Secretary-general sketches UN successes, hopes at 40th anniversary celebration in San Francisco.

Forty years ago vast cities lay in ruins. An appreciable portion of the world's economic productive capacity was destroyed. Millions of people were dispossessed and homeless. Many more millions were dead, victims of the most terrible war that had eve occurred. The devastation was such as to make clear that recurrence would entail the impermissible risk of the total destruction of civilization.

The San Francisco Conference, which opened on 26 April 1945, was not a conference to end that war. The purpose of the governmental and non-governmental representatives gathered in this city was to end all wars--to save succeeding generations from the scourge of war--words that were drafted by two American women, Virginia Gildersleeve and Elizabeth Reynard, who were members of the United States delegation. There was no disagreement on this objective nor, in the course of the lengthy negotiations, was failure ever contemplated. San Francisco was frequently referred to then as "the capital of tomorrow" because the decisions taken here were seen as of decisive influence in assuring a future with all the promise for the world that peace could impart.

Thus, 40 years ago today the hopes and aspirations of Governments and peoples around the world were focused on this city, where the representatives of 51 States signed the document which defined the means whereby peace might be assured--the Charter of the United Nations. These means are essentially twofold in nature: a code of international behaviour in the form of purposes and principles to which all Member States of the United Nations are committed and a multilateral organization--the United Nations.

The purposes and principles represent a culmination of human efforts to define how nations should behave to attain lasting peace. The United Nations Organization is the practical machinery for transforming these purposes and principles into the reality of global relationships.

This, then is the basis of the most ambitious effort ever undertaken to establish the conditions and the machinery which would bring lasting peace to the world--a world that from its earliest history has seldom been free from war. The United Nations has enjoyed a large investment of hope, of ideals, of visionary statemanship and of material resources. We are now at the beginning of its fortieth year, the span of a generation. It is a time to look back and to look forward, to assess what the effect of the United Nations has been and to conclude what it can, and should be, in the future.

No United Nations?

In sharing my thoughts with you on these subjects, I would suggest, as a beginning, that we imagine the results if suddenly on this anniversary day the United Nations system should disappear--swallowed up in the western sea that lies so close at hand in San Francisco. Let me list only a small number.

-- Children and mothers in the neediest countries would be without the major emergency and long-term assistance that makes for millions of them the difference between life and death, between productive lives and lives wasted through malnutrition and diesease.

-- The over-all co-ordination of emergency aid to the drought-stricken countries of Africa would cease to the peril of the millions of people whose lives depend on the effective utilization of available resources.

-- Some 10 million refugees would be without the protection and assistance now afforded by the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees.

-- Multilateral negotiations on such vital disarmament objectives as the complete prohibition of chemical weapons and of nuclear testing would stop.

-- Syrian dn Israeli forces would be in direct confrontation on the Golan Heights with the disappearance of the peace-keeping forces positioned between them.

-- The presently viable channel to resolve certain key international problems, including Afghanistan, Cyprus and the Iran-Iraq war, would cease to exist.

-- The options available in time of crisis to prevent or restrict conflict would immediately diminish.

This list is far from comprehensive, but it is sufficient to illustrate in a rather dramatic way the present importance of the United Nations to the global community. Peace involves continued common engagement in the betterment of the human condition. For 40 years now, the United Nations has provided the catalyst, the framework and the machinery for such common engagement. Despite political and ideological differences, despite distrust and tension in bilateral relations, new horizons of hope and achievement have opened for the majority of the world's inhabitants as a result.

None of the functions which I have listed as ceasing with the disappearance of the United Nations could be successfully undertaken by any one country acting unilaterally, or even by a limited or exclusive grouping of States. This is characteristic of many of today's major issues. Environmental pollution, population growth, the existence of extensive malnutrition and hunger, the traffice in illicit drugs are examples of problems that affect the well-being of peole the world over and require co-operative efforts of all countries for their solution. There must be structures within which nations can work together for the progress which no nation acting alone can accomplish. Multilateralism, as represented by the United Nations, is the necessary response to this interdependence of countries and peoples. It is a compelling need of our times.

Terrorism

In these past days and weeks, the world has faced repeated instances of terrorism in the form of bombings, hijackings and the taking of hostages. The victims have been hundreds of innocent people who have harmed no persons and no cause. Mere condemnation of such acts is insufficient. Effective international action is required. Resolutions and convetions have been adopted in the past by the General Assembly and the International Civil Aviation Organization, outlawing hijackings and the taking of hostages. These provide a vital framework for counter-measures. It is tragically evident, however, that new, multilaterlly co-ordinated efforts are urgently required to deal with this terrible phenomenon, which is beyond the capacity of any one country to handle alone.

