YouSaid · the spoken record

LOUW

lines on the record: 346
first: 1948-09-24
most recent: 1962-09-24
sittings or episodes: 7
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

“It has therefore been decided that until such time as the United Nations shows that it is prepared to act in accordance with the spirit of the San Francisco Conference of 1945 and to conform to the principles laid down by the founders of the Organization in Article 2, paragraphs 1 and 7, of the Charter, the Union of South Africa, while as yet continuing to be a Member of the United Nations, will in future maintain only a token representation or a nominal representation at the meetings of the Assembly and at the Headquarters of the Organization. Mr. Donald Sole, the able permanent representative of the Union of South Africa, who is known to many of you, will in due course return to South Africa, and our permanent representation will be appropriately reconstituted. 153.”
1956-09-24 · UN General Assembly · General Debate, Session 11 (1956)
“Earlier this month in the General Assembly [577th meeting] I quoted from a statement of Field Marshal Jan Smuts, when in 1946 — more than ten years ago — South Africa for the first time protested against interference in our domestic affairs. He then said that if such interference were to be continued. South Africa — I use his words — and also other States, might find their position in the United Nations both impossible and intolerable. 151. Those are also the sentiments of the present Government of the Union of South Africa. We are not willing any longer to be even an unwilling party to the continued interference in South Africa’s domestic affairs — interference, moreover, which is detrimentally affecting the maintenance and the promotion of harmonious racial relations in our country. 152.”
1956-09-24 · UN General Assembly · General Debate, Session 11 (1956)
“The continued interference of the United Nations in South Africa’s problems, accompanied as it is by baseless charges of oppression and ill-treatment, made from the rostrum of this Assembly, has had the effect of aggravating racial tensions and of seriously disturbing racial relations in South Africa. One wonders whether the more responsible delegations who have no knowledge of the actual position in South Africa, and who do riot know what the Government is doing to provide housing, health and social services, and education for the large non-European majority — one wonders if these more responsible delegations realize what the effect is of their support of India’s vendetta against South Africa, and what harm they are doing to the cause of cooperation between the white and non-white population of our country. 150.”
1956-09-24 · UN General Assembly · General Debate, Session 11 (1956)
“In spite of that warning the Assembly for the eleventh time acted in violation of Article 2, paragraph 7, of the Charter, and in complete disregard of the sovereign rights of a Member State of the United Nations. 148. May I remind this Assembly that South Africa, like certain other countries which shall be nameless, is faced with difficult racial problems which we are trying our outmost to solve in a manner which will take account of the interests of both the European and the non-European peoples, and which if carried out in the right spirit on both sides, will provide the basis for harmonious co-operation between the two sections of South Africa’s population. 149.”
1956-09-24 · UN General Assembly · General Debate, Session 11 (1956)
“One wonders what would have been the attitude of any of the great Powers if this Assembly had appointed a commission to inquire into legislation passed by its sovereign parliament, or even by its provincial or state legislatures. Not for one moment would any of them have tolerated such a violation of its sovereign rights and such an unwarranted and impudent intrusion into his domestic affairs. 146. May I remind the Assembly that national pride, and the right to conduct their own domestic affairs, are the prerogatives not only of the strong. The smaller States are equally jealous of their sovereignty, and of their national honour. 147. When addressing the Members of this Assembly on 15 November, I said that they should not make the mistake of assuming that South Africa’s patience is inexhaustible.”
1956-09-24 · UN General Assembly · General Debate, Session 11 (1956)
“In spite of South Africa’s loyal support of the United Nations, which it has again shown by responding to the call for assistance in Hungary, even to the extent of taking Hungarian refugee orphans, the Assembly has now, for the eleventh year in succession, at the behest of the Government of India, decided to interfere in the essentially domestic affairs of South Africa, and in so doing has violated — and I stress this last word — a fundamental provision of its own Charter. For eleven years, successive South African delegations have protested against this unwarranted and illegal interference in our domestic affairs. Unprejudiced delegations who are acquainted with the history of past sessions of the Assembly will admit that South Africa has borne this interference with as much patience as is consistent with national honour.”
