YouSaid · the spoken record

Undén

lines on the record: 173
first: 1947-09-24
most recent: 1960-09-24
sittings or episodes: 8
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

“A regular item on the agenda of the Assembly is [agenda item 61] the question of race conflict in South Africa resulting from the policies of apartheid of the Government of the Union of South Africa. In the debate on this question we hear now and then new facts which indicate a rigorous continuity in the pursuit of these policies. There are no signs which indicate a softening of the attitude of the Union Government. On the contrary, it seems as if the methods had been further tightened up. 138. The Association of University Students in Sweden has drawn the attention of the Swedish Government in 1959 to the worsening situation of the coloured students in the Union of South Africa and has requested action through the United Nations.”
1959-09-24 · UN General Assembly · General Debate, Session 14 (1959)
“After numerous debates in this Assembly we are well aware of the arguments that are usually put forward against recognition, as well as of those that have been advanced in favour of such recognition. I shall limit myself to emphasizing the fact that important problems, such as disarmament and the prohibition of nuclear arms tests, are dependent for their solution upon co-operation with the Government that rules in Peking. Also, other negotiations that deal with peace and security in this world require that the seat of China in the Security Council as well as in the Assembly should not be left vacant. That seat cannot be filled by the Government of the small island of Formosa. 137.”
1959-09-24 · UN General Assembly · General Debate, Session 14 (1959)
“The Charter of the United Nations does not give an answer to the controversial question that I am now dealing with. The conditions for the election of new Members cannot be applied in the case of China, which, according to the Charter, is one of the founding Members of the United Nations and also a permanent Member of the Security Council. No election is necessary. 136. As far as the United Nations is concerned, there are no legal obstacles to a recognition of the Communist regime in China. The question of whether the Peking Government should be recognized or not as the legitimate representative of China in the United Nations is a political one.”
1959-09-24 · UN General Assembly · General Debate, Session 14 (1959)
“It should be admitted that recognition is no obligation under international law, but is a political decision that every State can take or not. In some cases, many years have gone by before a new regime has won general recognition from other State's. The United States Government has perhaps been more restrictive in this sense than many other Governments. 134. As far as the present regime in China is concerned, it has been recognized by quite a number of States. Among them are Sweden and the other Scandinavian countries. From the Swedish point of view, it is a natural act of political logic that our country should, adopt the same attitude as a Member of the United Nations which it adopts in its direct relations with China. 135.”
1959-09-24 · UN General Assembly · General Debate, Session 14 (1959)
“He said in this connexion: “I have now come to believe that the United Nations will best serve the cause of peace if its Assembly is representative of what the world actually is, and not merely representative of the parts which we like. Therefore, we ought to be willing that all the nations should be Members without attempting to appraise closely those which are 'good’ and those which are ‘bad’. Already that distinction is obliterated by the present membership of the United Nations. "Some of the present Member nations and others that might become Members, have governments that are not representative of the people. But if in fact they are ’governments’ — that is, if they 'govern' — then they have a power which should be represented in any organization that purports to mirror world reality. " 133.”
1959-09-24 · UN General Assembly · General Debate, Session 14 (1959)
“This feeling is understandable, bearing in mind the Korean war. There is, on the other hand, a wide-spread practice in international politics, according to which when a new government has been formed following a revolution, other States by and by recognize it when such a government has proved itself to be firmly established in the country in question. Such an attitude is justified by the argument that the recognition ought not to be seen as an expression of approval of the new regime, but means only, in effect, that for practical reasons it is desirable to maintain normal relations with all countries. 132. This standpoint found an expression in a statement made by the late Mr. Foster Dulles in a book published before the outbreak of the Korean war.”
