under which they live; the social conditions that surround them. It is in these realms, and not in the structure of the United Nations, that the roots of the troubles of the world lie.

The troubles arising from present conditions are abundant. They are the prevalence of narrow nationalisms, the periodic reliance on crude powerwhether political, military or economic-to serve or protect supposed national interests, the appalling rise in the quantity and destructive potential of nuclear armaments, the ever more serious gaps in economic development, the persistence of colonial domination over several million people, the continuing prevalence in many parts of the world of racial discrimination and suppression of human rights, and, among populations constantly increasing, the widespread inadequacies of education, food shortages verging on famine, and lack of medical care. These excesses, inequities and injustices—and the fears, tensions, frustrations, jealousies and aggressions which they breed among peoples and among nations-still too largely condition the state of the world, still too strongly and adversely influence the national policies which Member States bring to bear on the work of the United Nations, and still too seriously obstruct rather than challenge the capacity of the Organization to fulfil its purposes.

In the present difficult state of international affairs, I believe it to be the first duty of the membership to face up to the fact that the chances of fruitful international co-operation on many crucial issues in which the United Nations has a clear responsibility for decision and action-issues ranging from disarmament to development-have been steadily and seriously impaired over the past two years by a situation over which, for well-known reasons, the United Nations has not been able to exercise any effective control. This situation, of course, is the deepening crisis over Viet-Nam, where the dangerous escalation of armed force has been accompanied, in my view, by an increasing intransigence and distrust among Governments and peoples.

to observe that discussions of the matter have by and large been dominated by consideration and analysis of the power politics involved, and that there has been much less concern for the tremendous human suffering which the conflict has entailed for the people of Viet-Nam and also for the people of other countries involved in the fighting. My heart goes out to them. The Viet-Namese people, in particular, have known no peace for a quarter of a century. Their present plight should be the first, not the last, consideration of all concerned. Indeed, I remain convinced that the basic problem in Viet-Nam is not one of ideology but one of national identity and survival. I see nothing but danger in the idea, so assiduously fostered outside VietNam, that the conflict is a kind of holy war between two powerful political ideologies.

The survival of the people of VietNam must be seen as the real issue, and it can be resolved not by force but by patience and understanding, in the framework of a willingness to live and let live. If this approach can be accepted on all sides-and the moral influence of Governments and peoples outside the immediate conflict can help to bring this about-I believe it should be possible to reach a settlement which would end the suffering in Viet-Nam, satisfy the conscience of the world at large and remove a formidable barrier to international co-operation.

Although Viet-Nam represents the most serious manifestation of the unsatisfactory state of international affairs, it is not the only point of open danger. The situation in the Middle East has shown no improvement, and dangerous tensions persist. I sincerely trust that the hopes newly raised for a settlement in Yemen will be fulfilled. I also hope that the involvement of the United Nations in the difficult question of Aden may help to bring about a peaceful solution there. Beyond these questions lies the longstanding conflict between Israel and the Arab States and the continuing need for passions to be restrained and the terms of the armistice agreements to be observed by all concerned.

I shall not conceal my distress at some of the happenings in Africa during the last twelve months-not only those which hardened the colonial and quasi-colonial attitudes still entrenched in large parts of the continent, but also those involving sud

For my own part, I have tried my best to help in the efforts which have been made to reduce the escalation of the conflict in Viet-Nam and to move to the conference table the quest for a solution of the problem. In doing so, I have been increasingly distressed

den and violent political changes in newly independent States. They have created a sense of instability which can easily be misrepresented or exaggerated to the disadvantage of Africa as a whole and, by causing an increase in tensions among African countries, they have produced a setback to African unity. By no means all of the many problems that the African peoples are facing are of their own making, but few, if any, of them can be solved except by the African countries themselves showing the qualities of maturity and restraint which they have often displayed, and using these qualities to engender the greater spirit of co-operation and willingness to work together, which is essential to the fulfilment of Africa's destiny. This task is so important that Governments and peoples must put above everything else a willingness to sink their differences in the higher interests of Africa and of the world as a whole.

