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

“Mainland China is therefore an uneasy neighbour for the countries around it. The great question that faces all of us is how to live with mainland China. That is a complex question. I would only submit this thought. Achieving the means of living with mainland China does not rest with us alone. Peking has to make its contribution too. Yet, far from trying to make the idea of its admission to the United Nations more acceptable to other countries, Peking seems bent on challenging the rest of the world. Even this week, timed for the opening of this session of the General Assembly, have come fresh public Statements in Peking of demands it is making about the United Nations. 84. I repeat that the big question that faces us is that of living with the Peking regime and helping to fit it into the international community.”
1966-09-24 · UN General Assembly · General Debate, Session 21 (1966)
“Without going too far back in time, let me remind the Assembly that within the past four years Peking has engaged in armed aggression against India and is continuing to maintain a threatening posture along the borders of that country; that it has engaged in infiltration and subversion in Viet-Nam, Laos and Thailand, to mention only three countries; and that its leaders and spokesmen, including Lin Piao, who is now coming to the top in Peking, have proclaimed world revolution by violence, not only in Asia, but against most of the Governments represented in this Assembly. During the past month the so-called Red Guards have been stamping out those elements in China which by any stretch of the imagination might be regarded as not conforming slavishly with the though of Mao Tse-tung. 83.”
1966-09-24 · UN General Assembly · General Debate, Session 21 (1966)
“By the same token it would be dangerous to peace in the region, and dangerous to world peace, if hostilities ceased on unjust terms or in a way that gave encouragement to further subversion, infiltration and terrorism in South-East Asia and other parts of the world, in accordance with doctrines and practices originating in or inspired or supported by Peking. 81. That brings me to the question of China. This question has been before the General Assembly for many years. It particularly to the fore in the minds of the countries of South and South-East Asia and the Pacific. For mainland China overhangs' the region; it has a population of 700 million; it is under a regime which, while calling itself communist, represents all that is most illiberal and backward-looking and violent in communist thought. 82.”
1966-09-24 · UN General Assembly · General Debate, Session 21 (1966)
“The successful candidates come from a wide range, geographically, communally and in occupation. Over half of the successful candidates are under forty years of age. With this representative character there is thus a chance that many elements in Viet-Namese life including younger men and women, will be brought into the processes of political change. These elections, so successfully held in a war-torn country that has a disrupted political structure, could lead to a broader base for the regime and open the way to still further liberalization. 80. It would be a great contribution to the peace of the region, and indeed to world peace, if a just settlement were achieved in Viet-Nam.”
1966-09-24 · UN General Assembly · General Debate, Session 21 (1966)
“In the past few weeks we have seen the spectacle of this so-called "National Liberation Front" directing further bombing outrages against the ordinary people of Viet-Nam who were engaged in the peaceful activity of participating in an election, "Liberation" is a label that Peking and Hanoi have used on this and other occasions to cover policies and deeds that would lead to the enslavement of Asian nations which want to be independent and free. 79. Just over two weeks ago elections were held for a constituent assembly to draw up a new constitution for the Republic of Viet-Nam, and that assembly is holding its first meeting today. These elections can be a significant step forward. Over 80 per cent of the 503 million registered voters cast their votes.”
1966-09-24 · UN General Assembly · General Debate, Session 21 (1966)
“The numbers murdered over the past six years now run into tens of thousands. These are not victims of the battlefield but the selected victims of terrorism exercised in order to annihilate the leaders of the community. In the first half of this year alone, over 2,000 village officials, teachers, agricultural officers, medical officers, and so forth, have been murdered by the Viet-Cong. What genuine national liberation movement has ever directed its activities in this way against the trained workers and the intelligentsia of the country that it is supposed to be liberating?”
1966-09-24 · UN General Assembly · General Debate, Session 21 (1966)
“Elsewhere in Asian and in African countries, as many representatives here know far better than I, anti-colonial liberation movements were formed and led by teachers, civil servants, lawyers, professional men and members of the services. This important intelligentsia substantially formed the spearhead and the backbone of nationalist movements, and they won the people's support, 78. But it is precisely those groups which the National Liberation Front has failed to attract in South Viet-Nam. Indeed, quite the opposite is true: the Front has found them one of the major obstacles to its aims, and the Viet-Cong has therefore resorted to terrorism, by kidnapping and assassination, against these leaders of community life, especially in the villages and in the smaller provincial towns.”
