YouSaid · the spoken record

AIKEN

lines on the record: 293
first: 1957-09-24
most recent: 1967-09-24
sittings or episodes: 10
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

“I would urge them instead to seek their security and prestige by co-operating with all other Members of the United Nations to promote true peace and progress throughout the world.”
1967-09-24 · UN General Assembly · General Debate, Session 22 (1967)
“Let us hope that all of them will be wise enough to sign a non-dissemination agreement as soon as one is tabled. For the sake of their own people, as well as the rest of the world, they should concentrate their attention on helping to build a stable all-nation world system of collective security and they should eschew all idea of building a nuclear defence system in the hope of providing effective protection and ease of mind for their own people. For such hope would surely prove false in a world in which nuclear weapons had become part of the conventional equipment of the armies of a growing number of industrialized countries. 15. In conclusion, may I appeal to both nuclear and near-nuclear States not to waste their resources and skills on the will-o'-the wisp of military invulnerability.”
1967-09-24 · UN General Assembly · General Debate, Session 22 (1967)
“In the case of some of the larger States, which already have the requisite resources and skills to make nuclear weapons, we recognize that this is asking for the exercise of what is perhaps an unprecedented degree of enlightened national self-restraint. But no one who has read the recently expressed thoughts of Secretary McNamara can fail to realize that there is urgent need to mobilize sufficient moral strength and political wisdom to control the spread of nuclear weapons; that otherwise the remainder of mankind’s existence on this planet will be distorted by the strains and burdens Involved in trying to maintain even a very inadequate defence system against nuclear bombs and the fall-out from missile and anti-missile explosions. 14. The near-nuclear States have a vital role to play in preventing the spread of nuclear weapons.”
1967-09-24 · UN General Assembly · General Debate, Session 22 (1967)
“There is more than one good reason for our attitude but it is sufficient to mention one: that, as all alliances are subject to change, it would not be in the interest of a nuclear Power to share its nuclear weapons with another State. We strongly advocate, however, that the treaty should provide for a regular check in all non-nuclear States on all plant and stores which use, stockpile or produce any nuclear material coming under treaty control. 13. It is fervently to be hoped in the interest of mankind that if two or more nuclear Powers agree upon a treaty to prevent the further spread of nuclear weapons, it will be signed without delay by all the non-nuclear States.”
1967-09-24 · UN General Assembly · General Debate, Session 22 (1967)
“In view of the urgency of concluding a worldwide non-dissemination agreement, I wish also to welcome most heartily the recent tabling of identical draft treaties at the Eighteen-Nation Committee on Disarmament by the United States of America and by the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics. It will be one of the greatest tragedies in history if these two great Powers do not complete the treaty without further delay and open it for signature, as was done in the case of the Moscow test-ban Treaty, in the capitals of all the nuclear Powers which had signed it. 12. Let me say that the Irish delegation does not regard as essential the inclusion of a clause in the projected treaty which would provide at this stage for the inspection of the territories of nuclear Powers.”
1967-09-24 · UN General Assembly · General Debate, Session 22 (1967)
“It is a problem which involves the safety and survival of the whole human race, a problem which is rapidly approaching the point when It will have passed beyond the possibility of control: that is, the problem of preventing the further spread of nuclear weapons to ever-widening circles of States. 10. I should like first of all to congratulate the Latin American countries upon the conclusion of the Treaty for the Prohibition of Nuclear Weapons in Latin America. They have given a wise and much-needed example to the world. The Governments concerned have earned the respect and gratitude of all who wish to see modern resources and skills used for the welfare and happiness of human beings rather than for their impoverishment and destruction. 11.”
1967-09-24 · UN General Assembly · General Debate, Session 22 (1967)
“My delegation believes that the system proposed for the financing of peacekeeping operations contained in the draft resolution co-sponsored by my delegation last year would go as far as is reasonable to meet the difficulties of the five permanent members of the Security Council. Indeed we hope it would encourage them to help their fellow Members of the United Nations, in the words of the Charter, "to take effective collective measures to keep the peace and repress aggression", which, after all, is the primary aim of the Organization. 9. I now wish to make a few comments upon one of the problems to which the Secretary-General directed our attention in the Introduction to his Annual Report.”
