YouSaid · the spoken record

MENON

lines on the record: 397
first: 1953-09-24
most recent: 1955-09-24
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

“There is, however, one matter in the Sub-Committee’s report on which we must make our position categorically clear. Two views on the Anglo-French proposals are possible. There is the view of the Soviet Union that there must be unconditional non-use of the atomic weapon, which is not acceptable to the Western side; the compromise put forward is that it may be used conditionally. 116. My delegation and, indeed, the peoples of Asia, if I may say so — the majority of the peoples of Asia — will never agree to the idea that we can have conditional use of atomic weapons. We think that this is an entirely wrong line to take. We are prepared to concede that the non-conditional non-use may entail difficulties, and, therefore, the conditions which make non-conditional non-use possible, must be made to emerge.”
1954-09-24 · UN General Assembly · General Debate, Session 9 (1954)
“In this letter, which our representative in New York handed to the Secretary-General, we requested that the Disarmament Commission should consider this matter. Paragraph 6 states: “The Government of India make these proposals and request their immediate consideration by the Disarmament Commission in the sincere belief and the earnest hope that they will make a useful beginning in the fulfilment of the earnest desire which the General Assembly affirmed last year . . .” This only applies to explosions, but we believe that the whole problem is amenable to a stand-still arrangement, pending the outcome of the very helpful discussions which are going on, and I think it will bring some heart and a feeling of optimism to the peoples of the world, and reverse the process of increasing arms. 115.”
1954-09-24 · UN General Assembly · General Debate, Session 9 (1954)
“A revision of this attitude may. be necessary, but I am more concerned about another matter which I will try to state as briefly as possible — that is, the problem of disarmament itself, with particular reference to atomic and hydrogen war. 114. In view of the short time at my disposal, I propose to leave out all the gruesome details of this affair; but I want to make the suggestion that cold war, in many ways, is like war itself. The conversion of a state of war into a state of peace is preceded by an armistice or by a truce. It is for that reason that my Government desired that the Committees concerned should take into account its proposal [DC/44 and Corr.1] in regard to the hydrogen bomb for a stand-still arrangement.”
1954-09-24 · UN General Assembly · General Debate, Session 9 (1954)
“When this Assembly met, there were two positions, that of the United States and that of the Soviet Union. There was a compromise position, that of France and the United Kingdom, which the United States was willing to accept. Now, the representative of the Soviet Union has come forward and said, without qualification, that he accepts, as a basis of discussion, the proposals put forward by the Sub-Committee. 113. I am most anxious not to develop the details of this matter, nor to go into the procedural aspects of this question, because my delegation proposes to participate in the discussion on disarmament, and we believe the time has come for the Assembly to consider whether those parts of the world — regions, as they are called — can be left out in this Committee’s consideration of the problem of disarmament.”
1954-09-24 · UN General Assembly · General Debate, Session 9 (1954)
“I may say that this is the view of my Government with regard to the people of Indian origin in the British colonies, and elsewhere. We regard them as Tanganyikans and Kenyans, or as whatever they are, in spite of their civilizations and their connexions of race, and everything else. 111. The next problem that I would like to address myself to is that of disarmament. In resolution 715 (VIII) of 28 November 1953, a Sub-Committee was set up, even though our proposal for it did not have much support at first. We are all happy that the Sub-Committee has laboured very hard and our hearts must have been warmed by the speeches made by the representatives of France and the United Kingdom, and certain South American countries. It is felt now that we have gone a step beyond the Sub-Committee’s report. 112.”
1954-09-24 · UN General Assembly · General Debate, Session 9 (1954)
“It is not a question really of the Security Council or anybody else deciding as they have to decide on the admission “An interesting development has now taken place, and reference to it has been made both by Mao Tse-tung and Chou En-lai, the Head of State and the Prime Minister of the People’s Government of China. They stated that they would not consider Chinese communities living outside China in the same way as they had formerly been considered, but that those communities may now choose between becoming nationals of the country in which they are living — and if they so chose they would be cut off completely from China — or retaining their Chinese nationality, in which event they must not interfere in the internal affairs of another country. This is an action which certainly will remove some difficulties and apprehensions.” 110.”
