There is a strong impression among most of those who attended the last session of the Assembly that it was a disagreeable session which accomplished little and displayed trends which could lead to a serious decline in the force and prestige of the Assembly and of the United Nations as a whole. An examination of the record of the Assembly does little to dispel these doubts. It seems important, therefore, to identify the reasons for failure so that remedial action, if possible, may be taken in time, or, at any rate, so that our policy in and towards the United Nations may be suitably adjusted.

2. First, let us look very sketchily at the record of the Assembly on some of the principal items under consideration:

   Disarmament

   The only concrete result of the disarmament debate was the establishment of a Disarmament Commission of the whole. Its establishment represents the victory of a Soviet proposal made first at the previous session. However, this unsatisfactory body may never meet. Because of its ponderous composition, the result of this decision may well be the further divorce of the United Nations from the active work of disarmament negotiation and intensification of the reliance on ad hoc meetings beyond the jurisdiction of the Assembly. The Assembly has never dealt, of course, and should not properly deal with the details of negotiation. Its principal purpose, if any, is to reach conclusions which will assist negotiations held elsewhere. This year all efforts to achieve a unanimous resolution and thereby give a useful fillip to the Geneva negotiations failed. The Western Powers won a meaningless victory by ballot in the Assembly, but neither they nor the Russians were able to gain the vote of the uncommitted.

   Outer Space

   The only accomplishment in this field was to introduce the notion of United Nations interest in, and possible control of, peaceful uses of outer space. The launching of this programme, however, was spoiled by the failure of the USSR and the Western Powers to agree on the composition of an ad hoc committee; even though this committee was intended only as an investigatory body which would report back to the next session on how the United Nations should deal with outer space. Again the West won a majority in the vote, but as the ad hoc committee will be boycotted not only by the Soviet Union but also by some of the uncommitted countries, it is doubtful if it can accomplish any of the purposes intended.

   United Nations Force

   Proposals sponsored by President Eisenhower and other Western leaders for a modest beginning at setting up a United Nations force had to be abandoned because of the flat opposition of the Soviet Union, which has always opposed a United Nations force of any kind; by India and the Arab countries, who saw in the suggestion an attempt to give a cloak of international legality to such Western military enterprises as the intervention in Lebanon and Jordan; and by the Latin Americans, who did not want to foot the bill. The Secretary-General, who advocated an examination of the possibilities, was forced to withdraw his proposals or risk a permanent break in his relations with the Soviet Delegation.

   Cyprus

   This was the only subject on which the Assembly managed to produce a unanimous compromise result in the manner which has become standard practice for items of this kind in the past few years. This, however, was a particularly broad and empty unanimity, achieved by declaration of the President in a plenary session after efforts on the part of a number of countries neutral in the issue to achieve agreement on a compromise resolution in Committee had ended in lamentable failure.

   Algeria

   Although at the previous session a compromise resolution on this subject had been achieved, this year it was hardly even attempted. A resolution supported primarily by the anti-colonialist countries not only achieved a majority in the committee but came one short of a two-thirds majority in plenary.

   Korea

   Another American-sponsored resolution on unification achieved a majority in the Assembly but is unlikely to have any more effect than its predecessors. There was perhaps some value in the debate. Somewhat more dissatisfaction with the American approach was expressed by member states, including Canada, all of which might have had some slightly unsettling and therefore beneficial effect on United States policy.

   South African Questions

   On questions of apartheid and treatment of Indians, South Africa lost ground. The lack of sympathy to South Africa shown by many European and Commonwealth countries has perhaps contributed slightly to diminishing the Asian resentment against them. On the question of South West Africa, however, the anti-colonialists, by rejecting without consideration the study of a solution by partition, indicated a discouraging unwillingness to look at practical proposals.

   United Nations Special Fund

   Although the debate was acrimonious, the Second Committee managed to hammer out a reasonably satisfactory establishment for the United Nations Special Fund. Funds, however, are not forthcoming in amounts to match the rhetoric.

   International Administrative Service

   Provision of this service for technical assistance to needy countries was one of the small but concrete achievements of this session.

   French Togoland

   A resolution bringing to an end the trusteeship agreement for Togoland was unanimously adopted, and by next year almost all the trusteeship territories will have been liquidated as such. The fighting in the Fourth Committee, however, over the future of French Togoland, was not very well calculated to make the best out of these happy signs of progress.

   Law of the Sea

   The Assembly was able, by a very narrow majority, to plan another conference on the Law of the Sea, although the date is much later than we should have liked. During the debate in the Assembly, there was a drawing of lines on the substance of the issue which does not augur well for a solution. Whereas at Geneva countries were divided largely on grounds of varying national interests, they tended in the Assembly to divide along conventional United Nations political lines, with the less powerful nations lining up against the major Western Powers an unhappy example of the way in which the United Nations' own cold wars can poison international relations.

   UNWRA

   Although UNWRA was continued in being, the Assembly failed, because of strong Arab opposition, to grapple with the urgent problem of the future of the Agency after 1960, when it is scheduled to close down unless something is done.