1966-09-24 · UN General Assembly · General Debate, Session 21 (1966)
“I hope that this negative response is only the routine and almost automatic initial reaction and that fuller consideration may lead them, either privately or publicly, to make a more positive reply to these overtures. 77. In connexion with events in Viet-Nam, I think that some misunderstanding has been promoted among residents in far continents by the familiar device of calling the invading force a liberation movement. We in Australia have long recognized a vast difference between the genuinely nationalist and patriotic liberation movements which brought independence to so many of the countries that are represented here before me, and the so-called National Liberation Front in South Viet-Nam. There is a vast difference between them.”
1966-09-24 · UN General Assembly · General Debate, Session 21 (1966)
“It would be quite unhelpful for me to play with words or to try to elaborate the possible terms of a settlement. The overriding considerations in the mind of the Australian Government are that a deliberate and calculated aggression should not succeed in imposing a form of government on a free people, and that the form of government in South Viet-Nam should be acceptable to the people living there and be chosen by them. Surely each of us here would want that right for our own people and would not deny it to others. 76. I regret very much that the response in Hanoi and Peking to the statement made by the United States representative in this Assembly last Thursday [1412th meeting] has been negative.”
1966-09-24 · UN General Assembly · General Debate, Session 21 (1966)
“If we could stop the war, it would in itself mean the end of the bombing and the termination of other forms of killing and destruction. 74. How can we stop the war? This is not a war that can be stopped by surrender, or by victory for either side. It can only be stopped by agreement. On our side, the strict and narrow limits of our aims and our readiness for agreement have been clearly stated. Our readiness to agree to cessation of fighting without any claim or penalty or gain has been plainly declared. Up to the present, unfortunately. North Viet-Nam has made it clear that it wants to make gains and impose penalties and assert its own will. It wants not agreement but surrender. And there can be no surrender in that sense, for a principle vital to us all, combatant and non-aligned alike, is at stake. 75.”
1966-09-24 · UN General Assembly · General Debate, Session 21 (1966)
“It was only last year, after war had been waged on the soil of the south for over five years, that bombing of North Viet-Nam began, and even then, so far as human skill and techniques can achieve it, the bombing has been aimed at targets of direct military concern and not at civilian establishments. 73. Of course, we all share the distress at human suffering caused in this warfare. There is none of us that can claim to be more deeply moved by the human suffering than any other Member of the United Nations. There is suffering on both sides. The deliberate and cold-blooded massacres by Viet Cong terrorists, the victims often the wives and the children of the supporters of the Government, are sometimes even more pathetic than the victims of direct military operations. But all this suffering is a reflection of warfare itself.”
1966-09-24 · UN General Assembly · General Debate, Session 21 (1966)
“Those acts combined together were intended also to force the Government to employ increasingly severe measures to maintain law and order, thus making it unpopular and providing a chance to blacken its reputation. 72. Eventually, faced with this calculated campaign sustained with support from outside the country, the Government of the Republic of Viet-Nam sought military assistance from other countries. In response to that request, Australia and, of course, the United States and other countries now have forces in South Viet-Nam. Those forces have grown in number and the operations have been intensified. Until last year, although North Viet-Nam was mounting increasingly vicious and well-armed attacks in the south, North Viet-Nam itself was left unmolested.”
1966-09-24 · UN General Assembly · General Debate, Session 21 (1966)
“But, from an international point of view, what needs to be kept clearly in mind Is that the Government of the Republic of Viet-Nam, South Viet-Nam, particularly from 1959, was increasingly subjected to a campaign of subversion and terrorism and armed insurrection sustained and supported from North Viet-Nam. The aims of that subversion and violence were to disrupt and destroy the administration of the Government of the Republic of Viet-Nam; the method was assassination and other forms of terrorism; the aim was to intimidate the local population so that they would withdraw their active support from their Government. Another aim was to slash through the economic sinews of the country, to hinder production and to disrupt communications.”
1966-09-24 · UN General Assembly · General Debate, Session 21 (1966)
“The simple fact is that two de facto regimes have existed since 1954, and they could have continued peacefully side by side tor the time being, provided that no attempt was made by force to upset this interim arrangement, this modus vivendi. There is, I submit, some similarity to the situations that have existed in Germany and in Korea. These countries, too, are divided and there exists a desire among many of the Inhabitants on both sides in those countries for unification, but it now seems to be generally agreed that force should not be resorted to in order to attempt to achieve unification and that peaceful processes are in the interests of the people of the divided countries as well as of the world as a whole, Viet-Nam should be in the same position. 71. I do not pretend that the situation in Viet-Nam is a simple one.”