1956-09-24 · UN General Assembly · General Debate, Session 11 (1956)
“India whose Government has for eleven years in succession attacked South Africa and which likes to pose as the enemy of aggression and as the defender of human rights, as it did again during the past week, preferred to send medical units and supplies to Korea rather than to take the risk of incurring the displeasure either of Soviet Russia or Communist China by sending a military force. Now, however, when it suits its purpose, India is taking the lead in offering to contribute to the Suez police force, which is not a military force. Significantly enough, while the Indian offer has been accepted, offers of certain other countries which provided troops in support of the United Nations action in Korea seem to have been virtually if not actually rejected. 145.”
1956-09-24 · UN General Assembly · General Debate, Session 11 (1956)
“May I once more remind the Assembly that when the call came to send military contingents to Korea for the purpose of stopping aggression, South Africa was one of only sixteen Member States to respond to that call, thereby sacrificing the Jives of a number of our gallant airmen, as well as incurring a large financial expenditure. Most of the other Member States — and I think this is a fact we should remember today — ignored this call to resist aggression. Some compromised with their consciences by sending medical supplies.”
1956-09-24 · UN General Assembly · General Debate, Session 11 (1956)
“But having regard to the record of the United Nations during the past ten years and bearing in mind our experience during that time and again at the present session, it has become necessary for the Union of South Africa to take stock of this position and to decide where it stands in relation to the United Nations. 144. South Africa is one of the founder States of the United Nations, which was established for the primary purpose of ensuring peace and collective security. South Africa has always endeavoured to play its part in the realization of that objective.”
1956-09-24 · UN General Assembly · General Debate, Session 11 (1956)
“They are asking what has become of the professed determination of the founder Members “to practice tolerance and live together in peace with one another as good neighbours”. 142. Perhaps the shock caused by recent events may act as a challenge to those Members of the Organization who, in the past, by following the line of least resistance or for reasons of national policy, have permitted the United Nations to drift away from the ideals and objectives of its founders. We can but hope that the psychological effect of the shock will induce a return to the spirit that prevailed at San Francisco in 1945, a return to the Charter as drafted and intended by the founders of the United Nations, and not as later amended by a process of interpretation. 143. We trust that such a hope will eventually be realized.”
1956-09-24 · UN General Assembly · General Debate, Session 11 (1956)
“I shall say no more on these problems of the hour, other than to express the opinion that the adoption of temporary expedients is not likely to provide a solution of the troubles, but may tend rather to aggravate the fundamental disease. 141. Looking back on the past ten years of the United Nations and having in mind recent and present happenings, there appears to be good reason for the feeling of disappointment and disillusionment which in most countries is troubling those who looked to the United Nations to bring peace and security to a sorely troubled world. Many people are asking whether the United Nations has not become merely or mainly a forum where Member States can air their grievances, attack each other and conduct their ideological propaganda.”
1956-09-24 · UN General Assembly · General Debate, Session 11 (1956)
“In view of the present difficult and tense situation, I prefer to refrain from commenting on the extent to which, during the past ten years, Member States have or have not acted in accordance with those aims; or have or have not carried out the undertakings width they voluntarily accepted when they signed the Charter in order to make this Organization an effective instrument for maintaining peace. 140. Coming to more recent events, we all know that, despite the untiring and determined efforts of the Secretary-General of the United Nations, the Organization has been powerless to prevent the rape of Hungary and the destruction of many of its citizens. We are also painfully aware of the tremendous question mark which hangs over United Nations action in the Middle East.”
1956-09-24 · UN General Assembly · General Debate, Session 11 (1956)
“I now come to what was after all the main purpose of the founders of the United Nations, namely, as set out in Article 1, paragraph 1, of the Charter: “To maintain international peace and ... to take effective collective measures for the prevention and removal of threats to the peace, and for the suppression of acts of aggression ...” This aim of the newly established Organization was further set out in Article 2, in which all Members were enjoined to: “settle their international disputes by peaceful means... refrain… from the threat or use of force against the territorial integrity or political independence of any State ...”. 139.”