1954-09-24 · UN General Assembly · General Debate, Session 9 (1954)
“The result is that all kinds of conflicts arise. I am convinced in my mind that there would have been no Korean war if the People’s Government of China had been in the United Nations — it is only guess work — because people could have dealt with China across a table. It adds to the complexities and difficulties of world problems. “Remember this, that it is not a question of the admission of China to the United Nations. China is one of the founding Members of the United Nations. It is merely a question of who represents China. This fact is not adequately realized.”
1954-09-24 · UN General Assembly · General Debate, Session 9 (1954)
“On this same question, just two days ago the Prime Minister of India made the following statement: “In regard to the United Nations, this House knows that we have stood for the People’s Government of China being represented there. Recently the United Nations passed a resolution that this matter will not be considered for a year or so. I have long been convinced of the fact that a great part of our present-day difficulties — certainly in the Far East, but I would like to go further and say in the world — is a result of this extraordinary shutting of one’s eyes to the fact of China. Here is a great country, and it is totally immaterial whether you like it or dislike it. Here is a great country, and the United Nations, or some countries of the United Nations, refuse to recognize that it is there.”
1954-09-24 · UN General Assembly · General Debate, Session 9 (1954)
“We hope that the political considerations which might cause difficulties in the case of some people will not last too long, and that we shall be able to talk to those with whom some people may disagree. The participation in our deliberations of the People’s Government of China would be one of the most substantial contributions towards establishing stability in South-East Asia and towards providing for noninterference in the affairs of other States and for arrangements on non-agression. 108. The Prime Ministers considered at Colombo the question of the representation of China in the United Nations. They felt that such representation would help to promote stability in Asia, ease world tension and assist in bringing about a more realistic approach to world problems. 109.”
1954-09-24 · UN General Assembly · General Debate, Session 9 (1954)
“I hope that the Assembly will take note of the very strong and considered views expressed by the Prime Ministers at Colombo in regard to the representation of China. While they have not used exaggerated language, they have sought to convey to the world the importance of this matter and their concern about it. 107. We would say that the presence in this Assembly of the People’s Government of China alone can bring into our counsels the large part of Asia which is now disenfranchised. This is so in fact, though not in law, because of the position adopted by the Assembly. We believe that our delegation’s view on the question of legality is well known.”
1954-09-24 · UN General Assembly · General Debate, Session 9 (1954)
“It may be said that the authorities on Formosa also take the same view. This factor contributes to making the position of Chinese communities in the countries of South-East Asia very embarrassing. We know the peculiar situation that prevails in Malaya. The British Government has the very difficult position whereby one talks of Malayan independence when the Malayans themselves are in a minority at Geneva. What is more, if Geneva proved anything, it was that no results could be obtained if the right people; were not present. That does not necessarily mean that we are getting anywhere just because the people who are sitting together are like-minded; in order to get anywhere we also have to talk to the “unlike-minded”. 106.”
1954-09-24 · UN General Assembly · General Debate, Session 9 (1954)
“There is something fundamentally wrong about it. The result inevitably is that the influence of the United Nations lessens, as it must. I do not want it to lessen because, whatever it may be, it is one of our biggest hopes for peace in the world. “In this connexion, constant reference has been made here to what has been called aggression by subversion. The Government of India is glad to be able to relate that both the Head of State, Mao Tse-tung, and the Prime Minister of the People’s Government of China, Chou En-lai, have recently said that it has been pointed out to them that the millions of Chinese who are overseas but claim Chinese nationality and who support China, cause a good deal of trouble. In former days, China did not recognize the right of a Chinese to divest himself of his Chinese nationality.”
1954-09-24 · UN General Assembly · General Debate, Session 9 (1954)
“There will be no settlement in the Far East or in South-East Asia until this major fact of the People’s Government of China is recognized. I say one of the biggest factors ensuring security in South-East Asia and in the Far East is the recognition of China by those countries and China’s admission to the United Nations. There would be far greater assurance of security that way than through your South-East Asia Treaty Organization or the rest. “If China comes in, apart from the fact that you deal with China face to face at the United Nations and elsewhere, China would assume certain responsibilities in the United Nations. . . . “Instead of adding to its responsibility and laying down ways of co-operation, you shut the doors of co-operation and add to the irresponsible behaviour of nations in this way and call it security.”