1966-09-24 · UN General Assembly · General Debate, Session 21 (1966)
“We gave that military assistance on our own decision — as, indeed, on our own decision, we have contributed to defence in other parts of Asia — and we made that decision because we feel directly affected by anything that imperils stability and progress in that region. It is with this background of direct interest and military involvement on our part that I speak now on the present situation in Viet-Nam. 70. There existed in Viet-Nam, as the result of the Geneva Agreements of 1954, two separate Governments exercising jurisdiction in the north and in the south respectively. Although the Geneva Agreements looked towards the reunification of the country in accordance with the procedures and principles stated in those Agreements, reunification had not in fact taken place.”
1966-09-24 · UN General Assembly · General Debate, Session 21 (1966)
“A great reconstruction for peace is going on all the time in spite of the conflict, and in this work nations outside the region are making a major contribution. 69. Yet all our hopes for the future face an immediate threat by reason of the war in Viet-Nam. Australia has a very deep interest in the events in Viet-Nam. The Viet-Namese are our neighbours. Our co-operation with them began well before the present fighting developed. For over fifteen years Australia has been providing economic assistance to Viet-Nam. More recently, in response to requests by its Government, we have also been providing military assistance, at first limited to advisers and other technical military assistance, and subsequently including combat forces.”
1966-09-24 · UN General Assembly · General Debate, Session 21 (1966)
“We are glad to learn that Indonesia is to resume its place as a Member of the United Nations and we also welcome the prospect that the ending of armed conflict with its neighbour may lead to closer co-operation between Indonesia and all its neighbours for the benefit of the region and of the world. We also note with pleasure the signs of progress towards better understanding between Thailand and Cambodia on matters that have long been controversial, and the cessation of fighting on the frontier of India and Pakistan, and in these events we recognize the good offices of the United Nations, and in one case also of the Soviet Union. And we can see elsewhere the way in which the nations of the region are working together in many useful ways.”
1966-09-24 · UN General Assembly · General Debate, Session 21 (1966)
“But it must be a peace that will last, a peace that will be fair, a peace that will not infringe the rights of any nation, and one which will leave no country under the shadow of fear or in peril of domination by another. The sort of peace which is needed is not the peace of a temporary cessation from strife, but a peace with a future — a foundation for a better life for all our peoples. Do not let us mock those who have suffered, and are still suffering today, in Asia for the sake of their future by giving them only a future of despair. 68. Looking at the whole Asian situation, one can find some encouragement in the ending of the conflict against Malaysia. We in Australia supported the defence of Malaysia at the same time as we tried to keep the way open to co-operation with Indonesia for peaceful purposes.”
1966-09-24 · UN General Assembly · General Debate, Session 21 (1966)
“And so I speak with the certainty that the new Asia, to be shaped by the Asian people according to their own understanding of their own needs and interests, is a forward-looking and enlightened area. And I am confident too that the present Government centered in Peking stands for retrogressive forces, and that the countries which are resolved to remain free from the domination of Peking are the positive and constructive forces in Asia today. Those countries are represented here in our midst and their representatives can tell the Assembly more eloquently that I can both of their needs and of their aspirations. 67. The great and immediate need of the whole of southern Asia today is for peace. This continent wants peace badly.”
1966-09-24 · UN General Assembly · General Debate, Session 21 (1966)
“What the rest of the world — and particularly the Western world — needs to appreciate is that what is at stake in Asia today is not an old order but a new order; not the propping up of out-dated regimes or hopeless and decaying customs, but the establishing of a wider chance for the creation of a new life for the liberated peoples of Asia. 66. I have had the good fortune to travel throughout the region. I have had the opportunity of close conversations with the leaders of all the countries which I have mentioned. I have participated as the representative of Australia in several regional conferences. I have made personal friendships and have learned to value the wisdom of my Asian colleagues.”
1966-09-24 · UN General Assembly · General Debate, Session 21 (1966)
“I want to give the Assembly a double picture, a picture of a continent of danger, a picture of a continent of opportunity. As viewed by us in Australia, living on the fringe of the region, it is also a continent of great dynamism where the energy and resolution of its people are moving through great changes towards a new era. In speaking thus, I have in mind chiefly the great Indian sub-continent, the Malaysian peninsula, the Indonesian archipelago, the Philippines archipelago, the Japanese islands, and the whole range of South-East Asia.”
