do if let loose today on Taiwan as a result of any decision which we might take.”
1966-09-24 · UN General Assembly · General Debate, Session 21 (1966)
“Another point which is fundamental in the attitude of the Australian Government is that the Government of the Republic of China, centred on Taiwan, should not cease to be a Member of the United Nations and should not be handed over to the rulers of Peking. Taiwan has a population of about 14 million people. That is more than the population of most Members of the United Nations, and none of those Members with the same or smaller populations should easily agree that because Taiwan is much smaller than mainland China, it should be sacrificed in order to reach a settlement with Peking. Would any of us like to see our country sacrificed in order to reach a settlement with some country greater in size than ours?”
1966-09-24 · UN General Assembly · General Debate, Session 21 (1966)
“Some of my colleagues here — and I say this with deep respect for them — seem to me to be arguing that this is a matter about which there can be negotiation after Peking has been admitted to membership. Surely, if it is seen that some negotiation is necessary in order to adjust the views of the candidate to those of the established Organization, that negotiation should be commenced before and not after admission. Is Peking not to give any sign at all that it will pay regard to the Charter? China asks the United Nations to change. Is China itself not to make any change to fit itself into the United Nations? 86.”
1966-09-24 · UN General Assembly · General Debate, Session 21 (1966)
“Recognition of Peking and its admission to the United Nations would not in themselves be solutions of the bigger problem of relations with China. That problem would remain. Therefore we should avoid over-simplifying the question of China and should avoid seeing that problem simply in terms of recognition or of admission to the United Nations. 85. Australia regards the Charter of the United Nations as a treaty to which all Members have become parties. Peking has made it plain that it does not accept the terms of that treaty. If it enters the Organization at all, it will, it says, do so on its own terms. It has denounced the United Nations in its present form.”
1966-09-24 · UN General Assembly · General Debate, Session 21 (1966)