1954-09-24 · UN General Assembly · General Debate, Session 9 (1954)
“At any rate, our endeavours will take the direction which I have indicated. 105. I come now to the question of the representation of China. The resolution which was moved by the representative of the United States, Mr. Lodge [473rd meeting], does not say that we must not discuss this question; it says only that we must not take a decision on it. India’s position on this question is very well known. The stability of Asia would be very much assisted by having the People’s Government of China represented in this gathering. It made a great contribution of new countries. China is not a new country. It is really a question, if you like, of credentials — who represents China — a straightforward question, and it surprises and amazes me how this straightforward question has been twisted round about and made a cause of infinite troubles.”
1954-09-24 · UN General Assembly · General Debate, Session 9 (1954)
“In spite of the many organizations and arrangements which we may not favour, we have no intention of making this a kind of barrier in our relationship with other people. We shall, as far as we can, base our conduct on understanding and use whatever persuasion we are able to exercise; particularly with respect to the United Kingdom, which in this matter has cut right across the lines of other relations, we have explained our position fully. 103. I hope that nothing I have said will be regarded as merely making an argument or as in any way cutting into the complete and unqualified right of countries to conclude whatever agreements they wish. I shall resist the temptation to quote Mr. Casey’s speech on this matter. 104. That is our position regarding the Manila agreement. However, as we are optimistic, we hope that it will not do much harm.”
1954-09-24 · UN General Assembly · General Debate, Session 9 (1954)
“To do so-would have meant that we were not sincere in our views, or that there was no meaning in the agreements and understandings we had just reached with Burma and with China. These agreements refer to non-aggression and non-interference. To have concluded these agreements and then to become a party to a system of this kind would not have been consistent. Furthermore, it would not have been of any positive value because, as I said, the results are more negative and harmful than positive and useful. As it stands, the main areas and the larger countries of this region are not part of this system of organization. We regret that this has come into existence and we hope that in future common sense will prevail on both sides.”
1954-09-24 · UN General Assembly · General Debate, Session 9 (1954)
“Therefore, they are multiple selves and there cannot be any question of self-defence. Article 51 of the Charter, therefore, does not apply. It is not an organization, even a military one, of the character cited within the meaning of the clause cited. 101. If it is stated that the agreement comes under Article 52, then we say that it is not a regional organization, because the maintenance of international peace and security is primarily a function of the Security Council, as stated in Article 24. Any argument, therefore, about this being a regional organization is, in our view, totally inadmissible. 102. The Government of India was invited to attend the Manila Conference. It did not attend because to do so would have meant a reversal in our policy.”
1954-09-24 · UN General Assembly · General Debate, Session 9 (1954)
“Measures taken by Members in the exercise of this right of self-defence shall be immediately reported to the Security Council . . .”. 100. I shall not go into the question of whether this is a measure taken or a measure contemplated, and I shall not go into the question of reporting to the Security Council. But if there has been no attack we cannot regard this as a measure of self-defence. And, what is more, it certainly is not the self-defence, not even of a collective self. It is very doubtful that law permits a collective self in this way, unless the selves that make up the collective self are individuals, such as in a company or in a corporation. These, however, are sovereign States, whose selves remain separate. If their selves had been merged, then the fact of their individual seating in this Assembly would be open to question.”
1954-09-24 · UN General Assembly · General Debate, Session 9 (1954)
“What is more, the South-West Pacific is open sea. So that from this point of view we think that the agreement has hurt us. 99. In arguing before this Assembly that this is a regional organization, the proponents of this treaty, some of them signatories, have quoted one Article or another of the Charter. Some call to their defence Article 51, and claim that under this Article it is a purely defensive organization. Now what does Article say? It says: “Nothing in the present Charter shall impair the inherent right of individual or collective self-defence if an armed attack occurs against a Member of the United Nations, until the Security Council has taken measures necessary to maintain international peace and security.”
