YouSaid · the spoken record

Pearson

THE RECORD WRITES THIS SPEAKER AS PEARSON

lines on the record: 171
first: 1949-09-24
most recent: 1963-09-24
sittings or episodes: 6
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

“In fact, of course, the non-self-governing part of the world is incomparably greater than this. People who are governed by a dictator whose power is based merely on military or police control are not self-governing, even if the dictator happens to be of the same race and to speak the same language as most of his subjects. The people of a puppet State, the satellite dictatorship of a totalitarian Power, are less self-governing than, for example, the people of a colony which is on the move, though sometimes the move may seem too slow, to national freedom, under a democratic government. 22. Then there is the distinction between the highly industrialized parts of the world, with relatively advanced standards of living, and what are called the under-developed areas.”
1954-09-24 · UN General Assembly · General Debate, Session 9 (1954)
“In the former, the citizen is the mere servant of the State while, in international matters, reliance on force and aggressive expansion is a normal development however much the words “peace” and “co-existence” may be used to camouflage and confuse. Free societies, on the other hand, are based on the doctrine, however imperfectly realized in practice, that man has rights and duties above and beyond the States and governments which have been created by him in order to protect his freedom and security under law and justice. 21. Then there is a division between the self-governing and the non-self-governing parts of the world. Many people often, but I think mistakenly, equate this division with that between countries administering colonies on the one hand, and dependent territories on the other.”
1954-09-24 · UN General Assembly · General Debate, Session 9 (1954)
“The evolution of technological processes and developments in nuclear science have made mankind far more immediately interdependent than either public opinion or governments, in any part of the world, have yet realized. But, unfortunately, as our interdependence increases our divisions persist. The undeniable fact is that if we do not find the means to harmonize and reconcile these divisions, they may destroy us all. Naturally, this increases the importance of the United Nations as a centre of negotiation, of reconciliation and of unity. By unity I do not mean the lifeless uniformity which is the ideal of totalitarianism. If we are to do anything about these divisions, we must first recognize and try to understand them. 20. First, there is the fundamental division, as I see it, between totalitarian and free societies.”
1954-09-24 · UN General Assembly · General Debate, Session 9 (1954)
“The Canadian delegation hopes that the proposal to establish an international atomic energy agency will prove to be an important step in the liberation of atomic energy from its military bonds, and that as the resources of more and more nations are applied to the problem the advance towards the application of atomic energy to peaceful purposes and for the benefit of mankind will become increasingly rapid. 18. International co-operation in the peaceful uses of atomic energy cannot in itself remove the dangers of atomic destruction. These and other dangers have, however, brought their own response in the determination of many governments and millions of people to use our United Nations for the purpose of avoiding the grim tragedy of total destruction and of bringing about a better world than the one we have today. 19.”
1954-09-24 · UN General Assembly · General Debate, Session 9 (1954)
“Canada, like the United States and other free countries principally involved with atomic energy matters, believes that even in the absence — the regrettable absence — of Soviet Union participation, an international atomic energy agency along the lines proposed by President Eisenhower could usefully be formed by the nations willing to subscribe to its aims and support its activities. My country is in a position to make a useful contribution to the work of such an agency and will be glad to do so.”
1954-09-24 · UN General Assembly · General Debate, Session 9 (1954)
“It was with this in mind that the Canadian Government has observed with very great regret the discouraging refusal of the Soviet Union to consider these United States proposals except on conditions which have already been shown to be unacceptable to the great majority of the Members of the United Nations. 16. The second principle is that proposals for cooperation which are as important as these to all the countries of the world should be developed, in President Eisenhower’s own words “under the aegis of the United Nations” [470th meeting, para. 114]. This is certainly one case in which we should not by-pass our world Organization. 17.”