1959-09-24 · UN General Assembly · General Debate, Session 14 (1959)
“As evidence of this, I should like to mention that the Swedish Seamens' Union has requested their Government to work for the cessation of the blockade. 130. I should also like to say a few words about another ever-recurrent controversial question that the United Nations has to deal with, that is the question of the representation of China. The General Assembly recently rejected a proposal to inscribe this item on our agenda [803rd meeting]. The Swedish delegation voted in favour of its inscription, as it has done already for a number of years. 131. The opposition of the majority against dealing with the question is founded mainly upon the opinion that Communist China has committed many sins or crimes and, therefore, does not deserve to be accepted as a Member of the United Nations community.”
1959-09-24 · UN General Assembly · General Debate, Session 14 (1959)
“If this were to be the case, could it not be feared that the United Arab Republic would take sharper measures with a view to justifying the alleged "state of war"? As far as I can see, this problem, in its essence, is hardly a question of juridical subtleties in connexion with the interpretation of the conception of "state of war"; instead, the question really is, whether it could be considered reasonable that two Members of the United Nations for years find themselves in a warlike relationship. If there is a war, it should be the duty of the States involved to make peace. This is simple common sense, so much more so because the blockade cannot be of any practical value for the United Arab Republic, while it does harm the shipping interests of many other countries. Sweden too is suffering from the blockade.”
1959-09-24 · UN General Assembly · General Debate, Session 14 (1959)
“I am, however, not quite convinced that an elucidation of the legal aspects of this controversy would touch the principal point of the dispute. The Government of the United Arab Republic is basing its alleged right to establish a blockade against Israel ships and cargoes on the thesis that a state of war exists between the two countries, and that the 1888 Constantinople Convention, regarding the Suez Canal, as it has been applied in practice, does not prevent the United Arab Republic, in a state of war, from taking blockade measures for security reasons. 129. Let us assume that the arguments put forward by the United Arab Republic would be held invalid by the Court for the reason that the present situation could not be characterized as a state of war.”
1959-09-24 · UN General Assembly · General Debate, Session 14 (1959)
“It should be recognized, the Secretary-General points out in this connexion in the introduction to his annual report, "that there are many international disputes which involve legal questions along with the political elements and that submission of such questions to the Court for judicial determination would clear the ground for processes of peaceful negotiation in the political organs of the United Nations" [A/4132/Add.1, p.4], 128. This observation undoubtedly is correct. It leads to the question whether that controversy of many years standing between Israel and Egypt, now the United Arab Republic, concerning free passage through the Suez Canal, could not be brought to a solution by having recourse to the International Court.”
1959-09-24 · UN General Assembly · General Debate, Session 14 (1959)
“But there remain large categories of disputes which could be successfully solved by legal means, if the parties would show a certain measure of good intentions. 126. It is a regrettable fact that a considerable number of States have taken a completely negative attitude toward the value of following legal procedures in international relations. This fact need not, however, prevent other States, holding a different opinion, from accepting the jurisdiction of the International Court of Justice, and this without far-reaching reservations, as the acceptance is binding only in case of reciprocity. 127. As we know, the International Court also has the function of giving advisory opinions upon the request of the Security Council, the General Assembly and certain other United Nations organs.”
1959-09-24 · UN General Assembly · General Debate, Session 14 (1959)
“Perhaps I may be permitted to express the hope that further developments will open the eyes also of the Governments of the Communist States to the fact that peaceful coexistence will benefit from agreements on arbitration, in case of controversies between States for example regarding the interpretation of agreements, the establishment of facts, the denouncing of violations of accepted principles of international law. 125. It seems obvious, however, that arbitration cannot be a universal means of solving international disputes. Many such disputes are not of a legal character but call for the application of political methods. Some disputes, although by their nature of a legal character, can be so impregnated with political explosives that legal solutions will not prove durable.”
1959-09-24 · UN General Assembly · General Debate, Session 14 (1959)
“In the course if a previous session of the General Assembly, I had occasion to point out that the Swedish Government had in vain suggested arbitration in connexion with a serious controversy of a legal character with the Soviet Union. 123. If, on the one hand, it might be asked whether the negative attitude of the Communist States to arbitration be dictated by reasons of principle, we could, on the other hand, point to the fact; that these States have not taken a wholly negative attitude to arbitration proceedings in connexion with disputes arising out of contracts of a commercial nature. Furthermore, lawyers from some of the Eastern European States have accepted mandates as judges of the International Court. 124.”