1954-09-24 · UN General Assembly · General Debate, Session 9 (1954)
“I would like to say that no one can object to agreements among sovereign nations, but when those agreements go beyond their own territory for the protection of an area — and what is more, in our case some of these parties are bound to us by other ties — it introduces into Asia the whole apparatus of the cold war, and cannot, contribute to the extension of the area of peace or to drawing those who may have, or are reputed to have, aggressive designs, or aggressive ideas, or aggressive illusions, into the comity of nations. 98. No one can object to a club of like-minded nations, or temporarily like-minded nations, doing what they like. But this agreement goes further. It designates as its area the South-West Pacific and the general area of South-East Asia. Generally, South-East Asia extends from the Himalayas to the equator.”
1954-09-24 · UN General Assembly · General Debate, Session 9 (1954)
“But as I said, while we regard this as harmful to the interests of peace, it does not at the present moment affect us greatly. 97. We regret that this agreement should come soon after Geneva and have helped to give rebirth to the suspicions which all of us have tried to get rid of. It has been contended that this is a regional organization under the Charter. If that point had not been mentioned, my delegation would not have wished to take it up.”
1954-09-24 · UN General Assembly · General Debate, Session 9 (1954)
“An alliance of this kind, where the principal parties are powerful countries whose interests in our part of the world in the past have been of an imperialistic character, cannot be regarded as an alliance of equals. It is based upon diplomacy by threats, which has not paid in the past. 96. There are too many such alliances in the world. There is the Soviet-Chinese alliance — the Soviet Union, presumably, has alliances with other people — there is the United States’ alliance with Syngman Rhee and probably with Formosa; there is the North Atlantic Treaty Organization and this and that and the other. It so much cuts into the whole idea of collective security and the principles of the Charter or, at any rate, its objectives; that is to say, it is a proclamation of the doctrine of balance of power and of power groupings.”
1954-09-24 · UN General Assembly · General Debate, Session 9 (1954)
“My Government must register its objection to the designation in the Treaty articles of “a treaty area”, that is, of a treaty area that is outside the territory of the signatories, and, what is more, one which the parties have the right to extend — in other words, a roving commission to go and protect other people’s territories, whether they want it or not. We think that is contrary to tire sovereignty and self-respect of the people who are there. It is contrary to the spirit if not the terms of the Charter and, what is more, it is something calculated to prevent the Asian countries from ironing out their differences, and it is also something calculated to perpetuate the very things it is seeking to prevent.”
1954-09-24 · UN General Assembly · General Debate, Session 9 (1954)
“It is very difficult for us to understand the great hurry to perform this operation when there had been aggression, trouble and war in Indo-China for eight years; and when once a settlement had been negotiated, that there should have been an agreement of this character. The ink was not dry on the Indo-China settlement. Nothing positive was gained by this agreement, because it does not appear that it can be an instrument of great potency; but it can do a great deal of harm. It has already done some. 95. We now come to its more political aspects.”
1954-09-24 · UN General Assembly · General Debate, Session 9 (1954)
“My Prime Minister has publicly stated that we do not question the motives of any of the parties; it is not for us to question motives. As the famous jurist, Lord Acton, said, “The thought of man is not triable.” We cannot go into motives. We have no desire to make this an issue which will prevent the consideration of other questions. 94. We believe that the creation of this arrangement has to a certain extent diminished the value of the climate of peace that was generated by the Indo-China settlement. At the same time, we think that the arrangement which has been reached is far less productive of anxiety than was originally thought.”
1954-09-24 · UN General Assembly · General Debate, Session 9 (1954)
“I have read out only some items of the report that has come in. In Cambodia the repatriation of prisoners is complete. 92. I thought I would mention these facts in regard to Indo-China, because my country bears witness to the patience and arduous labours of these men who have, for the first time after the conclusion of the Second World War, achieved a result that may be called a substantial contribution towards peace. 93. My delegation wishes now to refer to another matter, which is controversial in respect of some representatives in the Assembly: that is, the agreement which was recently reached in Manila. The views of the Government of India on this matter are well known. We regard it as something which should not have happened but has happened.”