1967-09-24 · UN General Assembly · General Debate, Session 22 (1967)
“Resolutions of this type are worse than useless, for they create false hopes outside our Organization and they distract the Assembly from concentration upon its real work: that of pressing the Security Council to take enforcement action if such is necessary. 8. The Irish delegation believes that one of the reasons the five permanent members of the Security Council are hesitant about approving peace-keeping or enforcement operations is that under Article 17 of the Charter they would be required to pay their normal share of the expenses, and thus be held responsible for every act and omission of the United Nations Force involved. This might mean that a great Power with tentacles all over the world would be embarrassed if the United Nations Force did not always please all the States or sections with which it wished to be on good terms.”
1967-09-24 · UN General Assembly · General Debate, Session 22 (1967)
“The International Court has, of course, held that the General Assembly has the right to recommend the establishment of a peace-keeping operation when the permanent members of the Security Council are not unanimously in favour of doing so, but it is only the Security Council that can decide upon taking action to enforce the peace and suppress acts of aggression. This distinction is not always kept in mind by those who condemn United Nations peace-keeping units for not taking forcible military action to implement resolutions of the General Assembly, Neither, unfortunately, is it kept in mind by Members who vote for Assembly resolutions containing clauses which would require enforcement action to ensure their implementation.”
1967-09-24 · UN General Assembly · General Debate, Session 22 (1967)
“6. In his report of 12 July on the United Nations Emergency Force (UNEF) the Secretary-General when dealing with conciliation referred to a peace-keeping operation as "a practical adjunct of peace-making" and said that its true function is "to create a climate of quiet which is more congenial to efforts to solve the underlying problems" [A/6672, para. 21]. 7. When considering or criticizing the success or failure of peace-keeping operations it should be remembered that all peace-keeping operations, including observer ones, mounted since UNER were authorized by the Security Council. They were given no power to enforce peace or suppress aggression, nor were they given any right to maintain themselves in an area against the wishes of the Government of the State concerned.”
1967-09-24 · UN General Assembly · General Debate, Session 22 (1967)
“My delegation feels that the powers of the Secretary-General are such as to enable him to designate on his own initiative a Special Representative for an area such as the Middle East in which a state of war exists or is threatened. In this connexion we recall that when, last December, in response to the strong urging of all the Members of the Organization, he accepted to serve for an additional term, the Security Council formally declared that it would "respect his position and his action". It seems to us, therefore, that, having regard to the Secretary-General's conviction as to the usefulness of having a Special Representative for the Middle East, no further authorization is required. But, should a contrary view prevail, my delegation would urge that the requisite authority be granted at once by the Assembly, or by the Security Council.”
1967-09-24 · UN General Assembly · General Debate, Session 22 (1967)
“All that any reasonable person can expect of the various organs of the United Nations is that each will do its duty within the sphere assigned to it by the Charter "to unite our strength to maintain international peace and security" and "to promote social progress and better standards of life in larger freedom". 4. As the Secretary-General has stressed, there are many ingredients in the cure for belligerency. He rightly gives first place to conciliation and has suggested the designation by him of a special representative to the Middle East whose task would be to harmonize ideas, help find solutions for the current situation and prevent the recurrence of war in the area [ibid., para. 48]. 5.”
1967-09-24 · UN General Assembly · General Debate, Session 22 (1967)
“The Irish delegation is grateful that U Thant has not been overwhelmed by the burdens and responsibilities of his office in recent years and that he is still fit and determined to fight for peace and social progress with all means at the disposal of the Secretary-General. 3. Let me say that no one who appreciates the difficulties of government and international relations in these superheated times of rising expectations will be surprised that the United Nations has not within a mere twenty years ended all social and international injustice and violence.”
1967-09-24 · UN General Assembly · General Debate, Session 22 (1967)
“1. Mr. President, on behalf of the Irish delegation I wish to convey to you our sincere congratulations on your election. In your opening remarks [1560th meeting) you called our attention very pertinently to the spirit which should inform our deliberations and to the procedures we should employ so as to replace violence and arbitrary acts of will by reasonable standards of behaviour serving the general interest. I hope that under your guidance this session of the Assembly will make a worth-while contribution to that end. 2. In view of the many situations of actual or threatened armed conflict, it is little wonder that our distinguished Secretary-General devoted such a large part of the Introduction to his Annual Report [A/6701/ Add.1] to the problems of making and keeping the peace.”