1959-09-24 · UN General Assembly · General Debate, Session 14 (1959)
“While eighty- five States are parties to the Statute of the Court, only thirty-eight States have accepted the compulsory jurisdiction of the Court, of these thirty-eight States, sixteen have laid down restrictive conditions which, in some cases, are equal to reservations of such a far-reaching nature that very little remains of the “compulsory” jurisdiction. No fewer that forty-seven States have failed altogether to accept the compulsory jurisdiction of the Court, 122. It has attracted attention that no States with Communist regimes have been prepared to accept the Court's jurisdiction. The question has often been asked whether there is any principle embodied in the Communist ideology that prevents these States from accepting international jurisdiction in disputes of a legal character.”
1959-09-24 · UN General Assembly · General Debate, Session 14 (1959)
“He strongly emphasized the importance of the International Court getting the opportunity to play a larger and more dynamic role in the international field. It may be added that the United Nations Charter explicitly provides that the Security Council, in making recommendations concerning the settlement -of a dispute, should take into consideration that legal disputes should, as a rule, be referred by the parties to the International Court of Justice. 121. In view of this principle, which is embodied in the Charter, the attitude of the Member States to the Court is undeniably not very encouraging.”
1959-09-24 · UN General Assembly · General Debate, Session 14 (1959)
“119. In his introduction to his annual report [A/4132/Add.1] the Secretary-General has drawn the attention of the General Assembly to the position of the International Court of Justice, which offers opportunities for constructive progress that have been seriously neglected. The Secretary-General recalls that, on previous occasions, he has noted with regret the failure of many Member States to accept the compulsory jurisdiction of the Court. In his report he further stresses that the development and acceptance of international law impartially administered by judicial tribunals is essential to progress towards a more just and peaceful international order. 120. In a recent statement, the Prime Minister of Canada has expressed similar opinions.”
1959-09-24 · UN General Assembly · General Debate, Session 14 (1959)
“I fear that the effects of what has happened in Hungary will be felt for a long time. If the Soviet leaders wish to pursue the policy of relaxation that was perceptible before the events of the last months, this wish cannot be realized by their remaining blind to what has so shocked the world. Only a new policy on the part of the Soviet Union, aiming at greater political and personal freedom as well as national independence for the Hungarian people, can be a new starting point for a policy aimed at a lessening of tension.”
1956-09-24 · UN General Assembly · General Debate, Session 11 (1956)
“Even if I disregard all other aspects of these events, the Soviet Union has made a grave political error in refusing to tolerate a popular movement in Hungary that has aspired towards greater political democracy. As I indicated before, the Soviet Union made another mistake in failing to realize the indignation that would be created by the violence used against the Hungarian people. 35. It is futile to have us look upon the Soviet troops in Hungary as mere guardians of law and order, corresponding to an ordinary national police force. These troops represented the naked power, not of their own country, but of a foreign Power, acting as self-imposed guardian and protector of Hungary. The sympathies of the whole world went out to those who made such heroic efforts to win greater freedom for their country and people. 36.”
1956-09-24 · UN General Assembly · General Debate, Session 11 (1956)
“By a generous policy towards these States — generous in a political sense — some areas of friction in Europe would be eliminated. Tension would automatically be relaxed and the danger of war reduced. It is an antiquated belief that a country adds to its security by trying to preserve a decisive political influence on neighbouring countries against the will of their peoples. 34. The Nagy government announced in a circular note the establishment of a neutral status for Hungary as its programme. In answering that note, the Swedish Government expressed its interest and sympathy with regard to this programme. We still hold the view that Hungary, neutralized like Austria, would be a factor of security in Europe.”