The situation in Latin America also gives cause for some concern. Notwithstanding the several factors which should enable Latin America to move forward in its economic and social development, the area as a whole is finding it very hard to consolidate satisfactory growth rates. Many of the difficulties encountered are homemade and must be eliminated by the Latin American countries themselves, while others stem from Latin America's economic relations with the rest of the world and their solution must be sought in an effective and continuous policy of international understanding and co-operation.

At the same time, I must make clear my belief that, while we face up to the existence of national and even international situations which are beyond the control of the United Nations and recognize the harmful effects which they may have on the progress of international co-operation within its sphere of activity, the United Nations should be enabled to act more effectively and decisively than it has done so far on many of the matters before it. We cannot wait for the world to right itself-for the great Powers, in particular, to adjust their differences-before applying greater determination and, if necessary, a larger sacrifice of time-honoured attitudes to the solution of urgent problems.

It has, of course, been partly because of the deterioration in the international situation that it has not been

possible to make greater progress in regard to such basic issues as disarmament. The world disarmament conference still remains a somewhat distant goal. The problem of nonproliferation of nuclear weapons has gained added urgency and there is a greatly increased need for early action on account of the terrible prospect of more countries joining the "nuclear club". It is also, in my view, both necessary and feasible to agree upon a ban of all nuclear tests. I hope that the discussions at the forthcoming session of the General Assembly will demonstrate, above all to the nuclear Powers themselves, how essential it is to make speedy progress in regard to these matters.

Moreover, the international situations to which I have referred, the rise of tensions and the emergence of new dangers in so many parts of the world, point to the need for a stronger rather than a weaker United Nations, and one which can be relied upon to undertake peace-keeping operations wherever such action could help in the restoration of stable conditions. Unfortunately, although there seems to be a measure of agreement that these operations have been effective in the past and could prove useful in the future, we are still far from agreement on basic principles. I very much hope that, in the months to come, the general membership and in particular those Members which have a special responsibility with regard to the maintenance of international peace and security, may find it possible, within the Charter, to agree upon the procedures to be followed in launching such operations, the responsibility of the various organs in their actual conduct, and the financial arrangements by which the expenditures involved may be met. I must draw attention to the fact that the peacekeeping activities of the United Nations, perhaps more than any other part of its work, have enabled the Organization to gain a measure of public confidence which is in danger of being lost if the Member States remain deadlocked on the constitutional and financial questions involved.

I should like to add, in this connexion, that I believe that regional organizations will have an important role to play in future in reducing tensions within their regions and in promoting co-operative efforts to attain common ends. The work of the United Nations at the regional level in the economic and social fields has won

universal acclaim; the regional economic commissions have become increasingly effective in helping the developing countries not merely through research and studies but also by direct operational activities, including those which have led to the establishment of economic and social planning institutes and development banks. The work of inter-governmental regional bodies outside the United Nations can also, I am sure, contribute to the solution of problems between countries within a region. However, there are certain questions of jurisdiction and competence which arise with regard to the maintenance of international peace and security, especially in the peace-keeping field, and concerning which the role of the regional organizations requires clearer definition. Some time ago, I suggested that a study of the functioning of regional organizations in terms of their respective charters might be useful, and I mention it again in the belief that Governments should wish to follow it up.

It is as important for a stronger United Nations to continue the longterm task of building the peace as it is to equip itself for helping countries to keep the peace. It is not enough, in my opinion, for the United Nations to deal where it can, and as the case arises, with each specific problem that threatens world peace. The causes of tension in the world have to be attacked at all of their many roots. We have the means of doing so and we have made a start. While, for example, the international activities in the fields of economic and social development and human rights do not figure in the headlines, the fact is that the greater part of the resources of the United Nations and its family of agencies is devoted to these tasks. The manner in which they are undertaken has a direct relationship to the reduction of tensions. I have said many times that it is essential that the gulf between the rich and the poor countries should be narrowed. I attach the greatest importance to the Governments of Member States taking seriously the goals of the United Nations Development Decade and making deliberate progress towards the achievement of these goals.

their nature, describe as the problems of colonialism. While recognizing that substantial progress has been made, we cannot afford to forget that the process of decolonization has not been completed. A hard core of actual colonialism still exists, particularly in Africa. It is coupled with the kindred problem of racial discrimination, and this evil in turn subjects the majority of the population of one of the largest independent States in Africa to conditions akin to the worst type of colonial subjection. I believe that in these situations there lies a great opportunity for statesmanship on the part of the colonial Powers-an opportunity which they must seize before it is too late.