1954-09-24 · UN General Assembly · General Debate, Session 9 (1954)
“The first of these principles is that the endeavour to establish trust between nations by means of co-operative ventures aimed at the social and economic betterment of mankind should not be made conditional upon political agreements which are impossible until such mutual confidence has been achieved. Surely it is one of the first lessons of history and of the study of human nature that trust is a delicate plant of slow growth which takes time to flower, and that, conversely, suspicion is a hardy weed which cannot be killed merely by chopping off its foliage.”
1954-09-24 · UN General Assembly · General Debate, Session 9 (1954)
“Despite our setbacks on disarmament, there is hope that progress can be made in international cooperation for constructive uses of atomic power. 14. When he spoke to this Assembly last December [470th meeting] President Eisenhower made the significant proposal that there should be established an international agency under the aegis of the United Nations which would foster the growth of the new atomic technology for peaceful use. We in Canada believe this proposal to be very important, not only for its own merit, but because it implicitly recognizes the principles which are essential to the achievement of prosperity and the diminution of the threat of war throughout the world. 15.”
1954-09-24 · UN General Assembly · General Debate, Session 9 (1954)
“However, the meetings in London this spring were, I think, far from futile in that a new basis was worked out by the British, the French, the Americans and ourselves, on which, once good faith and a general desire for progress are shared among all concerned, a real advance, I think, could be made. 12. In the meantime, whatever reliance can be placed on a reciprocal capacity to blow each other up gives at best cold and limited comfort. I hope that before it is too late something better and more civilized can be found. Thermonuclear devices are too dangerous, the threat that they pose to the very existence of life on this planet is too great, for sane men anywhere to view with equanimity their existence in a divided and frightened world. 13.”
1954-09-24 · UN General Assembly · General Debate, Session 9 (1954)
“If we could have this degree of confidence in mere verbal assurances, mutual trust and good will in the world would be so great, then the need not only for disarmament agreements but for disarmament itself would hardly exist. The hard reality that we have learned through costly experience is that we cannot trust unsupported promises; hence we have to put our trust in something else. The Soviet Union, for instance, and its friends refuse to accept the solemn assurance of its members that the North Atlantic Treaty Organization is purely defensive and will never be used for any aggressive purpose. Why, then, would they accept a mere declaration that we would never use methods of atomic warfare? 11.”
1954-09-24 · UN General Assembly · General Debate, Session 9 (1954)
“In a further effort to prevent such a tragedy, the scope of which is almost beyond our comprehension, those of us who are members of the Disarmament Commission attempted to reach agreement this spring on arrangements and safeguards which could make possible the prohibition of atomic weapons and a general movement towards disarmament. It was disappointing on this occasion for us to find that the Soviet Union seemed as unwilling as ever to accept any adequate system of supervision and control, the indispensable prerequisite to progress in the field. Instead, they sought refuge in a slightly modified version of the old proposal which they have made year after year, that every government should first agree unconditionally to prohibit the use of atomic weapons, putting reliance on each other’s word.”
1954-09-24 · UN General Assembly · General Debate, Session 9 (1954)
“Since those resources, including time, are limited, it is essential, if we are to use them wisely, that we should examine the various demands which are made on them in the light of our basic purposes and against the background of the fundamental total problem of maintaining peace in the world. 9. It is true, of course that our title, the United Nations, denotes at this time aspiration rather than achievement. But this does not, I think, give any ground for cynicism or despondency. That our world is deeply and dangerously divided is nothing new in history. What is new is the fatal consequence, not merely for peace, but for existence itself if this division deteriorates into world conflict. 10.”
1954-09-24 · UN General Assembly · General Debate, Session 9 (1954)
“There is a danger in using our Assembly and its agenda year after year to apply pressures, without regard to circumstances, which may produce the reverse of the result which we seek, which may, also, subsequently produce equally unconstructive items on our agenda designed to apply counterpressures with equally negative results. 7. Quite apart from this intrinsic reason for us to exercise responsibility and restraint, there is always the consideration that in a deliberative, body such as this Assembly, with the whole world as our agenda, we must apply priorities and show a sense of proportion in selecting those matters which should occupy our resources. 8.”
