YouSaid · the spoken record

Bevin

THE RECORD WRITES THIS SPEAKER AS BEVIN

lines on the record: 127
first: 1948-09-24
most recent: 1950-09-24
sittings or episodes: 3
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

“Now we know that it is the whole people which is pinning its faith in it. But that increases our responsibility, for it puts upon us the duty of a wider and a higher statesmanship than ever. The people will not fail; and we must not fail them.”
1950-09-24 · UN General Assembly · General Debate, Session 5 (1950)
“I have not time today to discuss these matters in detail, but in the work of the United Nations they must be given high priority and must not be overlooked on account of the other problems with which we have been occupied so far. 108. The work of the United Nations is such a vast subject that one is tempted to go on and on. One is bound to feel a thrill at having the privilege of being associated with such a tremendous institution as this. It will have its disappointments and setbacks. It will have many difficulties to overcome. But I believe that this last year has seen the Organization turn the corner. As I said earlier in my speech, it must feel stronger now because it now knows that it lives in the hearts of the people. Before, we did not know whether it was backed by governments alone.”
1950-09-24 · UN General Assembly · General Debate, Session 5 (1950)
“The nations which have made most progress in industrial development must be ready — as indeed they are — to assist those which, for a variety of reasons, are less advanced. 106. In the areas for which my Government is responsible we have been working on two lines. One is to pour in millions of money to help development. The second is to adjust our institutions to bring about the gradual education and development of the people, so that ultimately they may be given freedom and self-government. 107. I welcome the greater understanding of the part the United Kingdom is playing in the development of these territories, as shown by the report of the Trusteeship Council. It is very gratifying that most of the recommendations and resolutions of that Council have been adopted unanimously during its past two sessions.”
1950-09-24 · UN General Assembly · General Debate, Session 5 (1950)
“We have done our best to help to establish the principles of international law and have supported the reference of controversial legal questions to the International Court of Justice. On more than one occasion we have shown our willingness to submit issues in which we were involved to the decision of the Court and to abide by the result. We have also signed the optional clause. There is, indeed, no lack of facilities for the settlement of any disputes and difficulties that arise, if there is anxiety for such settlement, and we for our part are fully determined to make full use of every one of these facilities. 105. Considerable progress has been made during the past year in the field of economic and social development. But the problems before us are still enormous.”
1950-09-24 · UN General Assembly · General Debate, Session 5 (1950)
“If the Soviet Union representative were prepared to act in accordance with his proclaimed willingness to reach agreement, we could have a treaty tomorrow. 103. Meanwhile, I repeat, no amount of calling us warmongers or hurling names at us will divert us. We are determined to pursue peace and to maintain it. We are equally determined, if necessary, to fight to the bitter end for the liberty for which we struggled so hard and which we are resolved to defend. 104. Since the foundation of the United Nations, my Government's policy has been based on respect for and loyalty to the principles of the Charter. We have played our full part in the work of the General Assembly and the Security Council, and we have co-operated closely with the Economic and Social Council.”
1950-09-24 · UN General Assembly · General Debate, Session 5 (1950)
“It has been done on the basis of the philosophy that if enough chaos is created it is possible to seize power. I say with all the solemnity at my command that this is a dangerous policy which has already been carried too far for the liking of the free world. No amount of signing peace petitions, or anything of that character, can have any effect towards protecting peace. 102. It is actions, not words, that are needed. For example, we have been struggling for years now-to get agreement on a peace treaty for Austria. A year ago we appeared to be quite near to agreement. Now, for the whole year, there has been complete deadlock, and it seems that we cannot have a treaty unless we are prepared to sacrifice the whole economic future of Austria. Why go on torturing a little country like that, and not give it peace?”
1950-09-24 · UN General Assembly · General Debate, Session 5 (1950)
“Before there can be a change, there must be withdrawal of the fifth column from the countries of free peoples. There must be no interference in any form with other States in their evolution. Let there be real sovereignty — for it is sovereignty which the USSR claims it wants to maintain. If that can be accepted, then we might reach a stage where this problem of disarmament could be discussed in an atmosphere of absolute confidence. 101. The fact is, however, that during the last five years in which we have been struggling to get out of the morass caused by war, we have been hampered at every stage by their fifth column, which is led by the Cominform and instigated by Moscow to produce chaos, strikes and difficulties of all kinds, in order to prevent the common people from having a decent standard of life.”