1967-09-24 · UN General Assembly · General Debate, Session 22 (1967)
“I have had occasion in the past to speak from this rostrum of his magnificent and self-sacrificing work. It was, therefore, with a feeling of anxiety for the future of the United Nations that my Government learned of U Thant's decision not to offer himself for another term as Secretary-General. We understand, of course, the various considerations which prompted that decision, for we realize that the office makes quite exceptional demands of all kinds on the incumbent. At the same time, my delegation fully shares the views expressed by so many previous speakers. We have no doubt at all that it would be of immense value to the Organization, and it would be a source of deep satisfaction to the Irish Government, if the course of events should bring U Thant to feel that he can continue in office.”
1966-09-24 · UN General Assembly · General Debate, Session 21 (1966)
“Lynch was speaking in the context of the communique issued by the Ministerial Meeting of the Group of Ten, which reported their agreement that deliberately created reserve assets, as and when needed, should be distributed to all members of the Fund on the basis of International Monetary Fund quotas or some similar objective criteria. This statement by the Group of Ten is, in my opinion, the best news that has been heard for a long time, and gives hope that, if peace can be maintained in the world, the standard of life of low-income nations can be raised significantly through a fair system of reciprocal trade and with reasonable aid from the high-income States. 17. In conclusion, I should like to say a brief word about our distinguished Secretary-General.”
1966-09-24 · UN General Assembly · General Debate, Session 21 (1966)
“Lynch went on to call attention to the high interest rates and to the shortage of long-term capital needed for the economic development of smaller nations and to point out that the present difficulties will be accentuated according as the two reserve currency countries bring their international payments into closer balance; and he urged that the planning and putting into operation of a scheme of rational creation of reserve assets should not await the achievement of equilibrium by the two reserve currency countries. Finally, he stressed that reserve creation is the concern of members of the Fund and that they should all participate in the distribution of newly created reserves. Mr.”
1966-09-24 · UN General Assembly · General Debate, Session 21 (1966)
“In order that the resources of the world may be developed to the full, and that fair trading conditions and additional capital should be available to the lower-income countries, the volume of international money should grow in relation to the increase in output of desirable goods and services offered for sale on the world market. 16. On 28 September 19G6, at the annual meeting of the International Monetary Fund in Washington, D.C., my colleague, Mr. Lynch, Ireland’s Minister for Finance, adverted to the fact that in 19G5 the increase in the world's monetary reserves was only about half the annual average for the preceding decade. "The practical test", he said, "of the adequacy of liquidity — domestic and international — is whether finance is available to maintain the economic growth made possible by physical resources." Mr.”
1966-09-24 · UN General Assembly · General Debate, Session 21 (1966)
“For a peace-keeping operation costing, say, $100 million, the assessment on the economically less-developed Member States would be one third of one cent per head; on the developed Member States it would range from 4 1/2 to 12 cents per head; anti on the five permanent members of the Security Council it would be no more than 13 cents per head if they all consented to the operation taking place — although the special position of this group could have the result of increasing their individual assessments with their consent. 14. Men of goodwill throughout the world seek peace, not only to avoid the horrors of war but as an "enterprise of justice", as a basis upon which to promote? the economic, cultural and social progress of all peoples without distinction of race or creed. 15.”
1966-09-24 · UN General Assembly · General Debate, Session 21 (1966)
“This is the question of the future of the peacekeeping operations of the United Nations — the question, in effect, whether the United Nations will find itself able to afford, both politically and financially, to undertake new operations of this kind when the need for them arises again, as it almost certainly will in our still dangerously unsettled world." When considering these words of our Secretary-General, I would urge representatives to realize how relatively small a contribution they would have to make under our proposals.”
1966-09-24 · UN General Assembly · General Debate, Session 21 (1966)
“And, in this connexion, may I recall that our wise and esteemed Secretary-General, in his speech at Windsor, Ontario, on 28 May last, said: "For all these reasons Canada has, I know, a very great interest in helping to find the answer to a question which must be of the deepest concern to all who support the United Nations and who wish to see it become a more effective instrument for peaceful and constructive international co-operation.”
1966-09-24 · UN General Assembly · General Debate, Session 21 (1966)
“Let us remember, in approaching this subject, that the very life of this Organization is involved, and that it is the nest hope, and perhaps the last chance, for mankind to mobilize the skills and resources of modern civilization to safeguard peace and to promote co-operatively the interests of all States and peoples. Like a super-sophisticated satellite, bereft of a source of energy to activate its equipment, the United Nations might orbit for a time, but it would do so aimlessly, if it were deprived of its essential source of energy — finance — to make good its decisions and exert a beneficent and fruitful influence on the affairs of men. 13. A similar draft resolution will be presented again this year and I urgently appeal to all Member States to support it.”