1954-09-24 · UN General Assembly · General Debate, Session 9 (1954)
“It is therefore natural, indeed it is inevitable, that we should have a certain number of what I might call hardy perennials again on our agenda. But it is certainly not desirable to have too many of them, or have them kept there for the wrong reasons and with the wrong results. 6. To insist on discussing the same question seven times in seven years does not necessarily bring us seven times nearer its solution. It may take us farther away from that desirable result, and, in so doing, lessen the repute and weaken the effectiveness of the United Nations.”
1954-09-24 · UN General Assembly · General Debate, Session 9 (1954)
“Perhaps a disproportionate amount of attention has been devoted to the latter, which are indeed not so much the failures of the United Nations as an institution, as of the peoples and Governments which make up its membership. 4. This year many familiar faces are back again. This makes for continuity of representation which can be a source of strength to us. Also, many of the same old subjects are back again, some for the third or fourth year in succession. While this can become a source of weakness to the Organization, it is not necessarily so. The basic problems of international politics, arising out of political and economic insecurity, foreign domination and denial of human rights, lust for power, ignorance and greed — such problems have seldom been amenable to quick or easy solution. 5.”
1954-09-24 · UN General Assembly · General Debate, Session 9 (1954)
“My first words must be to congratulate the President and ourselves on his election to the presidency. Being a mere male, he will not, I fear, as he himself has admitted, be able to preside with the grace of his distinguished predecessor, but I feel certain that he will follow her example in directing our meetings with efficiency, impartiality and courteous firmness. 2. This is the ninth year in which we have come together from all corners of the world to discuss and try to solve international problems in the hope, which is not often enough realized, that by doing so we may ease international tensions and promote human progress. 3. The United Nations, like other human institutions, is developing its own traditions, its own techniques. It has had its successes and its failures.”
1954-09-24 · UN General Assembly · General Debate, Session 9 (1954)
“Ultimate judgments on the utility or the futility of this Organization will be based on the extent to which we make these items on our agenda the signposts to action and practical achievement. 34. The Canadian delegation will do its best to make a worthwhile contribution to this essential result, and thereby serve the high purposes of peace that bring us together here.”
1953-09-24 · UN General Assembly · General Debate, Session 8 (1953)
“It is the belief of the country which I represent, and I am sure of the overwhelming majority of the countries represented here, that, if this all-important first step — to co-operate in bringing peace to Korea — is taken by those who speak in the name of the world community in this Assembly, the long journey towards a wider peace will have begun. 33. This is a general debate, but I do not propose to comment on other issues, many of them very important, which will come before us. There will be time enough for that in the weeks ahead. This eighth session, like its predecessors, now faces a long and complex programme of work. The problems before it, in the formal enumeration of our official agenda, reflect the basic conflicts and high tensions of our divided world.”
1953-09-24 · UN General Assembly · General Debate, Session 8 (1953)
“I am certain that this Assembly will agree with the Secretary-General that it is of high importance that this collective responsibility for reconstruction and rehabilitation in Korea — and I quote from Mr. Hammarskjold’s report — “should be carried out honourably, vigourously and generously by the United Nations and with the widest possible participation of its Members [A/2404, p. xiii]”. 32. In referring to Korea as a supreme test, I am well aware that the obstacles to agreement, like the present divisions of our world, may seem great. Yet we can remind ourselves, as has been said, the longest journey must begin with a single step.”
1953-09-24 · UN General Assembly · General Debate, Session 8 (1953)
“If the communist side, or anyone else, by obstruction and inadmissible demands, makes a peaceful solution impossible, then the responsibility for failure will be clear, and the United Nations, at least, will have done its duty. 30. Korea, in short, will provide an acid test for the hope and claim that successful negotiations can and must be conducted now, not only on the future of Korea, but also on European and cold-war problems generally, in order to bring about an easing of fear and tension, and a peace that will be something better than cold war. 31. There is one other respect in which Korea is an acid test — the assistance we give the Korean people to restore and rehabilitate their country, ravaged and devastated by war.”