1966-09-24 · UN General Assembly · General Debate, Session 21 (1966)
“In Asia today, too, the slow and difficult path towards nuclear disarmament is encountering a new setback, Such hopes as we may have had for the nonproliferation of nuclear weapons and for the limitation of their testing or their use are imperilled today by the nuclear ambitions of mainland China, accompanied by Peking's total disregard for any international effort in the direction of disarmament or control. 64. But, at the same time as we notice these gloomy facts, we can also notice that in Asia today the tasks of development are offering opportunities both more complex and greater in size than anywhere else in the world; many new enterprises which could bring closer co-operation between the strong and the weak are being attempted in that continent. 65.”
1966-09-24 · UN General Assembly · General Debate, Session 21 (1966)
“The outcome of Asian struggles will be felt throughout the world either for good or for ill. The realization of Asian hopes will be of benefit to all peoples; and the frustration of those hopes would retard progress and welfare in all corners of the earth. 62. In Asia today a ruthless doctrine of revolution by the use of force and subversion is being applied and resisted. Asia today is the front line of both the power struggle and the ideological struggle and, no matter what interpretation any of us may put on that contest, and no matter whether the sympathy of any one of us lies in one direction or another, it is plain for all to see the fateful and tragic fact of a clash between great forces and the effect of that clash on human life and human happiness. 63.”
1966-09-24 · UN General Assembly · General Debate, Session 21 (1966)
“A large proportion of the world's natural physical resources is to be found there and, as some of those resources are still latent, the Asian region presents an inspiring prospect of the riches that may still be yielded for the benefit of all mankind. 61. Speaking of Asia in this way Is not to say that, in the United Nations at any time, one continent or one country is more important than another. Our concern is with all humanity. The phrase "We the peoples", with which the Charter opens, means the people of all lands, of all races, of all languages, and of all creeds. The purpose of the United Nations is to harmonize the actions of all of us in the attainment of our common aims. But in Asia today, events fateful to all mankind are rising to a crisis.”
1966-09-24 · UN General Assembly · General Debate, Session 21 (1966)
“This year a delegation of members of the Australian Parliament was most hospitably received in your country and brought back reports of the various developments in which we are jointly interested, as well as lyrical descriptions of the beauty of your countryside and the dignity of your people. It is therefore of special pleasure to us to see a citizen of Afghanistan in a position of leadership in the General Assembly of the United Nations. 60. In congratulating you, Mr. President, may I also echo what others have said to the effect that it is fitting in this year that the representative of an Asian nation should be President of the General Assembly. Asia is vast in area and large in population. Indeed, more than half the people in the world live there.”
1966-09-24 · UN General Assembly · General Debate, Session 21 (1966)
“59. Mr. President, may I offer my congratulations to you, on behalf of the Government and people of Australia, on your elevation to your high and responsible office, Our two countries have been linked in friendship for many years and we are closely associated with each other in various regional organizations, such as the Economic Commission for Asia and the Far East, the Colombo Plan, and the Asian Development Bank; and, at the regular conferences of these and' other bodies, the happy accident of the alphabet has meant that Afghanistan and Australia have sat side by side on many occasions. We have students from Afghanistan in Australia.”
1966-09-24 · UN General Assembly · General Debate, Session 21 (1966)
“We have to work hard at this problem, but much of the work has to be done, not on the machinery, but on ourselves.”
1964-09-24 · UN General Assembly · General Debate, Session 19 (1964)
“The reality is that peace cannot be kept in disputes between the great Powers, and so long as there is conflict between the great Powers there will be conflict in the world, and there will be conflict over the processes of peace-keeping. 214. Unless Members of the General Assembly are prepared to act on behalf of the general body of Members and to serve a common interest, and not to act on their own behalf and to serve their own interest individually, their record in peace-keeping will be little, if at all, better than that of the Security Council. Are we entitled to have faith that the votes of the General Assembly will be at all times wise, lofty and untarnished by group or national partisanship? Unless we have that faith, how good will be the effect of the reforms we plan and hope to make?”