1966-09-24 · UN General Assembly · General Debate, Session 21 (1966)
“24.] In present circumstances it might lie more fruitful to have the question of the representation of China and Taiwan explored by the Secretary-General, and I am sure it would be generally agreed that the responsibility for the difficult negotiations involved could not be placed in better hands. 12. I wish to turn now to the critical state of the finances of our Organization and to the proposals made last year by the delegations of Ceylon, Costa Rica, Ghana, Ireland, Ivory Coast, Liberia, Nepal, Philippines and Somalia to restore mandatory assessments for peace-keeping. These co-sponsors felt certain that if we were to allow mandatory assessments for peace-keeping to lapse, mandatory assessments would not last long for all other purposes of the United Nations.”
1966-09-24 · UN General Assembly · General Debate, Session 21 (1966)
“that the Secretary-General and the four nuclear Powers in the Security Council should be asked to negotiate with Peking and Taiwan between now and the twentieth session to find out whether agreement could in* arrived at on the following basis: that Taiwan would take a seat in the Assembly and that Peking would assume the position of a permanent member of the Security Council, accepting to in bound by the Purpose and Principles of the Charter, by a non-dissemination agreement and by an agreement that all other nuclear States would go to the assistance of a non-nuclear State attacked by a nuclear power." [1295th meeting, para.”
1966-09-24 · UN General Assembly · General Debate, Session 21 (1966)
“I felt then and I feel now that if an independent Taiwan became a Member of the Assembly of the United Nations in its own right and left the China seat to be filled by the Peking Government, the establishment of an area of peace in South East Asia guaranteed by the United Nations and the nuclear Powers might be more acceptable. 11. May I also recall that, speaking in the general debate of the nineteenth session in 1964, I proposed that we should endeavour to negotiate an agreed settlement of the problem of the representation of China. I went on to suggest: "...”
1966-09-24 · UN General Assembly · General Debate, Session 21 (1966)
“Marcos, welcomed the peace agreement between Malaysia and Indonesia as bringing forth "a nucleus of peace and stability in a sea and an area of crisis and conflict". I fervently hope that this "nucleus of peace" will prosper and grow into a wider area of peace and limited armaments embracing the lands and seas of South East Asia including, of course, Viet-Nam. 9. In 1961, I urged (1075th plenary meeting] that the United Nations should enter into negotiation in the Far East for the purpose of securing peace between Peking and Taiwan and settling the question of the representation of both countries in the United Nations; indeed, a some what similar suggestion was made by the representative of Italy, Mr. Bosco, in the general debate at the twentieth session [1338th meeting]. 10.”
1966-09-24 · UN General Assembly · General Debate, Session 21 (1966)
“I suggested that we should commence by encouraging and assisting groups of States, particularly in zones which are affected by great-Power rivalry and tension, to come together as neutral States and agree not to attack one another, to settle their differences peacefully and to limit their armaments to police level, on the condition that the United Nations, backed by the nuclear Powers, would guarantee them against aggression from outside or inside the area. 8. In 1950, after listening to the interventions of the representatives of Cambodia and Laos, I suggested in the First Committee that the organization of an area of law should lie considered for a group of countries in South-East Asia. At the 1411th plenary meeting of the General Assembly on 21 September this year, the President of the Philippines, Mr.”
1966-09-24 · UN General Assembly · General Debate, Session 21 (1966)
“Hence, I venture to repeat the suggestions I have frequently made for the establishment of what I have variously described as "regional neutrality", "areas of peace" or "areas of law and limited armaments". 7. I have dealt extensively with the concept of such areas of law in the General Assembly or in the First Committee every year since 1958. The basic idea was that, as we cannot hope to secure disarmament or the establishment of the rule of international law- in all parts of the world in a single, quick and comprehensive operation, we should approach the problem area y area.”
1966-09-24 · UN General Assembly · General Debate, Session 21 (1966)
“For their own safety and prosperity and for the peace and prosperity of the world, it would be better if the potential nuclear States firmly made up their minds to seek their security and prestige in improving the lives of their own peoples and those of their poorer neighbours throughout the world and in helping to build up reliable and effective United Nations conciliation and peacekeeping procedures. 6. It is, of course, dangerously easy to heap scorn on power blocs without suggesting acceptable and practical alternatives to the existing strategic balance which would require time and patience to carry into effect. I am convinced that the answer to the problem of maintaining international peace is to be found neither in the extension or perpetuation of power blocs nor in their immediate dismantlement.”