Human Rights

The promotion of human rights, one of the principal purposes of the United Nations, as we have seen, and a major concern during these four decades, is also dependent on multilateral co-operation. Within three years of the founding of the United Nations agreement had been reached by its members on the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. This Declaration is accepted as the authoritative definition of the basic rights of which all people are entitled precisely because it is multilaterally agreed document. Its provisions admittedly are frequently disregarded. However, with it and the subsequent United Nations instruments in the human rights field, a measure has been set for the behaviour of Governments that can no longer be ignored.

These United Nations documents validate in specific terms the principle in the Charter, which is new in history, that deprivation of human rights is the legitimate concern of the international community. This is significant element in an increasing effectiveness of the United Nations in the promotion and protection of human rights. It is a result that could be obtained only on a multilateral basis.

An Interdependent World

There can be no serious doubt that since its establishment the United Nations has alleviated many needs of an interdependent world. It has left marks on these 40 years of a superior norm for international conduct, of the validation of multilateral enterprise, of the resolution or restriction of disputes, of peace-keeping, and of substantial improvement in the human condition. These are necessary elements in a lasting peace.

These years bear other marks as well, however: the deep scars of armed conflict and violence, of fear and tension between nations, of economic inequity and social injustice and an arms race wh ich burdens the human spirit no less than the global economy, feeds distrust and, in its nuclear dimension, threatens the very existence of life itself. These are realities which, in their persistence, pose questions as to the capacity of the United Nations to meet adequately the purposes defined in its Charter. These questions cannot and should not be ignored for they are directly relevant to our common destiny. As Secretaary-General, I have tried to face them squarely in the realization that the extent that this capacity is inadequate, the means should be found to strengthen it while there is time. Let me put before you a number of conclusions.

Resolving Disputes

The power of enforcement is largely lacking in the United Nations. The Charter foresees the use of enforcement measures only by the Security Council for the maintenance or restoration of international security. The utilization of a multilaterial armed force made up of contingents from Member States is the principal means provided in the Charter for this purpose. Because of differences between the major States, the force has never been established. Realistically, I do not think this situation is likely to change in the near future, as desirable as that would be. The lack of effective means of enforcement has unquestionably weakened the capacity of the United Nations to deal with threats to the peace. Yet, even if an armed force existed, its use for enforcement purposes would be highly problematical as long as there are profound differences between the most powerful permanent members of the Security Council and between countries closely associated with them.

How then can there be collective security if there is no force through which it can be multilaterally assured? How under these circumstances can one each the point where Governments will feel able to rely less than now on national armed strength for their security?

The answer, I believe, lies first in the resolution of the acute differences, or at least in the establishment of a constructive working relationship, between the major Powers who have a unique responsibility for the security of the world as a whole. Directly related to this is the achievement of solutions to the disputes and the conflicts that cause distrust and instability at the regional level and tend to exacerbate relations between the two great Powers. The United Nations has a unique potential for dealing with this most difficult task, a potential which has not unitl now been fully exploited and perhaps not adequately understood.

I am convinced that, contrary to what is often stated by critics of the Organization, the great advantage of the United Nations is that it is not a national govenrment or a body with a specific ideological or political identity. In accepting the assistance or mediation of United Nations instrumentalities, countries need not feel that they are bending to the will of another country or placing themselves under an obligation to another Power or Powers. The effectiveness of the United Nations in the resolution of disputes requires general recognition of, and respect for, this special attribute.

It should be accepted that the Organization must function in accordance with the Charter rather than the will of any one State or group of States. Especially in the Security Council, Member States must act for the common advantage that can accrue from the elimination of a cause of friction or a threat to peace. In pragmatic terms Security Council members--and I speak especially of the two most powerful--when participating in the Council's responsibilities must be motivated less by bilateral differences and more by the objective of resolving disputes for which their common support is needed. Implementation of the Council's decisions can be more successfully achieved if the influence of the permanent members is exercised in co-ordination towards that objective.

The Security Council must deal with incipient disputes at an early stage, which, until now, has too often not been the case. It may seek facts, consult with the parties, make suggestions, appoint a mediator. The Secretary-General has a role in this regard in ensuring that information is available on crisis situations in a timely fashion and that his good offices are available to assist, within his mandate under the Charter, in encouraging understanding and in assuring a channel of communication between parties on the brink of conflict. I have sought to do this.

It may be that in the future, United Nations peace-keeping forces can be employed for preventive purposes. These lightly-armed soldiers, who have stood valiantly between adversaries after conflict has occurred, could, under certain conditions, I believe, be deployed in situations of tension to discourage the transgression of borders or the exchange of fire.

American-Soviet Teams?