1956-09-24 · UN General Assembly · General Debate, Session 11 (1956)
“But these assertions are, as everyone knows, completely untrue. The choice for Hungary is not between Fascism and Communism. There are other alternatives. Should not Hungary be given the chance — if the majority of the people so wish — to establish a regime similar to the democracies in Austria, in Finland, in Sweden and in the other Scandinavian countries? We are not Fascist countries. Must the great and powerful Soviet Union find its security at stake because the border States or some of them establish democratic political systems different from that of the Soviet Union? 33. In my country we look at it this way: the security of the Soviet Union and of all other European States would be strengthened by an increased amount of independence and freedom for the border States.”
1956-09-24 · UN General Assembly · General Debate, Session 11 (1956)
“The Soviet political leaders want us to believe that all opponents of the present regimes in those countries are Fascists and that the Soviet Union obeys a higher political law by suppressing with violence every attempt to bring about a change in the existing Communist regimes. The Soviet Union seems to tolerate the modified form of Communism in the Border States that we have grown accustomed to call “Titoism”. But there the limit is apparently set. Titoism in Yugoslavia and a similar regime — “Gomulka-ism” — in Poland does not mean, according to the doctrine now adopted by the Soviet Union, that Fascism has come into power. But when the Hungarian Government under Imre Nagy went a few steps further away from the only true Communist regime, that Government was branded as being under the influence of Fascist counter-revolutionaries. 32.”
1956-09-24 · UN General Assembly · General Debate, Session 11 (1956)
“I would like to express my sincere hope that these reports are unfounded or exaggerated. No doubt the Secretary-General will feel entitled to establish facts in this matter. It would be a terrible blow to our Organization and to the principles it stands for if we once more would have to register anti-Semitic feelings and facts, adding to the tragedy we are witnessing in the Middle East these days. 29. With regard to the tragedy in Hungary I fear that the Soviet leadership does not quite understand the indignation to which the crushing of the incipient revolt has given rise all over the world. 30. I realize that Hungary, from the Soviet point of view, is looked upon as part of the security zone the Soviet Union considers itself as having formed by imposing Communist regimes upon the border States. 31.”
1956-09-24 · UN General Assembly · General Debate, Session 11 (1956)
“May I be permitted to add that it has been of the greatest importance that the United States during the discussions on the Egyptian question so unequivocally and firmly based its stand on the United Nations Charter and so clearly defended its basic principles. 27. Israel’s preventive war against Egypt cannot be justified. That Israel has been subjected to numerous provocations from its Arab neighbours for many years is indisputable. But that did not entitle Israel to resort to war on Egypt. In my country we have always felt a deep sympathy with Israel and its energetic, industrious and brave people. We now deeply regret that Israel by its offensive military acts has damaged its own cause. 28. There have been reports these last few days of deportations of Jews from Egypt.”
1956-09-24 · UN General Assembly · General Debate, Session 11 (1956)
“It seems to me, however, that we cannot but acknowledge the willingness with which the two countries complied with the Assembly’s request for an immediate cease-fire. I hope that in the future, too, they will draw the natural conclusions from the Assembly’s decided disapproval of their unilateral military measures, taken in order to attain national or international ends. 25. I will say in this context that my Government completely agrees with the Secretary-General’s interpretation of the task of the United Nations Emergency Force in Egypt, which the General Assembly has sanctioned. Thus the task of this Force must not be to remain in Egypt to put political pressure on that country with the intention of bringing about a settlement of the Suez Canal issue. 26.”
1956-09-24 · UN General Assembly · General Debate, Session 11 (1956)
“Long before the Israel invasion of Egypt, official statements from the United Kingdom and France as well as military preparations made by these countries seemed to indicate that military action was in the minds of the two Governments. The public debate left the impression that we were taken back to the times when the great Powers made military demonstrations to recover financial claims from weaker countries. 23. The news of the United Kingdom and French action brought to my mind an earlier case, which I had reason to follow closely as a Swedish representative at the League of Nations. I am thinking of the time when Mussolini occupied the Greek island of Corfu as security for claims for compensation considered to have arisen from the murder of an Italian general by Greeks. 24.”