1966-09-24 · UN General Assembly · General Debate, Session 21 (1966)
“I am compelled to concede that the retention of existing arsenals of nationally-owned nuclear weapons may be unavoidable in order to prevent the existing strategic balance from becoming unstable and touching off a nuclear holocaust. I have always believed that the nuclear States will not part with their nuclear arsenals until an effective collective system of world security has been evolved and has proved it can maintain peace. But to embark now upon a programme of acquiring nuclear weapons and the ancillary equipment is a fool's game for the poorer or smaller States.”
1966-09-24 · UN General Assembly · General Debate, Session 21 (1966)
“These men realize that the attempt by a nonnuclear State to produce, or otherwise to acquire, a few atomic bombs might well bring about the very attack their Governments fear, and against which they hope to defend their countries. Far-sighted men in nuclear-competent States realize also that the acquisition of a national stockpile of nuclear weapons necessitates not only the diversion of skills and resources sorely needed to improve the domestic standard of life and to help their neighbours, but that the internal security of nuclear States is a nightmare to their Governments and demands ever-increasing hordes of highly-skilled intelligence agents. 5.”
1966-09-24 · UN General Assembly · General Debate, Session 21 (1966)
“In this connexion, may I say that I strongly support the suggestion made by our Secretary-General in the introduction to his annual report on the work of the Organization [A/6301/Add.1] that the impact and implications of all aspects of nuclear weapons should be explored and weighed by an appropriate body of the United Nations. 4. I can personally vouch that many wise and far-seeing men, in States technically competent and possessing sufficient resources to produce nuclear weapons, realize the vast difference in time and expenditure between developing a few provocative atomic weapons and mass-producing the huge arsenals of the sophisticated nuclear weapons and delivery systems necessary to protect their peoples against aggression by means of their own forces and equipment.”
1966-09-24 · UN General Assembly · General Debate, Session 21 (1966)
“If the majority of the nuclear Powers act energetically, casting aside any relatively minor political advantages they see in further delay, and sign an agreement, it will be welcomed and signed by the overwhelming majority of our Members. I am confident that, once a formal agreement has been adopted, the pressure of domestic and world opinion will prevent the Government of any non-nuclear State proceeding on the costly and hazardous adventure of manufacturing or otherwise procuring ownership or control of nuclear weapons.”
1966-09-24 · UN General Assembly · General Debate, Session 21 (1966)
“Fundamentally what is involved, as I see it, is whether this most marvellous scientific discovery of all time is to be a blessing or a curse; whether we have the wisdom and the will to harness and control it to produce a better standard of life for all men everywhere, or whether we are to stand helplessly by while it becomes a rampant demon for our destruction. The Members of this Assembly and world opinion generally have come a long way towards appreciating the danger involved in the spread of nuclear weapons since the draft resolution aimed at preventing it was tabled for discussion in 1958. But at our peril action must no longer be delayed. Already another nuclear Power has emerged, and several others will join the list if an international agreement is not concluded without further delay. 3.”
1966-09-24 · UN General Assembly · General Debate, Session 21 (1966)
“1. In addressing the General Assembly a year ago, His Holiness Pope Paul VI said: "...this Organization represents the obligatory road of modern civilization and of world peace ... The building you have made ... must be perfected and conformed to the demands world history will make." [1347th meeting, paras. 24 and 26] 2. The most urgent need which confronts this Organization today is, I am convinced, to stop the further dissemination of nuclear weapons; to prevent their spread to countries not now possessing them and the endless multiplication of stockpiles in the nuclear States.”
1966-09-24 · UN General Assembly · General Debate, Session 21 (1966)
“I can think of no single step which would he so conducive to stable peace and fruitful cooperation in the economic and related fields as the conclusion of a world treaty to stop the further spread of nuclear weapons.”