American and Soviet officers have served in the past part of United Nations peace-keeping efforts. These efforts might gain in effectiveness if, in some circumstances, American and Soviet soldiers, who fought together to gain victory in the Second World War, were included in the actual peace-keeping contingents. Until now this has not been done, but it would be completely in harmony with the intent of the Charter.

Should there be conflict between the Soviet Union and the United States, it would be tantamount to a new world conflagration. I believe the United Nations has served to reduce this possibility and can do so in the future by providing a channel of communication in crisis, by affording opportunities for issues to be defused, by helping to generate the time and atmosphere in which the consequences of actions can be considered with a full sense of responsibility to all humanity.

And, as I have said, the United Nations role will be of extreme importance during the coming years in bringing peaceful resolutions to those disputes between other parties, which if unsettled, could bring the major nuclear Powers into direct confrontation.

Arms Reduction

The reduction of both conventional and nuclear arms, is also vital as a means of achieving the collective security which the world so badly needs. Balanced and adequately verifiable arms reduction can increase the security of all parties by clarifying intentions, reducing the likelihood of aggression, and decreasing the threat inherent in the mere existence of large stockpiles of lethal weapons, particularly, of course, of nuclear weapons.

The United Nations has long provided the only fully representative, multilateral forum for disarmament agreements, aside from those on strategic nuclear weapons, have been developed. It has mobilized understanding of the necessity of disarmament and has served to bring Governments into broad agreement on disarmament ends.

The United Nations, while continuing to afford these services, can do more. It can provide an objective capacity to monitor agreements, and it can furnish expertise often needed in the formulation of treaties. If communication falters between parties, the Secretary-General will always be available as a quiet channel.

The building of international confidence must be seen as a progressive process, entailing concrete and constructive steps. The resolution of conflict and disputes can facilitate progress in the reduction of arms. Reduction in arms can, in turn, encourage yet another element in international security--equitable economic progress for the global population.

Social Justice

As we look to the next 40 years, collective security must be seen as dependent on these broad elements. I would add yet another: the defence of social justice. In each of these the United Nations has played an important role during the past 40 years.

The Organization--the machinery for peace--has been inadequately fueled in terms of national support for the maintenance of security, of compliance with the principles of the Charter and of resources for economic development. It is less than perfect in its operation. But the United Nations Organization is in place. It is, in practical terms, universal. It has functioned with much good effect for 40 years. IT is equipped for service well beyond the coming biennium into the next century. The continuing need is already evident.

On this fortieth anniversary day, when negative perceptions of the capacity of the United Nations are too often voiced, I have given a relatively optimistic evaluation of the benefit which the United Nations has brought and can bring in the future. Much will depend, however, on the steadfastness with which the vision is maintained that was defined 40 years ago in San Francisco in the United Nations Charter.

The statesmen of that ime were not dreamers. They were entirely conscious of the difficulties entailed in developing an effective system of international security when States retained their sovereign status.

In this address to the final session of the San Francisco Conference, Andrei Gromyko, as head of the Soviet delegation, said that the very best and most perfect Charter is not yet a guarantee of peace. There will be required, in addition, unity and co-ordination of action by Member States, especially by the most powerful.

In his report at the end of the San Francisco Conference the head of the American delegation, Edward Stettinius, wrote that measured against the magnitude of the task to which the United Nations have committed themselves, the instruments agreed upon may seem inadequate to the labour to be done. But, he said, they have behind them the history of humanity's long effort to suppress disorder and anarchy and the rule of violence.

Vision of Peace

The vision of peace shared by the signers of the Charter was based on an understanding of reality--the reality that the risk of widespread war was no longer tolerable, that without common security for all, there could well be a future for none. The reality remains unchanged, only intensified in its significance by the ongoing development of nuclear weapons. In this situation there is evidence of a widening understanding of the need for a strong United Nations. Almost 60 Heads of State and Government have indicated their intention to participate in the fortieth anniversary session of the Generaly Assembly this autumn. Today, on the anniversary of the signing of the Charter, the leaders of nine countries--Argentina, Austria, Canada, Jordan, Malaysia, Senegal, Spain, Sweden and Tanzania--have issued a solemn, joint appeal for the international community to unite "efforts to enable the United Nations to play its unique and vital role in promoting peace, justice, freedom and progress for all humanity". Other countries have made statements expressing similar views.

As Secretary-General, I would, on this fortieth anniversary, call on all Governments and peoples alike to affirm their determination to build on the achievements of the United Nations and to overcome such weaknesses as has been evident, so that its full potential for the maintenance of peace will be realized. The interests of tomorrow, of which San Francisco for this day can again be called the capital, leave us no other choice.