1950-09-24 · UN General Assembly · General Debate, Session 5 (1950)
“No one wants to interfere with your sovereignty. But if, by every act, you give rise to suspicion, it is impossible to get a firm basis for the establishment of the necessary confidence upon which disarmament must be built.” 99. Then there is the USSR proposal for a one-third reduction in armaments. Well, really! And we are asked to accept that as a genuine proposition. The Soviet army today is larger than the armies of all Europe, and its armaments are greater than all of ours put together. This makes it look as though this talk of peace and signing petitions and peace campaigns is really a kind of propaganda barrage to weaken the victim before launching the attack. 100. The Soviet Union Government must not be surprised if we are not taken in by it.”
1950-09-24 · UN General Assembly · General Debate, Session 5 (1950)
“It cannot be dealt with merely by a resolution of the United Nations, as proposed by the Soviet Union representative [A/1376]. 98. If we consider in the first instance atomic weapons, the point of dispute between us is extremely simple. As I said at the third session of the United Nations General Assembly in Paris it is all a question of confidence. Thus if one country, when entering into an agreement of the kind proposed, closes all its doors and pulls down all its blinds and will not even let you look through, can you wonder that the rest of the nations, whose citizens’ lives and liberty are at stake, say to that country: “We are quite ready to enter into an agreement, but will you please show us that your country is also carrying it out? What is there to hide if you are abiding by the agreement and honouring it?”
1950-09-24 · UN General Assembly · General Debate, Session 5 (1950)
“No, Europe is not despondent in spite of all its trials. We are well aware of the tasks that lie before us but we shall, we believe, be a credit to the United Nations and to the world. 97. I must now turn to the problems of disarmament and the control of atomic energy which have been raised. No country has in the past played a greater part in endeavouring to bring about world-wide agreement on disarmament than my own. One of my predecessors between the two wars, Mr. Arthur Henderson, strove very hard to achieve this end at the last great Disarmament Conference in Geneva. But he could not get the conditions which would make it possible to bring about disarmament. There were already factions growing up which, notwithstanding their talk of peace, really wanted war. And what are the conditions needed for disarmament?”
1950-09-24 · UN General Assembly · General Debate, Session 5 (1950)
“As a matter of fact, the plan has been a great contribution to peace. Europe is re-emerging. Europe has not finished its contribution to humanity. 96. This present difficult phase will pass and there are two factors which will help it to go quickly. One is the determination of the free peoples of Europe to defend their liberty; the second is the growing economic prosperity resulting from the combined efforts of the western world. The one will give us peace to till the fields, to work the factories, to win the wealth from the mines, to transport it, and finally fabricate it for the use of our people. The other will give to the peoples the opportunity to express themselves and to develop the best elements of culture in the fields of science, of art and of religion that Europe has yet known.”
1950-09-24 · UN General Assembly · General Debate, Session 5 (1950)
“In a quiet, simple way his message came to us in his speech of 1947, a message of hope and friendship, and I would remind the Assembly that it was likewise offered to the Soviet Union and its satellites, and to all the countries of Europe alike. Indeed some of those countries were bursting to take part in it, but were prevented. Here was a plan bringing succour and hope to millions of people, but it was immediately turned into a violent political issue, and all sorts of threats were made. But we went forward, and the European peoples who took part are today filled with gratitude for the action of the United States. 95. Subsequent events have belied the pretensions and prophecies that were made against it. It was claimed that the plan was promoted for the preparation of war, and for doing all the wicked things one can think of.”
1950-09-24 · UN General Assembly · General Debate, Session 5 (1950)
“As I have said, we are eager to see a united Germany, under proper democratic institutions, which would remove this constant menace to the peace of Europe. And we are ready to devote all our energies to the recreation of sound economic conditions in that continent, and also in that country. 93. While striving for a political settlement of Europe, we have at the same time been endeavouring collectively to restore our economies and to repair the terrible devastation of war. I confess that at one moment it looked an almost impossible task; 94. Here I must once again pay my tribute to the United States and to its great soldier-statesman, General Marshall.”