1956-09-24 · UN General Assembly · General Debate, Session 11 (1956)
“But it was never carried on to the same extent as it is in the lobbies and lounges of the United Nations building. It is well known that in regard to many matters delegations record their votes not in accordance with the merits of the issue but as a qui pro quo for favours received. It is part of what is known as the horse-trading technique. 137. Then there has been the repeated action of the Assembly in violating Article 2, paragraph 7, of the Charter, the Article which has rightly been described in the past as the cornerstone upon which tile edifice of the United Nations rests. I dealt fully with this matter in the debate on the adoption of the agenda, and I do not intend to deal with it further. 138.”
1956-09-24 · UN General Assembly · General Debate, Session 11 (1956)
“But as one who represented my country also at two sessions of the Assembly of the League of Nations, I can testify that the guiding and the compelling motive of self-interest exists to a far greater degree in the United Nations, where it is aggravated by the fact that delegations act not only in accordance with the interests of their respective countries, but, what is far worse, generally act in accordance with the interests of the group of States to which they belong. More often than not, they act in accordance with the decisions of the group caucus. 136. It often happens that delegations reverse their policies and abandon principle in the interest of political expediency. There were outstanding instances of this only about ten days ago. At Geneva the practice of what is colloquially known as horse-trading was also indulged in.”
1956-09-24 · UN General Assembly · General Debate, Session 11 (1956)
“You, yourself, Mr. President, in your acceptance speech referred with approval to what has become known as the African-Asian group. With respect, I suggest that a better description would be the Asian and Northern African group. 135. There is something else. -One of the contributory causes to the decline and fall of the League of Nations was the extent to which each member State looked to its own national interests when deciding to vote for or against a particular proposal. That attitude is perhaps not an unnatural one; it is in accordance with human nature.”
1956-09-24 · UN General Assembly · General Debate, Session 11 (1956)
“Those who were present in the past years at these demonstrations of malevolence and hostility against South Africa, demonstrations which were invariably led by India acting in concert with its Soviet and other associates, will be able to testify that successive South African delegations replied to these attacks in restrained language and endured them with commendable patience. 134. I now turn to another development which was not envisaged by the founders of the United Nations. Soon after the Organization came into existence, various geographical, racial and ideological groups or blocs came into existence. The members of these groups generally act in concert and stand together when votes, are taken on certain proposals. The existence of such groups is openly admitted, and they have become part of the structure of the United Nations.”
1956-09-24 · UN General Assembly · General Debate, Session 11 (1956)
“Amongst the purposes and principles set out in the Charter are “the development of friendly relations among nations” and “harmonizing the actions of nations”. When we look back on the past ten years we find that almost since its establishment the proceedings of the Organization, in the Security Council, in the General Assembly, and in the Committees, have only too often been of an acrimonious nature and that the discussions have provided occasions for attack and counter-attack, which have had the effect of exacerbating feelings and causing international tensions, rather than “harmonizing actions” as enjoined in the Charter. 133. I can speak with feeling because, for the past ten years, my country has been the object of baseless accusations and violent attacks both in the General Assembly and in its Committees.”
1956-09-24 · UN General Assembly · General Debate, Session 11 (1956)
“The United Nations had been functioning for only about three years when already there was disturbing evidence that, while the ideals of the founders and the principles of the Charter were being continually and with very much emotion extolled from this rostrum of the Assembly, in actual practice they were being disregarded. As in the days of the ill-fated League of Nations, most Member States, while paying lip-service to the principles of the Charter, were continuing to act mainly in their own national interests or in the common interest of the particular group to which they belonged, or in accordance with the particular ideology to which they subscribed. Recent events have, I think, demonstrated the truth of this appraisal. 132.”
1956-09-24 · UN General Assembly · General Debate, Session 11 (1956)
“Ten years have passed, and today not only South Africa, but also other Member States and the peoples of the world are asking to what extent the United Nations has carried out the purposes of its Charter, and whether the United Nations has come up to the expectation of its founders and has fulfilled the hopes of those countries, particularly the smaller countries, that in 1945 had hopefully looked to the new Organization as an effective instrument for the maintenance of international peace and security, for the furtherance of international co-operation, and “for harmonizing the actions of nations in the attainment of their common ends”. 131.”