1965-09-24 · UN General Assembly · General Debate, Session 20 (1965)
“My delegation strongly recommends this amendment, as we feel that, before they vote, many of the 112 Members will wish to be sure of what support the draft resolution has from the five permanent members. 150, In concluding, I wish to record the satisfaction of my delegation at the emergence of two draft treaties, tabled by nuclear Powers, to prevent the further spread of nuclear weapons. There are, of course, important divergencies in the two drafts, but the first step to agreement on a complex problem is to know precisely the points of disagreement. We all fervently hope that the Governments of the nuclear Powers will get to work at once on these drafts with a view to reconciling their differences and presenting the world with an agreed text open to the signature of all States.”
1965-09-24 · UN General Assembly · General Debate, Session 20 (1965)
“The system of voting on a Uniting for Peace resolution, which we suggest, would call only for amending the rules of procedure which were adopted by the early sessions of the Assembly. Since then, the rules of procedure have often been amended by the Assembly, and its right to do so by a simple majority is clearly set out in rule 164, which of course accords with Article 21 of the Charter. The suggested amendment of rule 89 provides that the five permanent members of the Security Council shall vote first on a Uniting for Peace resolution. This would give the other 112 Members the opportunity of knowing how the five had voted before they are called upon to cast their votes.”
1965-09-24 · UN General Assembly · General Debate, Session 20 (1965)
“But it is the only system of reliable financing my delegation sees which has a reasonable chance in present circumstances of being implemented by the permanent members of the Security Council and of securing that peace-keeping expenses are assessed by the Assembly under the sanction of Article 19. I submit to the other 112 Members that it is vital for their safety and welfare that the Assembly should be placed in a position to finance in a reliable manner United Nations peace-keeping activities. Failing a dependable system for providing help from the United Nations, a small State under threat of aggression can turn only to a great Power — with, of course, the inevitable danger of drawing in another great Power to assist the other side. 149.”
1965-09-24 · UN General Assembly · General Debate, Session 20 (1965)
“For example, in the case of the United States, it would amount to no more per head of the population than the cost of a packet of cigarettes - or less than one-sixth of 1 per cent of its defence budget. The obverse of the obligation on a permanent member to pay the total assessment due by the group, if it alone votes for a peace-keeping resolution in the Assembly, is the concession of not having to pay anything when it votes against or abstains, And, of course, no Member of the United Nations would vote for a peace-keeping resolution if it is not convinced that in the interest of world peace and in its own interest it should support it. 148. I do not recommend the financing proposal as an ideal solution.”
1965-09-24 · UN General Assembly · General Debate, Session 20 (1965)
“I wish to make a special appeal to the five permanent members of the Security Council to support the proposal that, as a group, they should be responsible for paying 70 per cent of the cost of a peace-keeping operation. I submit that the honour and moral authority of the United Nations demand that, when the Assembly, in the circumstances contemplated, recommends the sending of a peacekeeping force in response to an appeal from a small State, the force should be dispatched and not be withdrawn through lack of funds until it has successfully completed its mission. The amount involved, even if one permanent member alone had to pay the total 70 per cent assessed on the group for another operation as large as the Congo, would be insignificant in relation to its national defence budget.”
1965-09-24 · UN General Assembly · General Debate, Session 20 (1965)
“We are aware, of course, that the 112 other Member States, even if unanimous, cannot extract from one or more of the five permanent members of the Security Council their 70 per cent collective share of the expenses of a peacekeeping operation recommended by the Assembly. At the last session, the Assembly was not disposed to apply the sanction of Article 19 to the permanent members who refused to pay their assessments for peace-keeping. After our experience of the past few years, however, I am convinced that, if our proposals for amending the Uniting for Peace procedure are accepted, none of the five who hereafter vote for a peace-keeping operation in the Assembly would refuse to pay its appropriate contribution under the system of assessments we suggest. 147.”
1965-09-24 · UN General Assembly · General Debate, Session 20 (1965)
“We trust that the draft resolution we have circulated [see A/5966/Rev.2] will be studied carefully by all who wish to see the United Nations gradually build up a system of collective peace-keeping which will give to States the national security some now seek by diverting from productive uses, calculated to improve the lot of their peoples, an ever-increasing proportion of their national resources to acquiring conventional and nuclear weapons. 146. My delegation is satisfied, from careful study and inquiry, that our proposals are clearly within the competence of the Assembly, without in any way infringing the Charter.”