1950-09-24 · UN General Assembly · General Debate, Session 5 (1950)
“But we should not have been doing our duty to the world, to this Organization, and to the people, if we had not united our forces and built up our military power to resist any possible threat from the East. 91. We had to meet the terrible decision two years ago of the Soviet Union Government to try to starve Berlin. Why starve a city to get one’s way? We had to deal with it by means of the famous air-lift to prevent the starvation of those people. At any moment there might have been incidents which would have caused conflict. Happily, that particular episode for the moment is now over, but the danger has not been removed, and so we have had to make our position clear. 92. If aggression takes place, it cannot be confined to Germany.”
1950-09-24 · UN General Assembly · General Debate, Session 5 (1950)
“Now we are confronted with a divided Germany, on which we look with anxiety lest it may be the scene of another act of aggression like that which took place in Korea. 90. The present organization of eastern Germany, with its powerful militarized police force, justifies very real concern on this score. We must naturally take this into account in the shaping of our policy, and we are accused of being warmongers because we do not ignore it, for here is a threatening situation which, unless care is used, might plunge the world again into conflict. Our attitude is entirely different. We were reluctant to move a single inch towards the creation of any warlike organization, even a purely defensive one. We ran our defences down very low; our expenditure was reduced to a minimum.”
1950-09-24 · UN General Assembly · General Debate, Session 5 (1950)
“For two years my United States and French colleagues and I strove to achieve agreement with the Russians. We enunciated principles which would have established a unified Germany, which was our aim throughout those discussions. And it is as far as my Government is concerned — I can speak with sincerity — still our aim and I believe that of my colleagues as well. 88. But it became clear that the Soviet Union Government did not want a unified Germany which was free to choose its own form of government. We wanted the Germans to choose — just as the rest of us choose — in absolute freedom. And I assert that history will not blame the western Powers for the failure to set up a united Germany as a peaceful and democratic State and bring it back into the comity of nations. 89.”
1950-09-24 · UN General Assembly · General Debate, Session 5 (1950)
“In so doing, the Government of the Soviet Union was disregarding agreements arrived at between the Allied Powers before the war itself terminated. 86. It soon became quite clear to us that nothing would satisfy Soviet policy except peace treaties designed to ensure that the countries of eastern Europe should be under communist regimes which were subservient to the ever expanding authority of Moscow. Looking back, I do not believe that the USSR Government ever had any sincere intention of acting in accordance with the spirit of the agreements which had been entered into during the war. Finally, in Czechoslovakia, the same end was achieved by means of a coup d’état. 87. We had the same difficulties when we tried to tackle the problem of Germany.”
1950-09-24 · UN General Assembly · General Debate, Session 5 (1950)
“Ever since the war ended in 1945 with the victory of the Allied Powers over Nazi Germany and Japan, we have been struggling to settle Europe. We entered upon discussions with our great Allies and, like the United States and France, we were animated by a spirit of conciliation and by a profound desire to establish peace in that continent and to re-create the work of development and rehabilitation. We soon discovered, when we began discussions on the five peace treaties, that the USSR Government was simultaneously carrying out policies in Poland, Romania, Hungary and Bulgaria which seemed to us to be a clear indication of its intention to dominate those countries, to convert them into satellites, to destroy all prospects of free elections, to stage purges and political trials and to get rid of any free political expression.”
1950-09-24 · UN General Assembly · General Debate, Session 5 (1950)
“Another problem which is now on the agenda is that of Formosa. I do not believe that this problem is insoluble. I trust that the best constructive minds will be brought to bear on it. It need not be the subject of any bitter debate or ill-feeling. We can settle it together, just as we shall have to settle the Korean problem, and in so doing show the world that we are competent to solve such problems in a manner that will contribute to world peace and justice. 84. There exist other active or potential sources of danger, and particularly in Europe. At any moment situations may %rise which would call for action by the United Nations as well as the Powers concerned. It remains to be seen whether the whole problem of Europe can be discussed and settled in a dispassionate way and on its merits. 85.”