1956-09-24 · UN General Assembly · General Debate, Session 11 (1956)
“The founders of the United Nations clearly set out in the Charter the aims and purposes of the new Organization. The United Nations is therein described as “a centre for harmonizing the actions of nations”. Article 2, paragraph 1, contains the dear and unequivocal statement that: “The Organization is based on the principle of the sovereign equality of all its Members.” 129. In Article 1 of the Charter was set out the main objective of the new Organization, the new Organization to which a war-weary world was looking with so much hope and confidence. That objective is: “To maintain international peace and security, and to that end: to take effective collective measures for the prevention and removal of threats to the peace, and for the suppression of acts of aggression ...”. 130.”
1956-09-24 · UN General Assembly · General Debate, Session 11 (1956)
“Apart from this interference in South Africa’s domestic affairs, this negation — one might say repudiation — of a fundamental principle of the Charter is evidence of what is happening in the United Nations. It shows how far the Organization has wandered from the path clearly defined by its founders, and it shows to what extent the United Nations is developing into an entirely different organization from that conceived and established at San Francisco. 127. It is not only South Africa that must take stock of its position. I suggest that it is in the interests of the United Nations itself, and also of other Member States, particularly the founder States, that they also should do some stock-taking. I suggest that there is also need for serious heart-searching. 128. Let us go back to San Francisco; let us go back to 1945.”
1956-09-24 · UN General Assembly · General Debate, Session 11 (1956)
“The leader of the Indian delegation told the General Assembly on 15 November that his delegation has “at all times scrupulously refrained from the use of vindictive, violent or vituperative language”. One wonders in what category he places the unsavoury remarks of his Prime Minister, which I quoted a few minutes ago. 125. I commenced by saying that the time has arrived for South Africa to take stock of its position as a Member of the United Nations, in view of the fact that the General Assembly repeatedly has been a party to a violation — I advisedly use the word “violation” — of Article 2, paragraph 7, of the Charter, thereby permitting the Government of India and its Soviet and other allies to carry on a vendetta against South Africa. 126.”
1956-09-24 · UN General Assembly · General Debate, Session 11 (1956)
“It is thus not possible to single out the Muslims, who are, moreover, there in a small minority compared with the Hindu and other religious groups. It is also a practical impossibility to determine whether the forbears, the ancestors of persons of Indian origin in South Africa came from those parts of India which now form Pakistan. 123. In the light of this information, I am entitled to ask my fellow-representatives how much value can be attached to the statement of the leader of the Indian delegation that the South African Government has always refused to discuss the matter with the Government of India, or, to quote his own words, that “no such negotiations were forthcoming”. I also ask how much value can be attached to his assurance of, I quote his words, India’s “desire to live in peace and friendship with South Africa”. 124.”
1956-09-24 · UN General Assembly · General Debate, Session 11 (1956)
“After this outburst by the Prime Minister of India, the South African Government naturally concluded that the Government of India was not serious about continuing these discussions, and that, in fact, the Prime Minister of India was deliberately trying to wreck the proposals for a discussion which had been initiated by the South African Government. In the circumstances, the South African Government decided that it would be futile to continue with these discussions. 122. In fairness to the Government of Pakistan, I must add that it was in no way to blame for the breakdown of the negotiations. It was, however, not possible to continue the discussions with Pakistan separately, because of the fact that there is complete freedom of religion in South Africa, and no distinction is made between different religious faiths and groups.”
1956-09-24 · UN General Assembly · General Debate, Session 11 (1956)
“The Prime Minister of India received his education in the United Kingdom; he is well acquainted with the English language; and he knows the meaning of the word “dastardly”. He went on to say that “the South African Government should learn some decency”. 119. I might add that the Government of India admitted, in reply to a query by the Union Government, that these statements had really been made by the Prime Minister of India. 120. May I remind my fellow-representatives that this attack was made while telegrams were actually being exchanged between the two Governments, in consequence of the South African Government’s suggestion that the Governments concerned should get together round a conference table. 121.”