1964-09-24 · UN General Assembly · General Debate, Session 19 (1964)
“It would be a chapter providing means for physical restraint and moral condemnation, both promptly applied without partisanship and according to established principles. Whether the new chapter should propose some new conciliation procedures for bringing about a settlement, and whether such new procedures are needed, might also be studied. 211. This somewhat incomplete discussion of a very great subject will, I trust, show that I share the belief that a great creative effort has to be made to make the United Nations more effective in the maintenance and restoration of international peace. I do want to stress, however, that we cannot climb to heaven on a ladder of words. We have to deal with a political situation. 212. The basic necessity for peace is that all Members fulfil their obligations under the Charter. 213.”
1964-09-24 · UN General Assembly · General Debate, Session 19 (1964)
“Although one can foresee some difficulties — and speaking frankly for ourselves, we would not wish to forgo the right of individual or collective self-defence in an emergency — we can appreciate that there is a case for further study of the suggestions. We can also appreciate that these arrangements are of a kind totally different from those proposed in Articles 43 and 45 of the Charter, and are intended to meet situations of a kind different from those intended to be covered by those Articles. 210. We would also probably want to put into the new chapter some provisions that would assist the General Assembly either to act as the tender conscience of the United Nations or to bring the force of world opinion to bear on the peace-breaker.”
1964-09-24 · UN General Assembly · General Debate, Session 19 (1964)
“Over recent years, in a number of situations, rather different from those foreseen by the framers of the Charter, the United Nations has setup special forces of its own, under United Nations command responsible to the Secretary-General, financed by- contributions from all Members, the rate of contribution being imposed by decision of the General Assembly. I may add that the Australian position throughout has been to support such United Nations forces. 209. My Government is studying with interest various suggestions that have been made to improve and formalize arrangements of this kind, and to repose greater authority In the General Assembly.”
1964-09-24 · UN General Assembly · General Debate, Session 19 (1964)
“If so, what would we put into such a chapter? 207. We would probably want to put into it some provision for a peace-keeping force which could act without taking sides in a dispute; or, in those situations in which armed action arises without a discernible dispute, a force that would act without favouring any cause except that of stopping men from killing or threatening each other. The San Francisco Conference did not accept the idea of a permanent international police force, but experience of sporadic troubles in many places has led more Members to think of the need for an international stand-by force that will be non-partisan, adequate, effective and immediately available. 208.”
1964-09-24 · UN General Assembly · General Debate, Session 19 (1964)
“Another argument for re-examining the role of the General Assembly lies in the inapplicability of the present collective security system to some of the disturbances of the peace that we see in the world today. The framers of the Charter did not foresee all the contingencies that might arise. There are dangerous activities of a kind that are not fully covered by the provisions of the Charter on peaceful settlement and enforcement, and even if they are covered by the document, are likely to elude the range of feasible action. 206. I am much attracted to the suggestion of the representative of Brazil [1289th meeting] that peacekeeping operations are a new concept notfully covered by Chapters VI and VII of the Charter and, assuming the revision of the Charter became possible, might deserve a new chapter on their own.”
1964-09-24 · UN General Assembly · General Debate, Session 19 (1964)
“It is also open to question whether one can have greater confidence in the prospective decision of the General Assembly than in the prospective decision of the Security Council. Yet we cannot afford to let such serious matters — matters of life and death — rest where they are if the Security Council is incapable of handling them. 204. Thus a further problem to be resolved concerns the conditions under which a matter which the Security Council has failed to handle can be handled by the General Assembly, and what methods are to be used by the General Assembly. All this, of course, is based on the view that the Security Council has the primary responsibility, but not the exclusive responsibility—a point which seems to us to be made clear beyond dispute in Article 24. 205.”
1964-09-24 · UN General Assembly · General Debate, Session 19 (1964)
“If the use of national peace-keeping forces is to be rejected, and if the Security Council cannot be relied on to produce international peace-keeping forces, can a solution be found by giving a greater measure of responsibility to the General Assembly? If we take that course, we have to make sure that the General Assembly will in practice be able to discharge its responsibility. I entertain some doubts. 203. If the inaction of the Security Council is due to political conflict among the great Powers, we can be sure that the same political conflicts will be carried into the General Assembly, of which the great Powers themselves are Members, and in which they can count on their influence.”
1964-09-24 · UN General Assembly · General Debate, Session 19 (1964)
“We can appreciate, however, that this method of preparing to meet an emergency may not work in the case of newly independent countries, which have limited forces of their own and which are unwilling to align themselves with allies in regional arrangements, but which nevertheless do become involved in factional strife or do suffer attack from their neighbours, I can appreciate the reasons why such countries would prefer to see their emergency defence undertaken by an international force rather than by any single great Power, but I suggest that such nations have to recognize that they cannot have total independence, to the point of excluding any form of outside aid, and at the same time hope to have total security. 202.”