1953-09-24 · UN General Assembly · General Debate, Session 8 (1953)
“But for this wider objective to be achieved, or even approached, we must first succeed in making peace in Korea. If — and I recognize that this is a big “if” — there is good faith and good will on both sides, a settlement here should be possible. 28. I suggest that any such settlement must provide for a free and united Korea, with a government resting on the will of the Korean people, freely expressed through an election held under United Nations supervision. All foreign forces should, of course, be withdrawn, and Korea’s security might be provided for under an international and supervised guarantee. 29. The Korean problem is certainly not an insoluble one. If a fair and lasting solution is desired, it can be found. It certainly is desired by the vast majority of the Members of the United Nations, I am sure.”
1953-09-24 · UN General Assembly · General Debate, Session 8 (1953)
“So we have the right, I think, to expect that the communist governments concerned, to which our resolutions have been forwarded, should now without delay designate their own representatives, and express their views regarding the time and place. Once the conference meets, there will be ample opportunity to iron out other difficulties which may arise. But are these of sufficient consequence to justify the other side in boycotting this necessary first step in peace-making, not only in Korea but perhaps over a broader area? 27. For it is surely not too much to hope that if we are successful in negotiating on' a specific and defined range of questions we may succeed also in strengthening the prospects of the settlement of wider Asian issues, although not necessarily through the same mechanism which we have recommended for the Korea Conference.”
1953-09-24 · UN General Assembly · General Debate, Session 8 (1953)
“including my own. But the decision was made, and made after long and exhaustive debate, and the composition of the conference on the United Nations side was decided — decided in a way which, if not perfect, should be satisfactory for the purpose we have in mind, namely, making peace in Korea. Surely it would be wrong at once to reopen the whole matter and to try to reverse our decision after such a short interval merely because the communist governments of Peking and North Korea demand it. 26. Insistence, for instance, by the communist side — and this is mentioned in their notes [A/2469 and A/2476 and Corr. 1] — that the Korean conference cannot convene unless the United Nations agrees that the USSR should be present as a “neutral” member, would throw serious doubt on their desire to have the conference convene at all.”
1953-09-24 · UN General Assembly · General Debate, Session 8 (1953)
“So far as the Canadian Government is concerned, we will not support any military action in Korea that is not United Nations action, and we would, of course, be opposed to any attempt to interpret existing United Nations objectives as including, for instance, the unification of Korea by force. On the other hand, we are aware that the signing of an armistice does not discharge us from obligations we have already undertaken in Korea as a Member of the United Nations. 25. To convert this armistice into peace, the political conference must meet. There is no other way. Less than a month ago, the seventh session of the Assembly, it will be remembered, made provision [resolution 711 (VII)] for the United Nations side of this meeting. It is quite true that this was done in a way which did not meet the full wishes of certain delegations.”
1953-09-24 · UN General Assembly · General Debate, Session 8 (1953)
“If concrete progress, and not mere talk about peaceful intentions, can be achieved in solving some of them, here in the United Nations or elsewhere, we will then, but only then, have some real ground for hope; for only then will our words have been confirmed by actions. 22. The two principal issues which will test the reality behind all our talk are, of course, Germany and Korea. The latter issue, which is before us, has now narrowed down to the political conference to be held under paragraph 60 of the Armistice Agreement. 23. The countries which fought in Korea on the United Nations side sent their troops there for no other purpose than to help repel aggression, declared such by United Nations decision. 24.”
1953-09-24 · UN General Assembly · General Debate, Session 8 (1953)
“If we are not careful, therefore, these “publicly confidential” discussions, useful and perhaps essential as they often are, may cause the United Nations to lose prestige as a place where opposing views can be constructively considered and where their reconciliation can at least be attempted in an efficient and businesslike way. 20. But whatever methods we adopt, the fear and tension which now grips the whole world will not be reduced until some of the current international issues which divide us are successfully resolved, either by the United Nations or by those States — acting, if necessary, outside the United Nations — which have the main share of responsibility for international peace and security. 21. In his penetrating address on 17 September, Mr. Dulles pointed to certain of these problems.”