It is impossible, moreover, to view some of these outstanding problemswhether it is the position of the United Nations with regard to the crisis in South-East Asia or the lack of progress in disarmament-without relating them to the fact that the United Nations has not yet attained the goal of universality of membership. In the long run the Organization cannot be expected to function to full effect if one fourth of the human race is not allowed to participate in its deliberations. I know that there are serious political difficulties involved in correcting this situation; but I hope that the long-term advantages may be more clearly seen and the necessary adjustments made.

This process may take some further time. Meanwhile, I feel that all countries should be encouraged and enabled, if they wish to do so, to follow the work of the Organization more closely. It could only be of benefit to them and to the United Nations as a whole to enable them to maintain observers at Headquarters, at the United Nations Office at Geneva and in the regional economic commissions, and to expose them to the impact of the work of the Organization and to the currents and cross-currents of opinion that prevail within it, as well as to give them some opportunity to contribute to that exchange. Such contacts and intercommunication would surely lead to a better understanding of the problems of the world and a more realistic approach to their solution. In this matter I have felt myself obliged to follow the established tradition by which only certain Governments have been enabled to maintain observers. I commend this question for further examination by the General Assembly so that the Secretary

There are other causes of tension which cannot be left to resolve themselves. In particular, I feel that the United Nations must make a sustained attack on the problems which we might, because of their origin or

General may be given a clear directive as to the policy to be followed in the future in the light, I would hope, of these observations.

The United Nations is an experiment in multilateral international diplomacy. Governments maintain here Permanent Representatives who have to carry out instructions understandably designed to promote the political and other interests of the Governments concerned. At the same time, however, these Governments have subscribed to the principles and ideals of the Charter and they have to recognize that one of its basic purposes is to be "a centre for harmonizing the actions of nations" in the attainment of the common ends for which the United Nations was established. I am glad that in most cases the representatives of Member States do not, in their pursuit of national interests, forget the larger interests of humanity represented by this Organization. I personally believe that it should be possible for the Governments of Member States in all cases to use the United Nations as a centre for harmonizing their actions so that the interests of humanity may not suffer but may be properly served.

In these observations I have stressed some of the basic beliefs which I have held in the discharge of my functions as Secretary-General over the last fifty-eight months. I feel that this is an appropriate occasion for me to urge that the problems to which I have referred and the suggestions which I have made deserve careful consideration if the Organization is to be strengthened, if peace is to be preserved and promoted, and if we are to make real progress towards the goal of the economic and social advancement of all peoples. There are many ways of reaching these objectives of peace and well-being, and I do not believe that anyone should adopt a dogmatic approach to them. Conditions differ widely from country to country and each has the right, within the broad framework of the principles of the United Nations, to pursue its goals in its own way and by means which it judges most appropriate and fruitful. At the same time I believe that the ideological differences that have divided the world are beginning to show signs of losing their sharp edge, and I approach the end of my term of office with some confidence that, over the years, the United Nations will prove to be the means by which mankind will be able not only

to survive but also to achieve a great human synthesis.

Document II-4

Statement by the U.N. SecretaryGeneral (Thant), Transmitted With a Letter to the Members of the U.N. Security Council, September 1, 1966 2

"I Have Decided Not To Offer Myself for a Second Term as Secretary-General"

Members of the Organization are aware that my term as SecretaryGeneral of the United Nations expires on 3 November 1966. During recent months I have had exchanges of view with many of them, including in some instances Heads of State and Government. I believe that it would be proper for me and helpful to the Governments of Member States to make my own decision known at the present time.