1956-09-24 · UN General Assembly · General Debate, Session 11 (1956)
“We must note with deep regret that this Assembly meets in a politically far colder atmosphere than has been the case during preceding sessions. 22. If I may begin with a few words about the Egyptian question, I would like to point out what a painful surprise it was to most of us that the United Kingdom and France, in handling an international issue, suddenly resorted to the old-fashioned methods that were outlawed even by the Covenant of the League of Nations and that are wholly incompatible with the United Nations Charter. No explanations and attempts at justification can disguise the fact that the military action taken against Egypt constituted a flagrant violation of the Charter.”
1956-09-24 · UN General Assembly · General Debate, Session 11 (1956)
“But the opinions just mentioned might contribute to creating confusion in the public debate. 45. Should we really separate with the explanation that after, ten years of investigations and debates the problem has been found insoluble? Our generation has solved the problem of constructing the atomic bomb. How could we accept to capitulate before the difficulties we have to face when trying to control man’s use of the ' bomb? I do not believe that such a defeatist attitude towards the problem of disarmament is politically possible.”
1955-09-24 · UN General Assembly · General Debate, Session 10 (1955)
“Both in the United States and in other countries, the view has been maintained, for instance, that a treaty on a general reduction of armaments is an unattainable goal. It has been said that the United Nations — and the sooner the better — ought to face realities and abandon the obsolete idea of general disarmament. In itself, there is naturally no harm in advancing and discussing such a point of view. But, if I mention it here, it is because it has been suggested that this point of view has found a certain support in the Sub-Committee. Presumably this rumour is without foundation. I refer to Mr. Dulles’ emphatic declaration in his speech the other day [518th meeting] that the United States of America maintains as a goal a general agreement on disarmament.”
1955-09-24 · UN General Assembly · General Debate, Session 10 (1955)
“I wonder, however, whether the Sub-Committee could not consider publishing the texts of the proposals so far presented, and possibly also of the requests for clarification put to the sponsors of proposals and the replies of the latter. Such an interim document might, if found desirable, provide the basis for a preliminary debate in the First Committee of the General Assembly and, above all, would serve the purpose of supplying more ample information to the Governments not represented on the Sub-Committee and to the public. 44. Such a “white paper” published by the Sub-Committee would be of value also in that it would present a firmer basis for public debate in the various Member States.”
1955-09-24 · UN General Assembly · General Debate, Session 10 (1955)
“Sir Anthony Eden, Prime Minister of the United Kingdom, presented his proposal [DC/71, annex 19] for regional agreements on the establishment of a continental zone in which armaments would be limited and subject to international supervision and control. The Prime Minister of France, Mr. Faure, put forward proposals [DC/71, annex 16] for the limitation of defence budgets and for the use of savings on defence appropriations for assistance to underdeveloped countries. 42. In recent years, we have grown accustomed to a permanent deadlock in the disarmament debate. This deadlock has at last been broken and the positions have drawn closer to each other. 43. It has been generally assumed that a report on the disarmament question would not be submitted to the General Assembly until the latter part of this session.”
1955-09-24 · UN General Assembly · General Debate, Session 10 (1955)
“The Sub-Committee of the Disarmament Commission is at present fully occupied. The four great Powers represented on the Sub-Committee have all contributed fresh approaches or new ideas. 41. The Soviet Union submitted certain interesting proposals on 10 May 1955 [A/2979]. At the “summit” conference at Geneva, the President of the United States, Mr. Eisenhower, presented his remarkable plan [DC/71, annex 17] for protection against surprise attacks. May I, in this connexion, express my sincere hope for the President’s speedy recovery from his illness and emphasize the importance of his being able to continue his efforts aiming at the realization of the bold “Eisenhower plan”.”