1950-09-24 · UN General Assembly · General Debate, Session 5 (1950)
“I can assure the Chinese people that we look forward to the day when they will again take their proper place as one of the great Powers. The question of who shall represent them is a matter that can be fought out in this Assembly. Then we shall have forgotten these present difficulties and shall be ready to help China to fulfil her destiny, after so many years of struggle and civil war. 82. We refuse to accept the concept of a world divided into East and West. This planet is too small for that. To us, all peoples of the world are one family, and we are not going to allow a wall to be erected between us if we can help it. We are determined to follow in all our approaches to these problems the conception of the United Nations itself, which is a conception of one world dwelling in peace and contentment. 83.”
1950-09-24 · UN General Assembly · General Debate, Session 5 (1950)
“I feel that if only those charged with such heavy responsibility could agree among themselves on a code of conduct which would be tolerant, helpful and conducive to the progress of this great Organization, it would be one of the best ways of establishing confidence in the world. 81. Another problem which we shall have to deal with in this session of the General Assembly and endeavour to settle is the question of the representation of China. A vote has already been taken on the question [277th meeting], which is now to be studied by a special committee set up by the President, and approved by the General Assembly. I do not want to say anything to prejudge the conclusions of that committee. I wish to make it clear to this Assembly, however, that we do not intend to break our long-established friendship with China.”
1950-09-24 · UN General Assembly · General Debate, Session 5 (1950)
“Ceylon has a great contribution to make to the world, but it is kept out of the United Nations by sheer perversity. This sort of action makes for bad feeling among the nations. I have no doubt that everybody in the General Assembly, or nearly everybody, believes that the use of the veto in the case of Ceylon was a grave injustice. It is somewhat ironical that those who are responsible should claim to be the champions of the emerging peoples of Asia. 80. Here I would recall that in 1948 we tried, in a meeting of the five great Powers, to establish a code of conduct which would ensure that none of us would abuse our power to the detriment of the smaller nations. But it was of no avail.”
1950-09-24 · UN General Assembly · General Debate, Session 5 (1950)
“In accordance with the great design which underlies the conception of the Commonwealth, the peoples of India, Pakistan, Burma and Ceylon have now emerged as independent nations, controlling their own destinies and having a vital say in the destinies of Asia and the world. 78. We are proud — and I think I can say for everyone in my country that we are especially proud — that the friendship between the British people and the peoples of these new nations is firm and that we are able to work together with them in the interests of peace and economic development. 79. It is a matter of deep regret to us that Ceylon has not been admitted to the United Nations. Why should any Power try to keep a country like Ceylon from joining this Organization?”
1950-09-24 · UN General Assembly · General Debate, Session 5 (1950)
“76. There has been, as I have already said, an overwhelming response to the call to resist aggression in Korea and to defeat the intentions of those who sought to use force to achieve their ends, but now another test will be applied to our judgment in the settlement of Korea. Public opinion will judge us not only by the right use of our military power, but also by the sincerity and good intentions of every Member of the United Nations in the final settlement of the problem, and by the effectiveness of our actions for the rehabilitation of the country when hostilities have ceased. 77. For more than two centuries the British people were responsible for the administration of vast areas of Asia, and we believe that that long association has given us some insight into the affairs of that great continent.”
1950-09-24 · UN General Assembly · General Debate, Session 5 (1950)
“We shall have before us, at this fifth session of the General Assembly, a number of grave issues which have arisen as a result of developments in the Far East. 74. The conflict still rages in Korea, but I am confident that the authority of the United Nations will prevail. However, that is really only the beginning. It is also our duty to look beyond the conflict and to find means whereby peace and unity can be restored in Korea, 75. In our view there must no longer be South Koreans and North Koreans, but just Koreans, who must be encouraged to work together to rebuild their country with the advice and the help and the support of the United Nations. It is difficult in war to see the picture in its proper perspective, but in this General Assembly we have a great opportunity to consult with one another and plan for the days that lie ahead.”