1954-09-24 · UN General Assembly · General Debate, Session 9 (1954)
“All the reports from Indo-China to the Commission are of the most assuring character. The Viet-Nam Government (the southern Viet-Nam) assured them co-operation even though it has not signed the Armistice Agreement. The Indian Chairman and the Canadian and Polish representatives have said that this assurance was not merely verbal but physical. The Viet-Minh, that is, the northern people, have lent their good offices. Most of the prisoners have been repatriated. There have been no complaints, and if there have been difficulties, they have been dealt with between the parties. The relations between the French and the Democratic Republic of Viet-Nam are excellent. The Commission has set up a Department of Petitions to deal with the movement of the population. The Commission takes care not to act as a superbody.”
1954-09-24 · UN General Assembly · General Debate, Session 9 (1954)
“.” Thus, the idea of looking upon the Indo-China agreement by paying it a kind of left-handed compliment, if I may say so, does not accord with the great achievement which was brought about by these world statesmen who were gathered at Geneva. 90. Mr. Lloyd referred to trouble in Laos. I have seen some reports about this in the newspapers. But I want to assure him that the International Commission, which consists of the Canadians, the Poles and ourselves, has not reported anything of the kind. Crimes, thrusts to power occur in most of these territories, which have not been established for a long time; but whether there is any political trouble, anything that goes against the Armistice Agreement — which would naturally trouble the United Kingdom — I would, as far as I can and with the knowledge I have, try to set his mind at rest. 91.”
1954-09-24 · UN General Assembly · General Debate, Session 9 (1954)
“Wars, particularly modern wars, do not stand still. They tend either to expand or to contract. The termination of the fighting stopped what might well have been an expanding risk. “Secondly, the Geneva settlement means that Laos and Cambodia will have complete independence.” — So will Viet-Nam, that should be added. “The Soviet Union, Communist China and the Viet-Minh, as well as the representatives of the democratic countries, agreed to respect the integrity and the independence of these States. This is a provision which may be of first importance in stabilizing the situation in South East Asia. It is the earnest hope of my country that all the free Asian countries will accord diplomatic recognition . .”
1954-09-24 · UN General Assembly · General Debate, Session 9 (1954)
“Now, could there be any better definition of the result of negotiations? If you negotiate, you do not get what you think you ought to get and the other fellow does not get what he thinks he ought to get. I think that is about as classic a definition of negotiation as we can have. 89. Mr. Casey described what happened in Indo-China. I think he gave a very useful explanation of what a negotiated settlement should be [479th meeting, paras. 13-14]. “I believe that in the present world situation the ending of open hostilities in such an inflammable situation is an important thing in itself. All of us, I think, were concerned — and perhaps not least the Government of the Soviet Union — at the way in which the heat of the fighting in Indo-China appeared to be creeping steadily up towards flashpoint.”
1954-09-24 · UN General Assembly · General Debate, Session 9 (1954)
“Paragraph 6 of the Final Declaration of the Geneva Conference states: “The Conference recognizes that the essential purpose of the agreement relating to Viet Nam is to settle military questions with a view to ending hostilities and that the military demarcation line is provisional and should not in any way be interpreted as constituting a political or territorial boundary. The Conference expresses its conviction that the execution of the provisions set out in the present declaration and in the agreement on the cessation of hostilities creates the necessary basis for the achievement in the near future of a political settlement in Viet-Nam.” Therefore, the idea that Indo-China is partitioned as Korea was is not in accordance with the facts. 88. You have heard it said by the representative of Australia that this is the best they could get.”
1954-09-24 · UN General Assembly · General Debate, Session 9 (1954)
“The idea that there is a cease-fire line on the Ben Hai river near the 17th parallel is something that came from the mechanics of negotiation where it was not possible to define cease-fire arrangements by lines and pockets; some line had to be drawn. There was much give and take. Reference was made in one speech to the fact that on one side large numbers of people would move from their homes. Our Commission reports that it has set up a petitions committee and that the number of complaints that have come in is very small and the complaints have been dealt with. People go from one side to the other and vice versa, so there is no partition of this territory. What is more, this has been definitely laid down in every single one of these Armistice Agreements and embodied in the Final Declaration of the Conference.”