In this connexion it may be pertinent to recall that in the first instance I was appointed Acting SecretaryGeneral of the United Nations for the unfinished term of Dag Hammarskjöld from 3 November 1961 to 10 April 1963.3 In November 1962, when the question of the extension of my term was under consideration, many members of the Security Council as it was then constituted asked me to accept a further term of five years from the date of expiry of that mandate, until 10 April 1968. I expressed my preference to serve a term of five years from 3 November 1961, the date of my appointment as Acting Secretary-General, to 3 November 1966. In taking this attitude I had two considerations in mind. One was to reinforce the practice already established that the normal term of the Secretary-General should be five years. The other was my reluctance to accept a commitment to serve as Secretary-General for a longer period than five years.

I would also like to avail myself of this occasion to refer briefly to some

2 U.N. doc. S/7481.

3 See American Foreign Policy: Current Documents, 1961, p. 82.

of the problems which the Organization has had to face since I was first appointed to this office. Though I am making these observations at this time, I do not wish to relate them to the variety of considerations-personal, official and political-which, as I have explained more than once, have influenced my own decision.

Members of the Organization may remember that, on 30 November 1962, when I accepted the extension of my term to 3 November 1966, I referred to a statement I had made earlier that "my decision to accept the position of Secretary-General for a longer term would be governed primarily by a few considerations, including the prospects of an early settlement of the Congo problem, the prospects of the stability of this world Organization as a potent force for peace, and the prospects of my playing a humble part in bringing about a more favourable atmosphere for the easing of tension...".

Looking back over the work of the United Nations during the last fiftyeight months I feel justified in saying that a measure of progress has been made in some of these respects.

In particular, while the financial solvency of the Organization has not yet been assured, there is no longer the same sense of crisis and anxiety about it. I am still hopeful that, in line with the decisions taken earlier by the Special Committee on Peacekeeping Operations and the General Assembly, and in the light of the recent report of the Ad Hoc Committee of Experts to Examine the Finances of the United Nations and the Specialized Agencies, substantial voluntary contributions will be forthcoming which will place the Organization on a basis of complete solvency, so that it can face the great tasks ahead with confidence.

The need of the United Nations for solvency does not, however, apply to the question of finances alone. A lack of new ideas and fresh initiatives and a weakening of the will to find means of strengthening and expanding genuine international co-operation would have even more serious consequences. In respect of one of its most important activities, that of peace-keeping, the promise held out by the demon

strated usefulness and success of our extensive operations in recent years has remained unfulfilled because of the continuing failure to agree on basic principles. In my judgement it is important that, in conformity with the Charter, the United Nations should be enabled to function effectively in this field.

The task of peace-building is no less important. In this regard it may be claimed that, while the United Nations Development Decade, which was launched with high hopes, has fallen short of its modest objectives, on the positive side it has stimulated the efforts of the United Nations to equip itself with more effective meansthe consolidated United Nations Development Programme, the United Nations Conference on Trade and Development and the United Nations Organization for Industrial Development of tackling some of the basic problems of development.

Speaking still of the situation within this Organization, I may say that during all these months I have striven to make the Secretariat more truly international in outlook and approach and a more energetic and efficient servant of the Governments of Member States. I believe that, within its limitations, the Secretariat has performed well and that, with further organizational improvements, it is capable of doing even better. I take this opportunity to place on record my deep appreciation of the co-operation I have received from my colleagues in the Secretariat.

I owe a great debt of gratitude to my friends and colleagues in the delegations for their unfailing co-operation and courtesy. The progress made during these fifty-eight months is due in large measure to their friendly counsel and assistance.

Members of the Organization are surely aware of my abiding concern for peace. During the fifty-eight months that I have been in office, hopes and prospects have risen and fallen many times. The world situation appears to me to be extremely serious. The state of affairs in SouthEast Asia is already a source of grave concern and is bound to be a source of even greater anxiety, not only to the parties directly involved and to the major Powers but also to other Members of the Organization. It is of the deepest concern to me personally. The cruelty of this war, and the suf

'See U.N. doc. A/PV.1182.

See American Foreign Policy: Current Documents, 1965, pp. 100-101.

See ibid., p. 104.