1950-09-24 · UN General Assembly · General Debate, Session 5 (1950)
“I am glad that my country was able immediately to contribute substantial naval forces, which have played no mean part in the operations at sea, while United Kingdom land forces are now also in the thick of the fighting. 72. But we must not leave things to chance like that again; if we do, the world would not forgive us. Therefore we must give urgent attention to the plan put forward by Mr. Acheson on behalf of the United States Government for strengthening the United Nations machinery against aggression. I am in full agreement with its objectives and, if adopted, it will ensure that responsibility is shared by all of us, great and small alike. I am sure the United States Government will welcome constructive criticism in discussions of this plan so as to make it widely acceptable and as effective as possible. 73.”
1950-09-24 · UN General Assembly · General Debate, Session 5 (1950)
“I do not think we need have any fear in the future about the response of mankind in resisting aggression. Much as we all hate the idea of war, we realize that if aggression takes place, we must resist it by force. And we must be prepared to face any emergency. 71. We must recognize that in order to deal with this latest example of aggression, the Security Council and the United Nations had to improvise, and that it was fortunate that the centre and pivot of that improvisation was a great nation like the United States. That country had the necessary power to hold the situation until the strength of the United Nations could be mobilized.”
1950-09-24 · UN General Assembly · General Debate, Session 5 (1950)
“But they had underestimated the almost immediate and overwhelming reaction of the rest of the world in resentment at their conduct. I have no doubt that this resentment would be felt and expressed just as keenly in the country of those who are responsible for the aggression if their people were as free to learn the facts as we are. 70. Now that this unity in resistance to aggression has been forged, we must not allow the slightest suggestion of paralysis to creep back into this Organization. We have always wished to see it endowed with a great moral authority, and the events of the last few months indicate that, among the peace-loving nations, there is a great respect for law in the conduct of international affairs, as great as in their own internal affairs.”
1950-09-24 · UN General Assembly · General Debate, Session 5 (1950)
“The last few months nave shown with what credit the United Nations has emerged from a period of great trial. It has proved itself capable of doing what many doubted whether it could do; it has displayed the unity and determination required to take prompt and effective action against aggression. 69. Many people were taken by surprise by the recommendations of the Security Council regarding Korea. But our representatives on the Council correctly interpreted the silent feelings of millions of people throughout the world — feelings which prompted a unity in response for which the aggressors had not bargained when shaping their policy. It was clear that they had counted on being able to present the world with a fait accompli in Korea and to win a victory for aggression.”
1950-09-24 · UN General Assembly · General Debate, Session 5 (1950)
“I do not intend to delay the proceedings of this Assembly very long, but I want to take this opportunity to try to explain to you the approach of my Government to the problems and difficulties that confront the world today. 68. When I made my speech in the General Assembly this time last year,8 I confess that, like many others, I felt somewhat pessimistic about the future of the United Nations. I wondered whether it had taken root deeply enough in the hearts and minds of the people of the world for the Organization to survive, and whether it was sturdy enough to weather the inevitable international storms. At the end I came to the conclusion that this great institution, on which is set humanity’s chief hope for dealing with the world’s problems of war and peace, would recover its original impetus and spirit. That faith has been justified.”
1950-09-24 · UN General Assembly · General Debate, Session 5 (1950)
“Concentration on fundamental problems might be the way to make it more effective and more successful; that was a course which should be carefully studied. 49. Mr. Bevin was convinced that, in spite of frustrations, it was the people’s will that the United Nations should go forward and not lose sight of the great objectives that man had always had before him: universal peace, universal brotherhood and the means to settle all disputes without resort to force.”
1949-09-24 · UN General Assembly · General Debate, Session 4 (1949)
“All those annual events, all those agencies which were confidently created, were gradually helping to develop in the minds and hearts of the peoples of the world a greater understanding of the importance of international law, of the rule of law, of the moral acceptance of law, of the necessity for the adoption of a high standard of moral values in the enforcement of that law, and of the necessity for the universal adoption of optional clauses and for the willing acceptance of decisions, even if they were not quite to the liking of all. 48. In view of the magnitude of the problems involved, the United Nations might have to limit its scope in order to have greater success in the questions it sought to deal with. It had perhaps, in its enthusiasm, thrown its net a little too wide. It had perhaps attempted too much and achieved too little.”