1964-09-24 · UN General Assembly · General Debate, Session 19 (1964)
“It was recognized at the time of the framing of the Charter that the Security Council might not be able to act speedily enough, or at all. Article 51 therefore provides that, until the Security Council has taken measures to maintain international peace and security in the event of an armed attack against a Member State, Members may take measures in their own self-defence, either individually or collectively. This arrangement may work in many situations. 201. The Australian position has been to join in regional arrangements for mutual defence and to maintain our own forces in order to meet any danger that directly threatens us.”
1964-09-24 · UN General Assembly · General Debate, Session 19 (1964)
“The central objection to the use of a national force for peace-keeping is that the force is necessarily disposed and used according to the will of the nation that maintains it, and the possessor of power decides for whom and against whom he will act, and even whether he will act at all. This becomes a much more critical question in those regions where newly emerged nations are struggling to establish themselves on a firm and las ting foundation and to maintain their independence, their internal political stability and their territorial integrity, than it is in more stable regions, where nations able to make a significant contribution to defence have joined in regional arrangements for their security. 200. The Charter, you will recall, tends to leave the task of emergency defence to Members themselves.”
1964-09-24 · UN General Assembly · General Debate, Session 19 (1964)
“Those who do not like that reality are necessarily called to bend their minds to the problem of how best to replace national by international peace-keeping forces; at the same time, they should try to find ways whereby all Members can he associated within the machinery of the United Nations and with the task of maintaining the peace and sharing the burden both of material expense and decision-making. As I understand this line of thought, it necessarily means a sharing of responsibility, and to that extent a variation in the emphasis given up to date to the responsibility of the great Powers. 199.”
1964-09-24 · UN General Assembly · General Debate, Session 19 (1964)
“One can understand the desire of small nations to replace a national force by an international force, and to take measures to enable all or several Members to participate in making the decisions about the employment of this police force, instead of leaving it to the self-will of one. The practical issue might be stated as a contrast between a self-appointed but strong policeman, and a policeman of unknown strength controlled by an unknown authority. 198. We have to see the reality of a world in which power is still the deciding factor in international affairs, and where power still cannot be successfully marshalled and controlled by any international agency.”
1964-09-24 · UN General Assembly · General Debate, Session 19 (1964)
“One of the major difficulties, to which several Members have drawn attention, is the gap in peacekeeping arrangements revealed by the absence of any United Nations force immediately available on the spot either to discharge the functions of a police force through the deterrent effect of its presence or to check the disturbance of the peace by military action as soon as the peace is disturbed. Of course, there are attendant problems in raising such forces, financing them, controlling them and directing their operations. 197. At present, some of this police duty is being done, for better or for worse, by the great Powers, using their own national forces.”
1964-09-24 · UN General Assembly · General Debate, Session 19 (1964)
“How can we assist the great Powers, without departing from reality, to remember at all times that the "primary responsibility" to which Article 24 refers was conferred on the Security Council by the Members, and that in doing so the Members agreed "that in carrying out its duties under this responsibility the Security Council acts on their behalf". Broadly, that is one of the areas that is suggested for study before we meet again. 195. The next desirable outcome is for the Security Council to act promptly and effectively to check any breach of the peace. In fact, it has seldom done so. The consequential question is whether, when the Security CounciL is unable to handle a dangerous situation, the General Assembly could take up the running and, if it did so, by what procedures and with what agencies. 196.”
1964-09-24 · UN General Assembly · General Debate, Session 19 (1964)
“What we do seek is some readiness on the part of the great Powers to dedicate themselves to serve a common Interest, overriding a narrow national interest, and to shape their conduct on the principles and the purposes of the Charter. At a time when so many of the smaller Powers have not kept their obligations under the Charter, I am. certainly not going to join in the popular sport of lecturing the great Powers on their morals. I wonder, however, if there is a role for the General Assembly in assisting them to keep their consciences tender, and to see their duty to humanity more clearly. Are there ways in which the General Assembly, under Article 11, can make the voice of the world heard more effectively and the pressure of world opinion felt more immediately?”