1956-09-24 · UN General Assembly · General Debate, Session 11 (1956)
“In two speeches at New Delhi, he said the following, inter alia: “I call upon Russia and the United States to declare their stand on the tyrannical oppression of people of Indian origin in South Africa by the white South African Government.” To enlist the aid of the Soviet Union in regard to alleged tyrannical oppression is, in the light of recent events in Hungary, distinctly ironical. But I shall let that pass. 118. The Prime Minister of India went on to refer to what he termed “the naked racial persecution being, perpetrated by the capitalist white Government of South Africa on African and Indian people”. Not content with making these baseless charges, the Prime Minister of India spoke of the “dastardly happenings in South Africa”.”
1956-09-24 · UN General Assembly · General Debate, Session 11 (1956)
“In December 1954, the South African Government, while reserving its position on the question of domestic jurisdiction, took the initiative in making a friendly approach to the Governments of India and Pakistan, respectively, informing those Governments that the Union Government was prepared to discuss this dispute. 117. While the telegrams were being exchanged that are usual in such cases — telegrams relating to the basis for the proposed discussions, and other relevant matters — Mr. Nehru, the Prime Minister of India, considered that that was an opportune time to make violent attacks on the Government of South Africa.”
1956-09-24 · UN General Assembly · General Debate, Session 11 (1956)
“The support which, during the past years, has been accorded by the General Assembly to the Indian delegation and its allies is a sad reflection on the extent to which the United Nations has moved away from its own Charter — not only in regard to Article 2„ paragraph 7, but also in regard to other fundamental aims and purposes, I shall deal with this subject later. 115. I wish to devote just a few moments to a statement made by the representative of India, to the effect that the South African Government ha9 refused to discuss with the Government of India the settlement of this dispute. 116. What are the facts — facts with which the representative of India is fully conversant?”
1956-09-24 · UN General Assembly · General Debate, Session 11 (1956)
“The Assembly will have noted that the leader of the Indian delegation carefully avoided the legal points relating to Article 2, paragraph 7, of the Charter, upon which the South African Government’s objection is based. He of course realizes that the Union of South Africa has an unimpeachable case in resisting interference in its domestic affairs. He also realizes — we have produced the proof — that in 1945 the San Francisco Conference decided, by special resolution, that Articles 55 and 56 of the Charter, relating to human rights and fundamental freedoms, could not be used to circumvent Article 2, paragraph 7, of the Charter — as India has been doing, with, unfortunately, the approval of successive sessions of the General Assembly. 114.”
1956-09-24 · UN General Assembly · General Debate, Session 11 (1956)
“I do not intend to deal with the Indian representative’s allegations regarding the treatment of the Indian and other non-white people in my country, except to deny emphatically and categorically that these people are being oppressed or that they — to quote his words — “live in conditions that are just beyond slavery”. The representative of India has sufficient information in his possession to know that his statement is not true. Not only do I deny his accusations, but I repeat my previous statement — namely, that, generally speaking, the South Africans of Indian origin are materially much better off and far happier than masses in the Indian representative’s own country. That is why the South Africans of Indian origin refuse to take advantage of the repatriation scheme arranged between the two Governments in 1947. 113.”
1956-09-24 · UN General Assembly · General Debate, Session 11 (1956)
“At the conclusion of this statement, I shall announce the action which the Government of the Union of South Africa proposes to take. 112. I do not intend once more to traverse the ground that I covered when I fully set out my Government’s objections to the inscription of items 24 and 61. In order, however, to keep the record straight, I must refer to the statement of the leader of the delegation of India [577th meeting]— a statement which, as has so often been the case in the past, contained allegations which were not in accordance with the facts.”
1956-09-24 · UN General Assembly · General Debate, Session 11 (1956)
“In the course of my statement on 15 November [577th meeting], when I protested against the inclusion of items 24 and 61 in the agenda of this session of the Assembly, I said that the time had arrived for the Union of South Africa to take stock of its position as a Member of the United Nations. I had in mind more particularly the fact that for the past ten years, in contravention of Article 2, paragraph 7, of the United Nations Charter, South Africa has annually been subjected to interference in its essentially domestic affairs — interference, moreover, which generally has been accompanied by violent attacks on successive Governments of the Union and on the European population of South Africa. During the debate on the inclusion of the item, these attacks were repeated — for the eleventh time now. 111.”