1955-09-24 · UN General Assembly · General Debate, Session 10 (1955)
“1 share the opinion expressed in this debate by the representative of Yugoslavia [522nd meeting], who emphasized that this body ought to be closely attached to the United Nations. Only in that way will the General Assembly have the necessary assurance that it will be able to keep the work of such a body under continuous observance. This is of importance because, for instance, of possible conflicting interests between producers and consumers. It is desirable that the General Assembly, which represents all the Member States, should be given the opportunity in such cases to issue the necessary directives. 40. Finally, a few words on disarmament. Public opinion in the world is aware that the positions taken on this question by the various Governments are on the move.”
1955-09-24 · UN General Assembly · General Debate, Session 10 (1955)
“The problem we have to face is the necessity not only of co-ordinating such information as is received from various countries, but also of analysing and evaluating the material, as well as of presenting the conclusions in readily accessible form. Considering in particular the concern felt both in scientific circles and among the public in regard to the risks for people’s health, and also from a genetic point of view, it is of the highest importance that an unprejudiced. scientific investigation take place as to the effects of the radiation caused by nuclear explosions, 39. The second problem in this field is the establishment of a body within the United Nations for the consideration of questions relating to the peaceful uses of atomic energy.”
1955-09-24 · UN General Assembly · General Debate, Session 10 (1955)
“On the other hand, an increased will to co-operate can be created neither by amending the Charter nor by calling a review conference which adopts proposals that do not stand a chance of being ratified, 37. I mentioned the International Conference on the Peaceful Uses of Atomic Energy. Two important problems in this field will be dealt with at this session of the General Assembly. 38. One is the co-ordination of information relating to the effects of atomic radiation upon human health and safety. The Swedish Government received with great 'satisfaction the news that the Government of the United States had asked for the inclusion of this item in the agenda. Later, the Government of India put forward a similar request.”
1955-09-24 · UN General Assembly · General Debate, Session 10 (1955)
“The question of the veto in the Security Council in so far as the admission of new Members is concerned will then have lost its practical importance. 35. It is easy to mention other stipulations of the Charter which my Government would wish to have framed in a more satisfactory way. We feel, for instance, that the right of veto of the great Powers is too extensive, because it applies also to the peaceful settlement of international disputes. 36. But the deficiencies of the Charter should not be exaggerated. On the whole, in existing circumstances, the Charter is a good instrument — as I had occasion to state in greater detail during a previous general debate. With sufficient will to co-operate, the present Charter could function excellently.”
1955-09-24 · UN General Assembly · General Debate, Session 10 (1955)
“Experience has shown that the veto has been frequently used when applications for membership have been dealt with. As my personal opinion, I would say that it would have been preferable that the General Assembly alone should decide on the admission of new Members. Now, however, we have the rule that the Security Council’s opinion is required, and that the concurring votes of the permanent members of the Council are necessary for a positive decision. Thus the admission of new Members has hitherto been extremely difficult. By all appearances, however, the principle of universality will soon be accepted, and applied in practice. It may even be assumed that most of the States which still remain outside the United Nations will have been admitted to the Organization before a review conference has had time to meet.”
1955-09-24 · UN General Assembly · General Debate, Session 10 (1955)
“I quote again from the report of the Sub-Committee just mentioned, which presumably represents a wide-spread opinion in the United States Senate: “The United States, as a permanent member of the Security Council, therefore, cannot be bound by any Charter amendment unless it is acceptable to the President of the United States and approved by a two-thirds vote of the Senate. The Sub-Committee believes that these requirements provide adequate safeguards against any amendment to the Charter, not compatible with the interests of the United States, which might originate at a review conference.” The veto right is thus labelled an adequate safeguard against such amendments to the Charter as would not be acceptable from the United States point of view. 34.”