1965-09-24 · UN General Assembly · General Debate, Session 20 (1965)
“It did so not only by dispatching a United Nations peace-keeping force to the Middle East, but its very existence may be claimed to have influenced the Security Council, released it from its sterile cold war deadlock, and led to its agreeing to the establishment of other United Nations peace-keeping operations in Africa and the Middle East. The resolution may thus have prevented other armed interventions by great Powers. Indeed, if the Uniting for Peace resolution is not revitalized, and cannot be effectively invoked in case of Security Council deadlock, what alternative, may I ask, has a small State threatened with aggression but to call for help from a great Power? 145.”
1965-09-24 · UN General Assembly · General Debate, Session 20 (1965)
“All who have studied the problem of peacekeeping in the nuclear age recognize, I believe, that while the great Powers have the capacity to destroy each other and the world as well, they can, so long as they are united, exert a powerful influence on restraining local wars, as they have done in the India-Pakistan conflict. But we recognize also that the unilateral use of force by a great Power to restrict a local war in a sensitive strategic area may be the first step to general war. 144. My delegation believes that, as long as it was based on the expectation of being financed by Assembly assessment, the Uniting for Peace resolution [resolution 377 (V)] operated to restrict the number of nuclear Power interventions in other States.”
1965-09-24 · UN General Assembly · General Debate, Session 20 (1965)
“It is an area in which a group of States will agree not to attack each other, to settle their differences peacefully and to restrict their armaments to police level, on the condition that the United Nations, backed by the nuclear Powers, guarantees them against aggression from outside or inside the area. 142. All Members of the United Nations, it should be remembered — all of us whether we are members of the Security Council or not — are bound by Article 1 of the Charter to take effective collective measures to maintain peace. And I submit that our suggestions for the authorization and financing of future peace-keeping operations represent a fair, reasonable and practical division of our Charter responsibility between the five permanent members of the Security Council and the other 112 Members of the United Nations. 143.”
1965-09-24 · UN General Assembly · General Debate, Session 20 (1965)
“My delegation is convinced that disastrous conflict and prolonged wars can be prevented if the anxiety of the nuclear Powers to avoid a direct conflict between themselves is matched: First, by their determination to restrict the spread of nuclear weapons; Secondly, by their agreement to combine in resisting an attack by a nuclear Power upon a non-nuclear State; Thirdly, by their willingness to refrain from blocking by a financial veto a peace-keeping operation recommended by the Assembly when the five permanent members have been unable to agree; Fourthly, by their efforts to promote areas of peace or areas of law and limited armaments, particularly in strategically sensitive parts of the world. My delegation has often described what we mean by an area of law.”
1965-09-24 · UN General Assembly · General Debate, Session 20 (1965)
“Much as all reasonable men desire peace, they realize that, with the world's history of bitter wars and oppressions and with present injustices, fears, tensions and rivalries, a perfect peace based on law and justice is unlikely to be established in this generation. Peace cannot be established and maintained merely by wishing for it or passing resolutions condemning aggression. It must be worked for wisely and patiently with all our energy. If conflict threatens, we must avoid being compelled, through lack of agreed peace-keeping procedures, including authorizing and financing peace-keeping operations, to stand idly by while the situation gets out of hand. We must be organized and ready, we submit, to conciliate and keep conciliating and, if necessary, to provide an effective peace-keeping force. 141.”
1965-09-24 · UN General Assembly · General Debate, Session 20 (1965)
“What is needed is a firm determination by the five permanent members of the Security Council, and by the other 112 Members of the United Nations as well, to eschew the use of force in pursuit of individual national aims. What is needed is a practical combination of the resources of all the Members of the United Nations to keep the peace. But what is most urgently needed is that, when the five disagree, a majority of the Assembly should be able firmly to authorize and reliably to finance a peacekeeping operation in response to an appeal for assistance to the United Nations by a small State in danger of aggression. 140.”
1965-09-24 · UN General Assembly · General Debate, Session 20 (1965)
“I have asked the Assembly to note some of the changes which have occurred since the Charter was adopted, not for the purpose of fostering an attempt to amend the Charter or of fomenting recrimination, My purpose was rather to plead with the Assembly to face the situation without rancour but with our eyes open, and to emphasize that some permanent members of the Security Council are attempting to exceed their Charter rights and that, while they have not made war upon one another, they have not steadfastly united in compliance with the Charter to keep peace between other States. 139. In the opinion of my delegation, what is needed essentially is not an amendment of the Charter but the active promotion of the principles and purposes of the Charter by all 117 Member States.”
1965-09-24 · UN General Assembly · General Debate, Session 20 (1965)