1956-09-24 · UN General Assembly · General Debate, Session 11 (1956)
“If, therefore, the United Nations continued on the road it had hitherto followed, the Union of South Africa might have to consider whether it was in its interest to remain a Member of the Organization. Only frank discussion of problems squarely faced could avert the inevitable — the final collapse of the United Nations and a return to power politics with all its attendant evils of war, devastation and untold human suffering.”
1948-09-24 · UN General Assembly · General Debate, Session 3 (1948)
“The Government of the Union of South Africa was anxious to collaborate with other nations for the promotion of peace and would continue to support the United Nations in so far as that Organization was able to function to that end. It was not unmindful of the fact there were some items on the credit side of the United Nations account, both as regards intervention in certain international disputes and in the humanitarian sphere. The Government of the Union of South Africa was prepared to recognize the successes achieved, but the activities concerned were subsidiary to the main purpose of the United Nations, which was that of establishing world peace and of averting the conflagrations which had resulted in two world wars in the course of the past thirty-five years.”
1948-09-24 · UN General Assembly · General Debate, Session 3 (1948)
“When the Parliament of the Union of South Africa had discussed the ratification of the United Nations Charter, grave doubts and even misgivings had been expressed on the score of certain of its provisions. In spite of these misgivings and hesitations ratification bad been agreed to, since it was felt that something had to be done to avert another conflagration. It was also hoped that after the recent experience of a devastating world war, those who had assumed charge of world affairs would not permit power politics to prevail over common sense. The trust which the Union of South Africa had placed in the United Nations had been somewhat shaken, but it was fully conscious of the fact that the United Nations was at present the only available international organ for the preservation of peace.”
1948-09-24 · UN General Assembly · General Debate, Session 3 (1948)
“Smaller States were equally jealous of their sovereignty and prestige. He would also point to another tendency, that of extending the provisions of the Charter by means of resolutions and of criticizing certain Member States for their failure to respect such resolutions, thereby creating the impression that a recommendation of the General Assembly carried the same weight and authority as an enactment of a world parliament. He thought the facts to which he had referred tended not only to increase international friction but also to undermine the authority and prestige of the Organization itself. If that course of action were persisted in, the result would be a total loss of confidence and, eventually, the decline and collapse of the Organization.”
1948-09-24 · UN General Assembly · General Debate, Session 3 (1948)
“Even more serious had been the use made of the General Assembly and its Committees for ideological propaganda and for poisoning relations between European and non-European races. Attempts had been and were still being made both in the Councils of the Organization and in the General Assembly itself, to intervene in the domestic affairs of Member States. At the present stage, the United Nations could hardly afford to alienate the sympathy of Member States by adopting resolutions involving unjustifiable limitations on the sovereignty of States, to which no Member State could reasonably submit and which constituted in effect a violation of the basic principles of the Charter. National pride and the right to conduct their own affairs were not merely the prerogatives of the great Powers.”
1948-09-24 · UN General Assembly · General Debate, Session 3 (1948)
“On the other hand the international situation was deteriorating and world peace was again being threatened. The smaller Powers might well ask whether their act of faith had been justified. He would now turn to the role of the General Assembly. As originally conceived, the General Assembly was, according to Article 1, paragraph 4 of the Charter, to have been « a centre for harmonizing the actions of nations in the attainment of these common ends. » It might be asked whether the Assembly had fulfilled the hopes placed in it or whether it had not rather become a centre of discord. It was a fact that certain States had made use of the General Assembly and of its Committees as a platform for the delivery of violent attacks upon other Member States, attacks which could only exacerbate feeling and give rise to international tension.”