1955-09-24 · UN General Assembly · General Debate, Session 10 (1955)
“This report reads in part as follows: “The Sub-Committee notes that amendments to the Charter can be adopted at any time, not merely at a review conference. Furthermore, the process to be followed in either case is substantially the same. It is no easier to amend the Charter at a review conference than at any other time under the regular amending process contained in Article 108.” 33. If I may then say a few words about the motives for a review conference, my impression is that the attention focuses upon the question of the veto. Now it is common knowledge that all the permanent members of the Security Council support the veto rule as regards questions of vital interest.”
1955-09-24 · UN General Assembly · General Debate, Session 10 (1955)
“This proposal would have much to commend itself if the Charter prescribed that amendments could be considered only every ten years. If that were the case, a decision in principle in 1955 to hold a conference might be necessary in order not to prevent the General Assembly from dealing with proposed amendments within the next ten years. But, as is well known, the situation is different. There is nothing in the Charter to prevent the General Assembly from considering proposed amendments at any time during the next few years. It therefore seems unnecessary now to take such a decision in principle, and then to implement it a few years later. 32. I permit myself to quote from an interim report by the Sub-Committee which was charged by the United States Senate to study the question of a review of the United Nations Charter.”
1955-09-24 · UN General Assembly · General Debate, Session 10 (1955)
“As the representative of Sweden, I may be permitted to give expression here to the joy and satisfaction felt by the Swedish nation that our neighbour has been relieved of this foreign enclave on its territory through the generous relinquishment by the Government of the Soviet Union of the naval base long before the termination of the lease. 29. Now I should like first to deal with the plan to call a conference for the purpose of reviewing the Charter. 30. There appears to be a wide-spread opinion against holding such a conference as early as next year. But it has been proposed that the General Assembly should decide in principle that a conference should be held, without now setting a specific date. This would be left to a future session of the Assembly, which might then call the conference in 1957, or even later. 31.”
1955-09-24 · UN General Assembly · General Debate, Session 10 (1955)
“When the United Nations celebrated its tenth anniversary in San Francisco, many speakers referred with satisfaction to the marked trend towards a relaxation of tension in the international field. 28. Since then, important developments which are manifestations of the same trend have taken place. I am thinking, of course, of the Geneva meeting “at the summit”. I am also referring to the International Conference on the Peaceful Uses of Atomic Energy, at Geneva, which led to the unveiling of the enormous achievements in the peaceful fields of atomic science and atomic technology which so far had been kept as State secrets. Finally, I am thinking of the agreement recently concluded between the Soviet Union and Finland for the return to Finland of the Porkkala area, where the Soviet Union had established a naval base.”
1955-09-24 · UN General Assembly · General Debate, Session 10 (1955)
“26. I am going to make a few very brief remarks concerning some items on our agenda. Before doing so, however, I must express my deep regret that the deliberations of this Assembly on 30 September should have caused the declaration made by Mr. Pinay on behalf of the French Government [530th meeting]. I am sure we unanimously agree that the participation of France as one of the leading Powers in the United Nations General Assembly is of vital importance to this Organization, and I feel we all hope that an issue will soon be found to this abnormal situation. 27. As to the general debate that has been going on during the first two weeks of the session, I want to join in what seems to be a generally accepted view about the international situation.”
1955-09-24 · UN General Assembly · General Debate, Session 10 (1955)
“The demands for revision which have been presented in the general debate rather tend to take the opposite direction. They would render the contents of the Charter more Utopian; they would remove its provisions still further from reality. The general public should not, however, have the illusion that such proposals would constitute a short-cut to a more secure world order and a more stable peace. The prospects for a lasting peace depend on the international policies pursued by States, particularly by the great Powers, and not on the drawing up of perfect provisions in the Charter of the United Nations.”
1953-09-24 · UN General Assembly · General Debate, Session 8 (1953)
“A reader of the Charter may easily gain the impression that the United Nations is an association of only such States as have accepted the principles of political democracy: whereas the fact is that the Organization was intended to become universal and that it embraces States with the most varying forms of government. A study of the Charter gives the impression that the Security Council can provide forces which may be dispatched promptly to take action against any aggressor. In actual fact, of course, that is not the situation. I have already cited other instances of contradictions between declarations of principle and political reality. However, I do not think that anyone will insist on a revision in order that the solemn principles may be translated into language corresponding more accurately to imperfect reality. 29.”