1953-09-24 · UN General Assembly · General Debate, Session 8 (1953)
“Open diplomacy now tends to become frozen diplomacy. 19. I am sure that we can all think of subjects that have come before us in recent sessions of the Assembly that could have been more constructively discussed and more easily settled if there had previously been quiet and confidential discussion of them between delegations and governments, especially between those which were in disagreement over the matters in question. It is my feeling that the opportunity for consultation of this kind at United Nations meetings is, or seems to be, diminishing, and that a kind of “bloc” or “group” discussion is, on the other hand, increasing, the results, in one form or another, often being made public almost before the discussion itself has taken place.”
1953-09-24 · UN General Assembly · General Debate, Session 8 (1953)
“But the United Nations has, or it should have, a private as well as a public face. There should be opportunities here for other than public appearances. A television panel discussion can be instructive, and at times entertaining, but it is surely no substitute for direct consultation or for that old-fashioned diplomacy which is becoming more respectable by comparison with some of its gaudier successors. 18. It is, of course, essential that all free peoples should know and understand the great issues of policy which may mean life or death to them. But it is not essential, as I see it — indeed it is often harmful — for the negotiation of policy always to be Conducted in glass houses which are often too tempting a target for brickbats. It is all too easy to strike attitudes in public, only to find later that we are “stuck” with them.”
1953-09-24 · UN General Assembly · General Debate, Session 8 (1953)
“It is a place where we can try to find collective solutions, or one which we can use to get support and publicity for purely national solutions. It is a place where we can talk to each other with a view to securing general agreement, or to television and radio audiences in order to explain that disagreement is the fault of somebody else. In any event, whatever face the United Nations now presents to the public is enlarged to alarming proportions by all the media of information which now carry our words, our attitudes, even our appearances, to the ends of the earth. 17. I know of course, as the Assembly knows, that without the active participation of world agencies of communication and information this experiment in world organization could not succeed because it would not be able to secure popular support.”
1953-09-24 · UN General Assembly · General Debate, Session 8 (1953)
“Whether this is wishful thinking or not, such progress is the fundamental purpose to which our United Nations is dedicated, and we are, in all conscience, bound to keep everlastingly trying to bring about a better state of international relations; for if we fail in this we fail, sooner or later, in everything. 15. Faced with this task, then, we should ask ourselves, among other things, if our present methods of diplomacy, inside or outside the United Nations, are adequate and effective enough for the purpose of negotiating differences when the opportunity for such negotiation presents itself. 16. The United Nations is a place where we can meet either to settle problems or to make settlement more difficult.”
1953-09-24 · UN General Assembly · General Debate, Session 8 (1953)
“The growing unity and strength of the Western democracies, however, and the confidence that is beginning to come from this, the events of the last few months and, in particular, the conclusion of an armistice in Korea, may give us now a chance to move away from possible co-destruction and towards a coexistence which will be more than a word. I do not mean to suggest, of course, that an era of sweetness and light is just around the corner. Nor will it be ushered in merely by changes of tactics or paper promises of peace. But it does seem that there is at least more hope now for progress towards real peace than there was when the seventh session of the General Assembly opened almost a year ago.”
1953-09-24 · UN General Assembly · General Debate, Session 8 (1953)
“If these are, then, the alternatives, and if by our policies we should make the latter choice inevitable, then George Bernard Shaw was certainly right when he said: “If the other planets are inhabited, the earth is their lunatic asylum.” 13. Yet it is all too apparent that the tide of world affairs for the past seven years has been flowing in one direction, sometimes faster, sometimes slower, but always, unhappily, in the direction of an eventual catastrophe that might leave in the rubble little worth salvaging from what we are still able to call civilization. 14.”