1949-09-24 · UN General Assembly · General Debate, Session 4 (1949)
“The atomic weapon was such a terrible weapon of destruction that any nation which really wanted to put an end to it could readily agree to inspection in order to satisfy every citizen of the world that a convention on atomic warfare was really effective. 46. The United Kingdom had approached all those problems on the basis, first, of collective security; secondly, of disarmament with inspection; thirdly, of enforceable control. 47. In conclusion, Mr. Bevin asserted that, notwithstanding disappointments in those great problems, the United Nations had performed a great task. The world Organization could not be built in a day or a year, but it would grow. One of its great advantages was the opportunity it offered for debate and open discussion of different approaches to world problems.”
1949-09-24 · UN General Assembly · General Debate, Session 4 (1949)
“In the very critical days of the war, Generalissimo Stalin had received the same information and had requested the United Kingdom Government to issue an announcement that, should the Germans resort to the use of gas, the United Kingdom would retaliate to the fullest possible extent. The United Kingdom had agreed to do that and the announcement had been made. The United Kingdom had proceeded to speed up the production of gas in order to be able to retaliate in the event that Germany resorted to gas warfare. That situation had arisen largely because there had been no provision in the Protocol for inspection. It was an ineffective Protocol, because its implementation had been left to the discretion of the respective Governments.”
1949-09-24 · UN General Assembly · General Debate, Session 4 (1949)
“It was being asserted, however, that a convention prohibiting the use of atomic weapons would in itself be enough, and the argument had been advanced that the use of gas during the Second World War had been prevented by the existence of the Protocol for the prohibition of the use in war of asphyxiating, poisonous or other gases and of bacteriological methods of warfare, signed in Geneva in 1925. In that connexion, Mr. Bevin drew attention to the fact that no provision had been made in that Protocol for enforceable inspection. Such inspection had certainly never been applied, and in the course of the war it had become known to the United Kingdom Government, as it had to the USSR Government, that the Germans were producing gas. It had been feared that they would use it and, indeed, they had come near to using it.”
1949-09-24 · UN General Assembly · General Debate, Session 4 (1949)
“control and in order to see to it that each one was treated fairly and that its position was secure. That was provided for in the plan adopted by the Assembly. It meant, therefore, that the USSR must raise its curtain and open the way to the system of control approved by the General Assembly, the system which the United Kingdom and the majority of the other nations believed in their hearts to be the only means that would ensure adequate security. 44. The United Kingdom Government, therefore, adhered to the original declaration which President Truman, Mr. Attlee and Mr. Mackenzie King had issued in Washington in November 1945, and it was ready forthwith to take all constructive steps to give effect to it. 45.”
1949-09-24 · UN General Assembly · General Debate, Session 4 (1949)
“President Truman’s statement on the same day had reemphasized the need for “truly effective and enforceable international control”. The two statements appeared to advocate the same thing. If, then there was to be effective control, the means of inspection and of operating effective control must be open to the United Nations to carry out. 43. A further argument had been used, however, to the effect that the reason the Atomic Energy Commission’s plan had not been accepted was that it interfered with independence and sovereignty. If, however, all nations were in danger from atomic weapons and wished to establish control, and if they placed control in the hands of a collective body, representing the world, then, up to that point, they would surrender their sovereignty in order to achieve effective.”
1949-09-24 · UN General Assembly · General Debate, Session 4 (1949)
“It had continued to decry the plan approved by the Assembly. Mr. Bevin had listened to the USSR representative’s speech at the 226th meeting with very great attention, and would like to know whether he was to understand that the Government of the Soviet Union was finally prepared to accept the decision of the United Nations. If that were so, then the decision must be put into effect. 42. It was not obstruction on the part of the United Kingdom or of those who thought as it did that had prevented agreement. Mr. Bevin would remind the Assembly that at the 226th meeting, on 23 September, the USSR representative had called for the “unconditional prohibition of atomic weapons and the establishment of appropriate strict international control”.”