1954-09-24 · UN General Assembly · General Debate, Session 9 (1954)
“These points, in essence, were restated in the Colombo proposals, which were sent to the Geneva Conference. As a result of Geneva, we have today in Indo-China hope of independence; that is to say, independence in the sense that the French Government is committed to the Indo-Chinese people, to itself and to the four great, Powers to grant independence to the Indo-China States, and to withdraw its forces. 86. I shall not go into the terms of this Agreement because time is passing. However, there are certain points with which I want to deal because they have been mentioned here and it would' be very wrong for these erroneous ideas not to be contradicted as far as possible. 87. It was mentioned in the course of the debate that Viet-Nam was partitioned. Nothing is further from the truth.”
1954-09-24 · UN General Assembly · General Debate, Session 9 (1954)
“The personal relations of the delegations were excellent. I think the way has been opened for international conferences different from what they used to be. My own Government, by the voice of its Prime Minister on 22 February, asked that there should be a cease-fire in Indo-China. At that time, this was laughed at, except by a few, notably one man who afterwards became the Prime Minister of France. He brought the matter up in the French Parliament and rallied 250 votes for an immediate cease-fire. It did not come about. 85. Two months later, the Government of India put forward six points which are well known, one of which is extremely important to us: that we must create a climate of peace in negotiation. Our Government used what influence it had in trying to slow down the tempo of battle.”
1954-09-24 · UN General Assembly · General Debate, Session 9 (1954)
“It is one of the great things that has happened in the world, because the Indo-China settlement has halted what might, well have been a world war. It has reversed the trend of conflict. It has brought about a great change in Asia. 83. At the same time, it showed the role of the United States in this matter. From what I know of him, I want to pay my personal tribute to Walter Bedell Smith, Under-Secretary of State, without whose assistance it would not have been possible to bring about a settlement. It is quite true that the United States took a different position from the others in the final settlements, but the whole world knows that, but for his beneficent influence and his willingness not to intervene where points of view had been reconciled, it would not have been possible to accomplish what was done at Geneva. 84.”
1954-09-24 · UN General Assembly · General Debate, Session 9 (1954)
“Here was an example, not only of how tire problem of Indo-China has been resolved, but of how two statesmen, who differ fundamentally, as we know, on so many things, were engaged in a common task, and, in a spirit of give and take in common exploration, put formalities and other difficulties on one side and found solutions. At no time was it felt that the matter would not be worth pursuing. 82. Since the Assembly is likely to know very little about it, I should also like to say that when the real history of this affair is known the world will realize that in the Prime Minister of China there was a statesman of considerable stature who played the role of a conciliator and a co-ordinator in the talks that were conducted in Geneva. Therefore, I think that it is not a question of whether or not the matter is on our agenda.”
1954-09-24 · UN General Assembly · General Debate, Session 9 (1954)
“But before I discuss it and since there will be no other occasion, I think that, since my country has an intimate knowledge of this matter, this is a proper opportunity to mention in a very few words the great debt of gratitude that humanity owes to certain people in this connexion. I think, first of all, we must praise the two belligerents, Mr. Mendes-France of France and Mr. Pham Van Dong of Viet-Minh, two people who grappled with this task with one common aim. But the Conference would have achieved nothing but for the wisdom, the patience and the really hard work that was put into it by two persons, the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs in Her Majesty’s Government in the United Kingdom and the Foreign Minister of the Soviet Union.”
1954-09-24 · UN General Assembly · General Debate, Session 9 (1954)
“It is not usually known what degree of forbearance has been exercised on the other side, and the situations that may arise from the presence of these troops in Burma. 80. I now proceed to the longest item in my notes on which I will speak: the problem of Indo-China. The question of Indo-China is not on the agenda. However it is probably the most important event, as Mr. Casey said the other day, that has occurred in the world and is a great step towards peace. With the conclusion of the Armistice in Indo-China, war came to an end after a period of twenty-five years. 81. The Indo-China settlement is important for many reasons.”