   Hungary

   Perhaps not much harm was done over Hungary this year. The Assembly did strive to maintain its moral position while recognizing the practical limits to United Nations action. The appointment of SirLeslie Munro, although unlikely to achieve anything positive, did prevent the Assembly from abdicating its interest in the issue without, on the other hand, setting out to accomplish what would be bound to fail.

   UNEF

   The continuation of UNEF was accomplished in a reasonably satisfactory manner, although the problem of general financial support remains highly unsatisfactory.

3. In addition to these issues which were discussed, one might mention two broad and important matters which were not considered in substance.

4. The first is the situation in the Middle East. Although no obvious progress was made in the Assembly on various Middle Eastern issues, the reason for this was not a bad one. In the Special Session in August, the Assembly had had in the united Arab resolution one of its more hopeful achievements. The détente produced by this resolution produced a considerable effect throughout the regular session of the Assembly. The relatively good atmosphere on these issues was one of the happier, even though negative, features of the session.

5. The other major issue was China. The Americans once more secured the passing of their moratorium on a discussion of the question of Chinese representation but they lost still more ground. With a number of other countries very uncertain on this issue, it seems highly doubtful if the moratorium procedure can be risked another year. If it is not, the Fourteenth Session could begin with one of the most dangerous and crucial debates in the Assembly's history. As for the question of the off-shore islands, this was the major preoccupation of members of the Assembly during the first weeks of the session. There was a great deal of diplomacy going on in the corridors and many projects for intervention by one or other of the United Nations organs or the Secretary-General. All of these, however, foundered on the anomalous position of China in the United Nations; and the absolute refusal of Peking to have any relations with the United Nations short of full satisfaction served to point up the ineffectiveness of the United Nations under present circumstances in dealing with a major threat to peace.

6. This apparent record of failure can, of course, be made to look worse than it is. Critics all too often forget that the purpose of the Assembly is to debate, not to legislate; that it is not the agency intended to deal with breaches of the peace; that its role is not to negotiate but to facilitate negotiation. It should never be expected that it would settle the issues of Cyprus, Algeria or Korea. The question is not whether it settles an issue but whether it contributes to the settlement or makes the settlement less likely.

7. Looking at the results in this way, one must conclude that for Algeria and Korea it did no good and possibly some harm. As for Cyprus, one's impression on the spot was that it did a great deal of harm. The debate was more bitter than ever, and efforts to compromise were frigidly rejected. Nevertheless, the facts are that, after a couple of months, agreement over Cyprus seems closer than it has been for a long time. The debate in the Assembly would, of course, be only one of many elements contributing to this result. It could be argued, however, that the failure of any party to a dispute to get satisfactory endorsement in the Assembly may contribute more to an atmosphere of settlement than the achievement, as in the past, of a deceptive agreement. In the disarmament debate, one also had on the spot the impression of failure. It seemed that the inability of the parties, with the assistance of neutral countries, to achieve the kind of unanimous resolution which would give the Geneva talks a good send-off, was discouraging. In fact, however, it is doubtful if this was the effect achieved. The Russians undoubtedly hoped to mobilize Assembly opinion to strengthen their hand for suspension of nuclear tests with as few conditions as possible; whereas the United States, the United Kingdom and France hoped to get support for their reasonable programme. Neither side, however, achieved a resounding success or the voting support of the uncommitted. This failure may also have contributed more to successful negotiations than the patching over of differences with pious resolutions.

8. If there is validity in this conclusion, then the implications for Canadian policy in the Assembly are considerable. The traditional pattern of our Assembly policy has been to cooperate with Scandinavian countries and with others in putting forward compromise resolutions which would draw away support from the two extremes and end the discussion with a better taste, in the hope that we would thereby help the parties concerned more easily to reach agreement. If, however, these compromises which we have achieved served only to conceal disagreement and prevented the parties from facing up to the need for genuine compromise, then perhaps our efforts might better be used in some other direction.

9. The fact seems to be that whether this policy of being a midwife for happy resolutions was a good play for Canadian policy or not, the play no longer works. The delegations which have traditionally produced compromises did, to some extent at least at this session, pursue their usual practices, and other delegations took for granted that this was the pattern of a debate. Scandinavians, the Japanese and we ourselves, however, seemed somewhat weary of the game. Perhaps we felt that we had now exploited the language of compromise. A more important factor was a hardening of the attitude of the two sides. The major Western Powers showed as little willingness to compromise as did the Russians. The Indians and Yugoslavs were very active in the compromise game but less effective. The most important factor in the defeat of these compromise moves was probably the fact that the Indians, for reasons of personnel as much as anything, have lost the confidence of the Western Powers and are not much respected by the Soviet Union. Trusted by neither, their traditional role in the Assembly is undermined, to the disadvantage of themselves and the Assembly. The Asian and African countries in general are, furthermore, feeling stronger and are less disposed themselves to accept evasive language for the sake of agreement. They know that the power of the Western countries to achieve a two-thirds majority or even, in some cases, the blocking third, is failing and they are less disposed to give ground.