1953-09-24 · UN General Assembly · General Debate, Session 8 (1953)
“The echo of those words of Mr. Spaak, spoken five years ago, has not faded from our minds. With these fears still haunting us, and with the sure knowledge that weakness in this world is a provocation and not a protection, we intend to become strong and remain strong until security can rest on a better and more lasting foundation even than strength. 12. I am aware, of course, that fear on one side often results in action which causes new fear on the other side; and that this provokes counteraction, which, in its turn, brings about even greater fear. And so a vicious circle is begun, which goes on and on until it is either cut through in the right way, by sincere negotiation and wise political decisions, or in the wrong way, by war, which now means atomic annihilation.”
1953-09-24 · UN General Assembly · General Debate, Session 8 (1953)
“Spaak went on to say: “Do you [the delegation of the Soviet Union] know why we [the Western European countries] are afraid? We are afraid because you often speak of imperialism. “What is the definition and current notion of imperialism? It is usually the idea of a nation, generally a great Power, that makes conquests and increases its influence throughout the world. “What is the historic truth that has emerged from recent years? It is that one great country alone has emerged from the war having conquered other territories — and that great country is the Soviet Union... “The empire of the Soviet Union stretches from the Far East to the Baltic Sea and from the Black Sea to the Mediterranean, and is now also felt on the banks of the Rhine ... and then the Soviet Union wonders why the other nations feel anxious.” 11.”
1953-09-24 · UN General Assembly · General Debate, Session 8 (1953)
“Vyshinsky put it, artificially stimulated by the Pentagon, but a fear which flows from the loss of freedom in Eastern Europe, from the Berlin blockade, from aggression in Korea, from the awful dangers of totalitarian tyranny, and from the 175 Soviet divisions, if that is the figure, ready to march. 10. Mr. Spaak, the then Foreign Minister of Belgium, put our feelings as eloquently and succinctly as they have ever been put when he said to the General Assembly in 1948: “The Soviet delegation need not look for complicated explanations of our policy. I will tell him what is the basis of our policy — in terms which are perhaps slightly cruel, but which only the representative of a small nation could use. Do you know what is the basis of our policy? It is fear of you, fear of your Government, fear of your policy.” Then Mr.”
1953-09-24 · UN General Assembly · General Debate, Session 8 (1953)
“Dulles added, and his words, I assure the Assembly, apply to my country: “Such agreement would be totally unattainable except for operations responsive to the clear menace of aggression.” 8. We of the free democratic countries, then, must not and will not adopt any policy or take any action which could give any other State valid reason to fear for its security or for its legitimate national interests. Such interests, however, do not include as making for peace — and here I quote with complete agreement from Mr. Vyshinsky’s speech of 21 September [438th meeting] — “a policy directed at destroying the social and political structure of any other country”. 9. But communist doctrine, in our eyes, professes just that, and that is one reason why we feel a deep, genuine- fear, not one as Mr.”
1953-09-24 · UN General Assembly · General Debate, Session 8 (1953)
“Furthermore, this friendly association of other countries with the United States, some of which have had as tragic an experience of the miseries and destructions of war as the Soviet Union itself, should be a reassuring rather than a disturbing factor to all those who seek peace. As Mr. Dulles put it on 17 September: “The Soviet leaders ... should know, and probably they do know, that community arrangements are the least likely to be aggressive. Military force which is within a single nation can be used offensively at the dictation of one government alone, sometimes of one man alone. Military force which is distributed throughout several countries cannot be used effectively unless all of the countries concerned are in agreement.” Then Mr.”
1953-09-24 · UN General Assembly · General Debate, Session 8 (1953)
“It may be that their fear on this score is manufactured by propaganda as a cloak for plans and policies of their own, which in turn rouse deep and anxious fear in us. But even if the communist fear were genuine, it is unfounded. The peoples of our free coalition are passionately pacific, and its leader, the United States, as Canadians have special reason to know and appreciate, is one of the least imperialistically minded Powers that ever had world leadership and responsibility thrust upon it. 7. But even if anyone were tempted to believe these 'untrue communist charges of American war-mongering imperialism, does anyone really think that the United States could decree aggressive or provocative collective action by, say, the North Atlantic, the Inter-American or the ANZUS [Australia, New Zealand and United States] groups?”