1948-09-24 · UN General Assembly · General Debate, Session 3 (1948)
“The prerogatives thus conferred imposed upon the great Powers definite obligations in the conduct of international affairs. Any failure to fulfil these obligations would be equivalent to a breach of faith and to a betrayal of the confidence placed in them by the smaller Powers in accepting the Charter in its present form. One of the essential features of the Charter was the unanimity rule applicable to the great Powers. It had been emphasised that this rule was one of the cardinal principles of the security provisions contained in the Charter and it was in that spirit that it had been accepted by the smaller nations, despite their grave misgivings. Experience had unfortunately shown that those misgivings had been well founded. Indeed the desired unanimity had often not been achieved.”
1948-09-24 · UN General Assembly · General Debate, Session 3 (1948)
“The acceptance by the smaller nations of this status of political inequality had been regarded as an act of faith, but that acceptance had perhaps rather been dictated by a sense of despair combined with a fervent hope that the great Powers, with the devastations of the Second World War only just behind them, would, at last, appreciate how bitter were the fruits of power politics and would be prepared to work in the interests of peace and international co-operation. It was none the less a fact that the Charter had conferred on the great Powers prerogatives which were not shared by the smaller Powers and that this had been decided with the consent of these smaller Powers, with the assurance that this sacrifice would be in the interests of all nations.”
1948-09-24 · UN General Assembly · General Debate, Session 3 (1948)
“In an atmosphere still charged with poignant memories of six years of war and suffering, an attempt had been made to create international conditions such as would enable mankind to live in peace and the peoples of the world to work out their destiny in harmony and co-operation. He would recall that the Charier bad been drawn up by the representatives of the great Powers and could not be amended without their unanimous consent. In drawing up the Charter they had accorded to themselves a dominating position in the Organization. These provisions were reluctantly accepted by the smaller nations, who were told that this was the only means of safeguarding collective security.”
1948-09-24 · UN General Assembly · General Debate, Session 3 (1948)
“The world had followed the disappointing course of this work over the past three years with a growing feeling of disillusionment, frustration, and even exasperation; this was particularly true of the smaller nations, which had hoped against hope that the United Nations would succeed where the League of Nations had failed. In taking stock of the situation, it was necessary to go back to the time when the Charter had been drawn up, to San Francisco. The idea which had inspired the founders of the United Nations had been the establishment of an effective organization for the maintenance of international peace and security. The world had just experienced a war from which few nations had emerged unscathed and which had threatened to destroy civilization itself.”
1948-09-24 · UN General Assembly · General Debate, Session 3 (1948)
“There was an increasing tendency, however regrettable, to consider that the results achieved in the past three years did not permit any optimism regarding the future of the United Nations. In view of the dominating role played by the Security Council in the affairs of the United Nations, it was perhaps expedient to consider its performance and record as one of the main criteria of its success or failure. There was unfortunately little ground for satisfaction. The work of the Security Council appeared to the public to be nothing more than a series of continual dissensions, charges and countercharges, in an atmosphere of mutual distrust and intrigue.”
1948-09-24 · UN General Assembly · General Debate, Session 3 (1948)
“In these circumstances he considered it was in the United Nations’ interests that in the general debate problems should be faced squarely and opinions freely expressed. The gravity of international disputes or the importance of the problems to which such disputes gave rise must not be glossed over by the adoption of solutions which were mere expedients and served only to aggravate the fundamental disease. Discussion should take place in an atmosphere of complete freedom; it was in that spirit that he would take part in the General Assembly’s debate. It would be appropriate and useful to look back and consider to what extent the United Nations had come up to the expectations of its founders. It was time to take stock of the situation.”
1948-09-24 · UN General Assembly · General Debate, Session 3 (1948)
“Mr. Louw expressed his thanks to France on behalf of his Government for the hospitality extended to the delegation of the Union of South Africa. He recalled that the Huguenots of his country were linked by racial ties with France and wished to take the opportunity to express his Government’s good wishes to the French Government and people. The third session of the General Assembly of the United Nations was being held in an atmosphere of international uncertainty and tension, which was bound to affect its work. The present session might show how effective the United Nations could be as an instrument for the safeguarding of peace among the nations. It was also possible that its future might be decided by the spirit which animated its deliberations and by the decisions which it might or might not take.”
1948-09-24 · UN General Assembly · General Debate, Session 3 (1948)