1964-09-24 · UN General Assembly · General Debate, Session 19 (1964)
“Where there is unrepressed conflict in the world, one mostly finds that one element in the situation is that the great Powers have either supported different sides in the local argument, or that one or other of them is content to see the argument go on so long as it is to the discomfiture of the other great Power, In short, at times, the great Powers have been "peacekeepers on opposite sides". 193. This position of the great Powers is not simply a position created from them by the terms of the United Nations Charter. It is part of the political reality of the world today. We cannot keep peace against the great Powers. We cannot keep peace without them. So, basically, I cannot respond readily to any proposal that ignores the reality of the existence of the great Powers, or limits them in the exercise of their primary responsibility. 194.”
1964-09-24 · UN General Assembly · General Debate, Session 19 (1964)
“It was always recognized, right from the start, that the collective security system of the United Nations could not stop a war between the great Powers themselves, if one of the great Powers was bent on war. The reality is that, since the Charter was signed, an uneasy peace among the great Powers has been achieved, and another world war has hitherto been avoided by old-fashioned methods of power politics; and I see no sign of the early replacement of those methods. I would also suggest that in some parts of the world today an uneasy peace is being kept by one or other of the great Powers acting on its own.”
1964-09-24 · UN General Assembly · General Debate, Session 19 (1964)
“The Charter did this by seeking to establish a process of peaceful settlement of disputes and, if that process failed, or a breach of the peace or an act of aggression occurred without any prior period of discussion or any prior attempts at settlement, a system of enforcement. This machinery of peaceful settlement and enforcement has not worked effectively in many cases. One obvious reason is that all Members have not met their obligations in respect of peaceful settlement; another reason is that great-Power unanimity, which was at the heart of the enforcement system, has been lacking. But I do not think that that is the whole of the story. 192. First, let us look more closely at the unanimity rule, and the special position given to the great Powers by the Charter.”
1964-09-24 · UN General Assembly · General Debate, Session 19 (1964)
“You will recall that the machinery was devised, in part, to assist Members to honour their obligations without suffering disadvantage at the hands of those who did not honour their obligations. When the peace-keeping system does not work, it becomes difficult and at times almost impossible for a Member State which is in danger to observe the Charter and to survive. 191. The United Nations machinery for collective security was devised to deal promptly and effectively with breaches of the peace or threatened breaches of the peace, either on the part of a Member acting in disregard of its obligations or on the part of a State that had never accepted such obligations.”
1964-09-24 · UN General Assembly · General Debate, Session 19 (1964)
“As I see the matter, the United Nations not only has to resolve a question concerning the relationships between the General Assembly and the Security Council in the tasks of restoring and maintaining international peace, but also has to re-examine the whole question of how to improve the prospects of peace in the world. We are not concerned only with the position of the great Powers, but also with the need for all Powers, great, middle-sized and small, to play a useful part. 190. We should also realize that we shall not see the perfect performance of their obligations by all Members if we continue in a situation in which those who do keep their obligations suffer by so doing, because the peace-keeping machinery of the United Nations is not in working order.”
1964-09-24 · UN General Assembly · General Debate, Session 19 (1964)
“So peace-keeping, I submit, is a vital issue in itself, and it also lies behind the current crisis in this Assembly. We do not expect that it will be possible to reach any quick and easy agreement about these fundamental questions. The Australian delegation does not press for an understanding before we attempt to overcome the Article 19 situation. We would hope, rather, that close and careful conslderation will be given to the matter in all its aspects, and that proposals will be prepared for the consideration of Members before the twentieth session meets. My present purpose here today is to try to indicate some of the problems to be overcome before we meet again, rather than to advocate the terms of any particular solution of these problems. 189.”
1964-09-24 · UN General Assembly · General Debate, Session 19 (1964)
“These ugly facts cannot be sponged away with words or obliterated by hope. 187. Furthermore, the work of this session of the General Assembly has been held up in a disheartening fashion by basic disagreement on peace-keeping arrangements. Although the Australian view on the application of Article 19 is clear and firm, and we think that this should be settled as an issue concerning solely the authority of the General Assembly in financial matters, yet we can see that, behind the question of arrears in payments, lies a division of purpose and opinion about the purposes and procedures and, indeed, about the very meaning of peacekeeping. Unless that question of peace-keeping can be solved, not only the work of the General Assembly but the whole future of the United Nations itself could be jeopardized. 188.”
1964-09-24 · UN General Assembly · General Debate, Session 19 (1964)