1954-09-24 · UN General Assembly · General Debate, Session 9 (1954)
“Luns said was [480th meeting, para. 20]: “however much we deplore the Indonesian initiative, we have no intention of letting our relations with Indonesia be affected by this case”. 79. The presence of the Kuomintang troops in Burma is still an item on the agenda, and therefore we have no desire to say anything about it in detail. But I think that this Assembly ought to be reminded of the great patience of the Burmese Government and people in this regard. We hear a great deal about the aggressions to come. However, here is a case of aggression where tens of thousands of square miles have been occupied, ravaged and plundered, where there is shedding of blood and everything else. While we pay tribute to those who have brought about a partial remedy, it does appear that the remaining troops in this area should leave.”
1954-09-24 · UN General Assembly · General Debate, Session 9 (1954)
“Agitation from outside, such as that now in train, can only have a disturbing and detrimental effect upon the indigenous population of Netherlands New Guinea, who, like the population of Australian New Guinea” — that is, a Trust Territory — “are untroubled by political conflicts of any kind.” 77. I have no desire to add to any friction that there may be in this matter. I say this, however, because not to say so would be not to perform my duty in this matter. I am sure that this statement was not ill meant, but it is one of those things to which what I said earlier applies so much: there is a new Asia. 78. My delegation does not in the least say that there should be no disagreement, because if that were our position we would raise the same objection to the expression of sentiment by Mr. Luns of the Netherlands. We do not. What Mr.”
1954-09-24 · UN General Assembly · General Debate, Session 9 (1954)
“I should like, however, to say to my very old friend, the representative of Australia — perhaps his remark was not so intended, and I am sure that on mature reflection he will probably see his way to revise what he has said — that it is not really my “pigeon” in the sense that it is not India that is talked about, but it is one of our close neighbours and very good friends. We feel sad — I would not say we resent — but we are sorry that this statement came from Australia which is part of that area usually called Australasia; they are to live with us in the centuries to come. Mr. Casey said [479th meeting, para. 35]: “Despite what the Indonesian delegation might say to the contrary, there has never been an independence movement among the Papuans. The only voices heard in favour of union with Indonesia are echoes from Djakarta.”
1954-09-24 · UN General Assembly · General Debate, Session 9 (1954)
“I think that any settlement in the interests of the people must be largely a matter of our persuading and putting pressure in a way that will create results, not merely situations. My delegation has taken this view in the Fourth Committee and in the Trusteeship Council, and I am glad to say that some Administering Authorities and some colonial Powers have been amenable on occasion. 76. We now come to a specific colonial problem, that of West Irian. My delegation voted for the inclusion of this item on the agenda for exactly the same reason that it did not lend its support to the inclusion of the item on Cyprus: because we believe that these people are entitled to their own rule. Since this is a committee item I do not wish to go into it in detail.”
1954-09-24 · UN General Assembly · General Debate, Session 9 (1954)
“As people responsible for making contributions to these questions in a constructive way, we should recognize that the application of these principles is conditioned by time and circumstances in each case. Of course, my country stands, fully and without reservation, for the rights of any people. We do not recognize primitive or nonprimitive people, people who are competent or not competent — competence is a matter of opportunity. There is no community in the world, be it the most historic, the most ancient or the most civilized, which does not have to its credit — or is it to its debit? — a vast number of tragic mistakes. 75. At Colombo, the five Prime Ministers unanimously pronounced themselves against the continuance of colonial rule.”
1954-09-24 · UN General Assembly · General Debate, Session 9 (1954)
“Further, in regard to this problem, the Latin-American States at the Tenth Inter-American Conference at Caracas came to the unanimous conclusion for all South America — and we hope that some day North America will follow — that all South America had positively declared in favour of self-government and self-determination, that is to say, if one must use the hackneyed phrase, they have taken an “anti-colonial” attitude. 74. I think that it is only proper, in view of the responsibilities that my delegation feels it has, to say at once that simply because there is a right does not mean that an attempt should be made to assert it on every occasion. Whether a particular question is competent for discussion, or whether it is wise to discuss it, or whether it will yield results, is a matter of the circumstances of each case and occasion.”