1953-09-24 · UN General Assembly · General Debate, Session 8 (1953)
“I should like to summarize my remarks by expressing the opinion that a revision of the basic parts of the Charter constitutes no immediate or important goal. As a matter of fact the Charter is, on the whole, satisfactory. Provided that there is sufficient will to co-operate, the machinery of the present Charter can render excellent service. I have no doubt that a review conference will confirm this fact. 28. It may be objected that the Charter is impaired by contradictions. Certain declarations of principle have been given a Utopian character and reflect the goals of a distant future rather than the reality of today.”
1953-09-24 · UN General Assembly · General Debate, Session 8 (1953)
“We have made considerable progress in relation to the situation existing during the nineteen-twenties, when the Permanent Court of International Justice of the League of Nations began to function. Unfortunately, the members of the Eastern bloc are not among these States. However, neither by amending the Charter nor in any other way can we force them to change their attitude. 26. In my intervention I have aimed at illustrating concretely the significance of the idea of revision. I believe that a scrutiny of the suggestions for significant amendments to the Charter would reveal that they either reflect illusions as to the political reality in which we are living, or that they have some other aim than the realization of the proposed changes. 27.”
1953-09-24 · UN General Assembly · General Debate, Session 8 (1953)
“If the United Nations system were given a more accentuated legal character, such a system would have to include an obligation on the part of the Member States to accept a judicial decision in all legal disputes. In my opinion this would be a most desirable reform, and in this connexion I might say that I had the opportunity, during the last session of the General Assembly [379th meeting], to expound the views of my Government on the value of compulsory arbitration in international disputes. But a reform could be achieved technically without any amendment to the Charter. A number of States already have accepted the jurisdiction of the International Court of Justice in legal disputes — in many cases, however, with more or less far-reaching reservations which have not always been consistent with the idea of an actual legal system.”
1953-09-24 · UN General Assembly · General Debate, Session 8 (1953)
“If this maxim were made a definite legal rule, with legal sanctions, it would be necessary as a consequence to accept international control of the observance of the rule. Again, it may be questioned whether such an amendment to the Charter has any chance of being accepted. Several of the States administering such territories have so far denied the United Nations the right even to be officially informed of the political development of those territories. I have no doubt that they can be brought gradually to agree to a practice which would render the general exhortations of the Charter more real in substance, but they would hardly, at the present time, accept a definite legal rule in the Charter. 25.”
1953-09-24 · UN General Assembly · General Debate, Session 8 (1953)
“How many Member States still continue to retain in their legislation a policy of discrimination as to race or sex? The policy of racial discrimination has been censured many times by the General Assembly, but a number of countries have failed to amend their legislations in regard to discrimination against women in certain fields. Are there any prospects for the abolition of all discrimination in the proposed revision of the Charter by transforming the “purpose” of the Charter into legal reality? I think the answer must be in the negative. 24. Article 73 of the Charter enjoins the countries which are responsible for the administration of territories whose peoples have not yet attained a full measure of self-government to ensure, among other things, the political advancement of the peoples concerned.”
1953-09-24 · UN General Assembly · General Debate, Session 8 (1953)
“The United States representative read a message from the President of the United States confirming the fact that the United States believes that a formal international treaty or treaties does not provide the way to further understanding of and respect for human rights. This line of argument appears to be a criticism of the very idea of a stronger legal character in the rules of the Charter. One would otherwise be inclined to believe that the supporters of the idea of a firmer legal system would be prepared to begin with the codification of the rules regarding human rights. 23. Article 1, paragraph 3, of the Charter declares that one of the purposes of the United Nations is to promote and encourage “respect for human rights and for fundamental freedoms for all without distinction as to race, sex, language or religion”.”
1953-09-24 · UN General Assembly · General Debate, Session 8 (1953)