1949-09-24 · UN General Assembly · General Debate, Session 4 (1949)
“Mackenzie King, issued in Washington in 1945, had, in fact, called for the elimination of the atomic weapon, and General Assembly resolution 1 (I) of 24 January 1946 had repeated that call. 41. Since that time, a series of resolutions adopted by overwhelming majorities in the Atomic Energy Commission itself had emphasized that essential aim of the elimination of the atomic weapon. The United Kingdom and others had, however, recognized that effective prohibition depended on effective control of atomic energy. In common with others, it supported the plan approved by the General Assembly, because that plan would provide for effective control. Nevertheless, the. Soviet Union had clung obstinately to the proposals for control which it had put forward in 1947 and which had been rejected over and over again as inadequate.”
1949-09-24 · UN General Assembly · General Debate, Session 4 (1949)
“Both plans had been thoroughly examined and exhaustively discussed, and the Commission’s acceptance of the plan in November 1948 had been endorsed in resolution 191 (III), adopted by no less than forty members of the General Assembly. Those forty members must feel flattered by the suggestion that they had been coerced into adopting a plan which no self-respecting nation could adopt. 40. The USSR was continually putting forward a plea for prohibition of the atomic weapon and perpetually seeking to blame the United Kingdom and others for failure to make, prohibition a reality. That was an absurd charge; those nations were as anxious as any others for prohibition. The original declaration by President Truman, Mr. Attlee and Mr.”
1949-09-24 · UN General Assembly · General Debate, Session 4 (1949)
“Turning to the question of atomic energy, he characterized as threadbare the accusation that the Atomic Energy Commission had failed to fulfil the task given to it by the General Assembly because of continuous attempts on the part of the United States and the United Kingdom to impose on the Commission a plan which was unacceptable to self-respecting nations. The facts were that, so far from having been imposed, the plan had resulted from several years’ work in the Commission, in which, it should be remembered, nineteen Members of the United Nations had taken part at various times. All but two of the members of the Commission had accepted it in preference to the USSR plan.”
1949-09-24 · UN General Assembly · General Debate, Session 4 (1949)
“It was in the interests of the United Nations that a way should be found whereby nations which fulfilled the conditions required for admission to the General Assembly should not be kept out by a veto. 38. Mr. Bevin wished to take the opportunity of congratulating the Economic and Social Council and its President, Mr. Thomson a very good year’s work. Reading through the Council’s report, he had felt that its recent session had probably been the best it had held. In his opinion, the future success of the Council would depend to a great extent on the cutting out of less essential activities and concentration on really practical ones which could be applied effectively and quickly. Confusion and loss of efficiency would result if the efforts of the Council were too diffused. 39.”
1949-09-24 · UN General Assembly · General Debate, Session 4 (1949)
“Notwithstanding all the differences that had hitherto existed, the United Kingdom had been glad to be able to hand over a great civil service trained by the United Kingdom in the art of administration and an army well trained to keep order; the transfer of power had been carried out effectively. 36. The United Kingdom earnestly hoped that the difference between India and Pakistan would soon be finally resolved. Nothing would give greater joy to their friends. If that one difficulty were removed, it would help to expedite their economic development, so essential in that part of the world. 37. It was a matter of great regret to the United Kingdom Government that Ceylon, which was innocent of wrong of any kind, which had achieved its independence like India and Pakistan, had been denied the right to sit in the Assembly.”
1949-09-24 · UN General Assembly · General Debate, Session 4 (1949)
“Great strides had already been made, and it was a matter of great regret that the people were being kept in a state of apprehension, not by the revolt of any of the local population but by the instruments of an outside Power. 35. Mr. Bevin had taken careful note of the speech delivered by the Indian representative (222nd meeting). It had been, in his opinion, a very thoughtful speech, particularly in its references to self-government. The United Kingdom Government was, of course, very gratified to have been able to co-operate with the peoples of India, Pakistan, Ceylon and Burma to bring about a transfer of power to over 400 million people in Asia, a major political operation carried out in a most remarkable manner and in good faith.”