1954-09-24 · UN General Assembly · General Debate, Session 9 (1954)
“For that reason, possession of their own territory is the inalienable right of non-self-governing peoples and never of the administrators, whose only power over such territory can be compared with the powers under civil law of a guardian over a ward. We can no more speak of the sovereignty of an administering Power over a Non-Self-Governing Territory than we can speak of a guardian’s ownership of his ward’s property. We only use the term ‘sovereignty’ in connexion with internal administrative measures taken by an Administering Power.” 73.”
1954-09-24 · UN General Assembly · General Debate, Session 9 (1954)
“92] :“Last year in the Fourth Committee, my delegation maintained that it is incompatible with the letter and spirit of Chapter XI of the Charter to plead Article 2, paragraph 7, in support of the claim that matters connected with the administration of Non-Self-Governing Territories are matters of domestic jurisdiction. My delegation maintained, then, and repeats now, that nations which have not reached full self-government are, as it were, incomplete States which, while possessing the elements of population and territory, but lack only government, or, in other words, the capacity of self-determination and self-rule.”
1954-09-24 · UN General Assembly · General Debate, Session 9 (1954)
“Unfortunately, the worst part of Africa in the colonial domain, Portuguese Africa, never comes before us. On these colonial questions, therefore, I hope that those who have great influence and authority in this Assembly — not in theory but in reality — will not argue that these areas are part of the sovereign territories of the metropolitan country, but rather take the view advanced by our Vice-President, Mr. Trujillo of Ecuador, who, as the dean this year of the Latin-American States, must be regarded as representing the opinion of an important and influential part of the world which has experienced colonial rule — not in its own lifetime but in its history. I have seen no better statement of the juridical position of a colony than this explanation of latent sovereignty. Mr. Trujillo stated [485th meeting, para.”
1954-09-24 · UN General Assembly · General Debate, Session 9 (1954)
“Colonialism is not merely an economic relationship; it is not merely a question of a land-grab or of profit. It is a historical inheritance of race relations, of the rule of one nation by another, and the only solution for it is the creation of multi-racial societies. Therefore, the step that has been taken in Tanganyika in providing equality of representation in the new Legislature, although at the present moment it is still weighted against the Africans as far as proportion is concerned, is in the background of colonial practice a great advance. What is more, we hope that the Administering Authority will enable us to feel that the impression that we gathered in the Trusteeship Council that there will be a common electorate in this area will indeed be the fact. 72. I am afraid that we cannot say the same for the rest of Africa.”
1954-09-24 · UN General Assembly · General Debate, Session 9 (1954)
“However, a great advance has been made in Western Samoa and, while there are still many difficulties in the way and while the final form of development is not complete, there has been no resistance from the Administering Authority. The Administering Authority has never, in word or in deed or in sentiment, expressed the idea that this territory is New Zealand Samoa; they speak about Western Samoa. We are happy to feel that this venture of the United Nations, following up the late departure in colonial matters practised by the late League of Nations, has now borne fruit. 71. Similarly, in Togoland, advances are likely to be made if there is agreement between the parties concerned. There is another Territory where again, quite silently, a great advance has been made.”
1954-09-24 · UN General Assembly · General Debate, Session 9 (1954)
“As regards the Trust Territories, I think this Assembly would want to — and I feel we ought to — pay high tribute to that great little country of New Zealand for the very bold and very imaginative task — I would not call it an experiment — it has undertaken in Western Samoa. This is one region of the world in which, although one nation rules another, yet there is a greater sense of equality than anywhere else. A convention is to meet in Western Samoa where the principle of self-determination will work in practice among so-called backward peoples. In the state this world is in, I hope we shall stop talking about head hunters and backward peoples. I suppose the so-called head hunters hunt only one head at a time, but we seek to hunt the. heads of the whole population by atomic destruction and wars. We are not entitled to talk in that way.”
1954-09-24 · UN General Assembly · General Debate, Session 9 (1954)