1953-09-24 · UN General Assembly · General Debate, Session 8 (1953)
“But by omission or commission, by what we say or do not say, we can lighten or darken the international atmosphere in which our problems must be solved. 5. The spirit of reason and conciliation, which has for long animated the free peoples in approaching these problems, was given eloquent and sincere expression in this Assembly on 17 September [434th meeting] by the Secretary of State of the United States. He reaffirmed our will to peace, which is deep and abiding. On our side, that will to peace exists, but does it coexist? 6. The Soviet bloc deny that our policies make for peace. They claim that our coalitions and our associations, particularly what they call the aggressive North Atlantic bloc, are a menace to their security and are designed for aggressive war. Nothing could be more remote from reality than that charge.”
1953-09-24 · UN General Assembly · General Debate, Session 8 (1953)
“Vyshinsky proudly ascribed the other day [438th meeting] to Soviet society. Honest differences openly expressed are bound to exist within and between free governments. Not only do we acknowledge them; at times we seem almost gratuitously to advertise them. But anyone who seeks to divide us in the United Nations or elsewhere by misinterpreting or exploiting these differences will soon find that the things that hold us together are far stronger and more enduring than those which at times seem to divide us. 4. If there are opportunities now for easing in some degree international tension, I hope that this eighth session of the General Assembly will use them to the full. We may not be able to change the facts of international life by resolutions in our Assembly.”
1953-09-24 · UN General Assembly · General Debate, Session 8 (1953)
“If there is any such happy possibility, it would be due, I think, not only to the armistice in Korea or to changes on the other side of the Iron Curtain, but even more to the fact that in recent years a large part of the free and democratic world has learned to cooperate in purpose, policy and action for the defence of peace. Gradually, and not without difficulty — because we are speaking now of free and independent States — a unity and strength is developing which is based on more than economic and military power. It is based also on a common belief in freedom and a determination to defend it against any reactionary and subversive forces which may threaten it. 3. Our co-operation is not synthetic; our unity is not imposed, nor is it of that monolithic type that Mr.”
1953-09-24 · UN General Assembly · General Debate, Session 8 (1953)
“1. May I, in the first place, offer you, Madam President, my sincere congratulations and those of my delegation on your election as President of the Assembly, an honour well deserved by the services that you and your country have given to the United Nations. As the President of the preceding Assembly, and for two long hours and six. minutes the presiding officer of this one, I can assure you that my congratulations and good wishes are not coloured, even faintly, by envy. 2. The eighth session of the Assembly takes place at a time when many think that the successful negotiation of some of the outstanding differences between the two major power groupings may be possible.”
1953-09-24 · UN General Assembly · General Debate, Session 8 (1953)
“If, however, that split persists and becomes deeper and more dangerous the United Nations, as we know it now, as we formed it at San Francisco, may disappear, and with that disappearance, should it ever take place, the risk of a war in which everything worth having would also disappear would become immeasurably greater. 116. To the prevention of that final catastrophe my delegation hopes that this Assembly will be able to make an effective contribution. To that end we pledge our own best efforts.”
1951-09-24 · UN General Assembly · General Debate, Session 6 (1951)
“It is always easy to secure peace and a kind of security on the other man’s terms, but we know where that can lead: to the humiliation of a Chamberlain and the death of a Masaryk. 115. The only peaceful coexistence which we can accept, and for which we must never cease to search, is in accordance with the principles of the Charter of the United Nations. If only we could reach that objective the tragic split between the great Powers which now weakens and endangers our world Organization could be healed, and the United Nations could grow in strength and prestige to a point where many of the items on the agenda of this General Assembly would be unthinkable.”