1949-09-24 · UN General Assembly · General Debate, Session 4 (1949)
“The United Kingdom would make no attempt to interfere in the choice of government, but China had entered into certain international obligations which must be honoured, and a wise approach to the handling of those problems would be in the interests of the whole world. 34. Mr. Bevin made a short reference to Malaya, where circumstances were closely connected with those in China. There had been terrorism in that territory on similar lines. The local inhabitants had been struggling hard to restore their economy, and the United Kingdom had been collaborating and assisting, step by step, in the development of measures leading ultimately to self-government.”
1949-09-24 · UN General Assembly · General Debate, Session 4 (1949)
“Modern China, however, had been sorely tried. In 1931, it had suffered from Japanese aggression. When the Japanese had been defeated, civil war had divided the country. The United Kingdom. Government would watch events in China very closely, but judging by the speeches being made by the victorious leaders, slogans of the same kind as had been heard elsewhere were echoing through China. China might, after all, find itself in need of all the Members of the United Nations, and not only of one single country. Any attempt to create prejudice and hatred would not be in China’s interests.”
1949-09-24 · UN General Assembly · General Debate, Session 4 (1949)
“The situation strongly resembled that which had existed in Berlin when the United States, France and the United Kingdom had been in effect warned that they would be forced out of Berlin unless they submitted to USSR pressure. If the note were withdrawn, and, in the event that no settlement were reached between the parties concerned, if the question were submitted to the United Nations, that would represent an important practical contribution to the restoration of world confidence. 32. Turning to the question of China, Mr. Bevin said that the plea of the Chinese Government representative (223rd meeting) merited full consideration. He did not propose for the time being to discuss the details of the problems which it raised. 33. There had been many conquests of China but no conquerors. Each in turn had been absorbed by the Chinese people.”
1949-09-24 · UN General Assembly · General Debate, Session 4 (1949)
“It said that that Government would use “more effectual methods”. It was not known what those methods were. Would they endanger the security and integrity of Yugoslavia? More, would they endanger the peace of the world? Some unhappy events in history had begun in that part of the world. Was it the intention of the USSR to resort to some dastardly means? The meaning of the words was obscure. The United Kingdom Government had information, however, that troops had begun to move towards Yugoslavia. 31. A very dangerous situation existed which all regarded with apprehension. The matter did not solely affect the two countries. It was to be hoped that Mr. Vyshinsky’s advice to other countries had been accepted by his own Government, and that the threat of force contained in the Soviet Union’s note to Yugoslavia would be withdrawn.”
1949-09-24 · UN General Assembly · General Debate, Session 4 (1949)
“It was, however, difficult to reconcile that declaration with the language used in the note addressed by the Soviet Union to Yugoslavia. At the end of the note the following appeared: “If this is so, then the USSR Government deems it needful to declare that it will not put up with such a position and will be forced to use other more effectual methods to defend the rights and interests of Soviet citizens in Yugoslavia and to call to order the fascist violators who have gone too far.” 30. Yugoslavia was an independent country and a Member of the United Nations. There was, however, nothing in the note to the effect that if a satisfactory solution was not reached, the matter would be referred to the United Nations. What it did say was that the Government of the Soviet Union alone would determine the instrument, and would use it.”
1949-09-24 · UN General Assembly · General Debate, Session 4 (1949)
“Religious freedom was interpreted to mean persecution, and civil liberty meant, the rule of the secret police. All those whose duty it was to listen in the-United Nations to the representatives of the Soviet Union were under no misapprehension. The USSR representative’s recent speech abounded in examples of such differences in the use of words. 28. It had been suggested that differences should be settled by mutual discussion. If that meant that in the future views were to be exchanged in a spirit of reasonableness and compromise, then on behalf of the Government and the people of the United Kingdom, Mr. Bevin would welcome it. For three years the United Kingdom had been trying to conclude a treaty with Austria. In the light of the new declaration, it seemed that a solution might be reached. 29.”
1949-09-24 · UN General Assembly · General Debate, Session 4 (1949)