United States Policy in the ADDRESS BY THE SECRETARY OF This meeting of the General Assembly is a meeting of decision. Before us lies opportunity for action which can save the hope of peace, security, well-being, and justice for generations to come. Before us also lies opportunity for drift, for irresolution, for effort feebly made. In this direction is disaster. The choice is ours. It will be made whether we act or whether we do not act. The peoples of the world know this. They will eagerly follow every word spoken here. Our words will reach them mingled with the sound of the battle now raging in Korea. There, men are fighting and dying under the banner of the United Nations. Our Charter, born out of the sacrifices of millions in war, is being consecrated anew to peace at the very moment of our meeting. The heroism of these men gives us this opportunity to meet and to act. Our task is to be worthy of them and of that opportunity. We meet also with full knowledge of the great anxiety which clutches at the hearts of the people of this earth. Men and women everywhere are weighted down with fear-fear of war, fear that man may be begetting his own destruction. But man is not a helpless creature who must await an inexorable fate. It lies within our power to take action which, God willing, can avert the catastrophe whose shadow hangs over us. That terrible responsibility rests upon every man and woman in this room. At the end of this meeting each of us must answer to his conscience on what we have done here. How have we come to this condition of fear and jeopardy? The lifetime of many here has seen the rise and fall of empires, the growth of powerful nations, the stirrings of great continents with newborn hope, the conquest of space, and great inventions, both creative and destructive. We have lived in a century of alternating war and hope. Now, the foundation of our hope is the United Nations. Five years ago we declared at San Francisco our determination "to save succeeding generations 941458-51- -19 271 from the scourge of war," our faith in fundamental human rights, our belef in justice and social progress. During the years that have intervened, some of us have worked hard to bring this about. There is no longer any question: Will the United Nations survive? Will the United Nations suffer the fate of the League of Nations? This question has been answered. If by nothing else, it has been answered by United Nations action against aggression in Korea. Blood is thicker than ink. But a pall of fear has been cast over our hopes and our achievements. What is the reason for this fear? Why is it that we have been unable to achieve peace and security through the United Nations in these 5 years? Why has there not been the cooperation among the great powers which was to have buttressed the United Nations? Why have we not been able to reach an agree ment on the control of atomic energy and the regulation of armaments? What has been the obstacle to a universal system of collective security? We have been confronted with many and complex problems, but the main obstacle to peace is easy to identify, and there should be no mistake in anyone's mind about it. That obstacle has been created by the policies of the Soviet Government. We should be very clear in our minds about this obstacle. It is not the rise of the Soviet Union as a strong national power which creates difficulties. It is not the existence of different social and economic systems in the world. Nor is it, I firmly believe, any desire on the part of the Russian people for war. The root of our trouble is to be found in the new imperialism directed by the leaders of the Soviet Union. To be more explicit, the Soviet Government raises five barriers to peace. First, Soviet efforts to bring about the collapse of the non-Soviet world, and thereby fulfill a prediction of Soviet theory, have made genuine negotiation very difficult. The honorable representative of Lebanon, Dr. Charles Malik. stated it precisely at our last Assembly when he said: "There can be no greater disagreement than when one wants to eliminate your existence altogether." Second, the shroud of secrecy which the Soviet leaders have wrapped around the people and the states they control is a great barrier to peace. This has nourished suspicion and misinformation in both directions. It deprives governments of the moderating influence of contact between peoples. It stands in the way of the mutual knowledge and confidence essential to disarmament. Third, the rate at which the Soviet Union has been building arms and armies, far beyond any requirement of defense, has gravely endangered peace throughout the world. While other countries were demobilizing and converting their industries to peaceful purposes after the war, the Soviet Union and the territories under its control pushed preparation for war. The Soviet Union has forced countries to rearm for their self-defense. Fourth, the use by Soviet leaders of the international Communist movement for direct and indirect aggression has been a great source of trouble in the world. With words which play upon honest aspirations and grievances the Soviet leaders have manipulated the people of other states as pawns of Russian imperialism. Fifth, the Soviet use of violence to impose its will and its political system upon other people is a threat to the peace. There is nothing unusual in the fact that those who believe in some particular social order want to spread it throughout the world. But as one of my predecessors, Secretary Adams, said of the efforts of an earlier Russian ruler, Czar Alexander, to establish the Holy Alliance, the Emperor "finds a happy coincidence between the dictates of his conscience and the interests of his empire." The combination of this international ambition and the Soviet reliance on force and violence-though it be camouflaged as civil war-is a barrier to peaceful relations. This conduct conflicts with the Charter of the United Nations. It conflicts with the "Essentials of Peace" resolution passed at our last Assembly. It has created a great and terrible peril for the rest of the world. Even this conduct has not made war inevitable-we, for our part, do not accept the idea that war is inevitable. But it has lengthened the shadow of war. This fact cannot be obscured by propaganda which baits the hooks with words of peace and, in doing so, profanes the highest aspirations of mankind. Strength to Prevent Aggression There is only one real way the world can maintain peace and security in the face of this conduct. That is by strengthening its system of collective security. Our best hope of peace lies in our ability to make absolutely plain to potential aggressors that aggression cannot succeed. The security of those nations who want peace and the security of the United Nations itself demand the strength to prevent further acts of aggression. One of the fundamental purposes of the United Nations, as expressed in article 1 of the Charter, is that it shall ". . . take effective collective measures for the prevention and removal of threats to the peace, and for the suppression of acts of aggression or other breaches of the peace. The action of the United Nations to put down the aggression which began on June 25 against the Republic of Korea was exactly the effective collective measure required. It marked a turning point in history, for it showed the way to an enforceable rule of law among nations. The world waits to see whether we can build on the start we have made. The United Nations must move forward energetically to develop a more adequate system of collective security. If it does not move forward, it will move back. Article 24 of the Charter gives the Security Council primary responsibility for the maintenance of peace. This is the way it should be. But if the Security Council is not able to act because of the obstructive tactics of a permanent member, the Charter does not leave the United Nations impotent. The obligation of all members to take action to maintain or restore the peace does not disappear because of a veto. The Charter, in articles 10, 11, and 14, also vests in the General Assembly authority and responsibility for matters affecting international peace. The General Assembly can and should organize itself to discharge its responsibility promptly and decisively if the Security Council is prevented from acting. To this end, the United States Delegation is placing before the Assembly a number of recommendations designed to increase the effectiveness of United Nations action against aggression. This program will include the following proposals: First, a provision for the calling of an emergency session of the General Assembly upon 24 hours' notice if the Security Council is prevented from acting upon a breach of the peace or an act of aggression. Second, the establishment by the General Assembly of a security patrol, a peace patrol, to provide immediate and independent observation and reporting from any area in which international conflict threatens, upon the invitation or with the consent of the state visited. |