1951-09-24 · UN General Assembly · General Debate, Session 6 (1951)
“But now that our strength is increasing, and this is giving greater confidence to our people, it should also — and I hope we shall never forget this — give us renewed determination to use that strength solely for defensive purposes and without provocation; to use it as a basis for the negotiation and settlement of differences, whenever possible, within the United Nations. 114. It is essential that when a genuine move towards peace and the easing of international tension is made by Members of the United Nations we should meet it half way, or indeed more than half way, but glib words about peaceful coexistence are not enough. Hitler promised that to those he wished to conquer, if they would only wear brown shirts and become his slaves.”
1951-09-24 · UN General Assembly · General Debate, Session 6 (1951)
“History shows that arms alone have never been able to ensure peace. But what alternative is there in present circumstances to acquiring that strength from which alone the free world can negotiate, with any chance of success, with those who recognize no other test but power? No words of the kind which Mr. Vyshinsky has uttered in this debate will deflect my own country from this course, because nothing he has said, and indeed his Government has done, has lessened the burden of our fear. 113. Without military strength then, we feel that we would be lost.”
1951-09-24 · UN General Assembly · General Debate, Session 6 (1951)
“Even in the USSR itself, because of the misrepresentation and falsification of events in other countries by a Government which has absolute control over what its own people see and hear, that fear of war has now been driven deep into the minds of the people there who want war as little as we do. And so the vicious circle of fear is now complete. 112. As one means of escape from this dread anxiety, my country is now forced to increase its armed strength, though there lies ahead of it, as a young country, a tremendous task of peaceful national development to which it desires to direct all its energy, all its resources and all its wealth. But instead, for the protection of our very existence, we are now forced, by the unfriendly, aggressive policies of the Cominform States, to devote today about 45 per cent of our budget to defence.”
1951-09-24 · UN General Assembly · General Debate, Session 6 (1951)
“country”, and therefore we need no armed defence against a non-existent danger, our reply is again that we are not able to believe that because facts are against it. And again, when he says that Soviet Russia abhors power-politics and stands for “close international co-operation based on mutual respect... and... sovereign equality of States”, we simply point to the Soviet attitude towards Yugoslavia or recall the fate of those Polish or Czech or Bulgarian communists who dared to show a trace of national loyalty or patriotism. Because the facts, those stubborn things, are there for all to see, we have in my country a dread of the aggressive designs of Moscow, and less hope now than before that negotiation inside the United Nations will result in action which will remove that dread. Other free peoples have come to the same conclusion.”
1951-09-24 · UN General Assembly · General Debate, Session 6 (1951)
“Thousands will protest about it and will try to do something about it. But when 10,000 innocent Hungarians are dragged from their homes and driven like animals to the horrors of a concentration camp, does anybody in Budapest dare to protest? If he so much as murmured in his sleep, he would soon join the ten thousand if, indeed, he got that far. Of course Mr. Vyshinsky says that such reports are slanderous fabrications, but we are not able to believe that because we know the facts. And facts, to use the USSR representative’s own words, are stubborn things. 111. Similarly, when Mr. Vyshinsky says “evevyone knows that the Soviet Union... has no intention of.., attacking... any...”
1951-09-24 · UN General Assembly · General Debate, Session 6 (1951)
“That would involve, amongst other things, a readiness by the delegation of the USSR and by every other delegation, to discuss facts rather than to pursue the tactics of propaganda. But nothing, I am afraid, that we have heard so far from the Soviet delegation gives us very much reason for hope on this score. For example, Mr. Acheson reminded us the other day of brutal violations of human rights and human dignity from which thousands in Hungary and other Cominform countries have suffered in recent months. Mr. Vyshinsky could do no better than to retaliate with a report of two negroes shot in Florida. If that report is accurate, a shocking crime has been committed. However, the important fact is that 99.9 per cent of the people of the United States will feel that way about it.”
1951-09-24 · UN General Assembly · General Debate, Session 6 (1951)