10. The United Nations is going through a period when the balance of power is shifting and many members will have to adjust their policies to new conditions. The major Western powers have taken for granted that the automatic majority which they could achieve on major issues is not only natural but right and proper. They have denounced the Soviet veto in the Security Council as immoral but they have refused to recognize that, in Soviet eyes, the automatic majority is a veto of similar kind. (The American argument that this is a voluntary majority reflecting the views of the greater part of mankind may be true, but it is not seen in that light by the Russians.) Not only the Russians but the Asian and African countries have resented the automatic majority which the West could achieve on colonial issues. The realization of their greater power is making the opposition to the West rambunctious. The Russians are now making it quite clear in the Assembly, in their attitude towards Geneva negotiations, and even in things like their attitude towards the nationality of controllers in a nuclear test control system, that they will no longer put up with allowing the United States to call on its reliable friends to enable it to out-vote the Soviet Union. Hence the demand for parity which is now paralyzing much useful United Nations activity. Regardless of our pleas, the Soviet Union is not going to accept United Nations organs set up on the old basis of representation. We may or may not ignore their boycott, but we cannot solve any of the world's major problems without Soviet participation. The realization of this fact hung like a cloud over the past Assembly and accounted to some extent for the depression.

11. Related, of course, to this fact is the fact of China. There was a time when we could persuade the Communist Chinese to have informal relations with the United Nations over Korea or over the prisoners-of-war. This they are no longer prepared to do. It is becoming increasingly obvious, therefore, that no major issues of the Far East can be solved in the United Nations and that it would be extremely difficult, furthermore, to tackle general issues like disarmament without the participation of Peking. At the same time, there is a growing realization that this problem cannot be solved by a simple gesture of voting to seat the Communists. The finding of a solution will be a process which could itself wreck the United Nations. The admission of Peking would further upset the traditional balance of power in the Assembly; the disposition of the representatives of Taipeh is a question for which no one has a solution. The attitude of the United States Government to the United Nations after Peking had been admitted provides grounds for the deepest foreboding, and the fact that this issue may be joined at the next session is a major cause of gloom.

12. There is no doubt also that responsible people in the United Nations from all delegations are concerned over the trends of membership. Only the most intransigent still think that we could have avoided the decision on admission of new members some four years ago, but nevertheless the consequences of universality are becoming increasingly worrying. It is taken for granted that the new members will almost automatically join the anti-colonialists. Our hopes that the anti-colonialists would mature gracefully have been shaken by their behaviour in this session. Even such reasonably well-disposed people as the Ghanaians have showed a notable lack of balance, and the unscrupulous zeal with which Guinea was pushed into membership in order to increase the anti-colonialist vote was frightening to behold. It is not surprising, therefore, that the prospect of this situation getting steadily worse has had a particularly unfortunate effect on Western European countries. It takes the form of complete cynicism towards the United Nations and an attitude of uncompromising and bitter resistance which only exacerbates the tensions. As Western Powers see themselves becoming a minority, they display some, at least, of those neurotic tendencies which have characterized other blocs .

13. One less discouraging factor is that compromise can still be achieved on such issues as the creation of the Special Fund. The strength of the under-developed countries is great and the West has no longer an automatic majority. Nevertheless, it has the money. There are questions which require expenditures or such things as the provision of forces or the status of a dependent territory on which no majority can prevail. The anti-colonialist countries will press very hard and they have a great tendency to exaggerate; nevertheless some of them do recognize the limits of their power. They will make life continually more difficult for the colonial powers and incite trouble, but they cannot force these countries to abandon their colonial territories. As for the Soviet Union, it makes some profit from the propaganda involved, but some of its interests are not entirely different from those of the major Western Powers. As the Communist states themselves contribute more to economic aid projects, they will be even less anxious to allow the under-developed countries to squeeze money out of them. Perhaps one may hope also that increasing Soviet involvement in the Middle East, for example, and the increasing awareness on the part of Arab countries of the dangers of Soviet imperialism, will mean that, although the Western powers will undoubtedly continue to bear the scourge of anti-colonialist fury, the Russians will make less profit out of it.

    Policy Proposals

    The question arises as to the attitudes and policies which we should adopt in the light of changing circumstances in the United Nations.
    
    We might consider first whether we should revise our attitude to what the United Nations might be expected to accomplish and how it might best do so at the present time. There is no more possibility now of exorcising the United Nations than there was in the past. We may not like certain trends but we cannot by-pass the United Nations or run away from it. The institution is more deeply rooted than ever in the popular mind, and whatever distaste for it may be felt by the older powers, its importance becomes steadily greater in the eyes of the more recently emancipated countries. Whether we like it or not issues will go to the United Nations and we shall have to cope with them there. We can, however, adjust our attitudes on how they are best treated and on the extent to which they should be dealt with in the standard organs of the United Nations or off in the wings.
    
    In order not to destroy faith in the future of the United Nations, it may be best to look upon the present as a transitional stage during which the usefulness of the principal organs of the United Nations is limited by lack of agreement among the Great Powers. It is a transitional stage in the United Nations because it is a transitional stage in the relations among the powers (including China, of course, as one of the Great Powers). Hitherto, the United Nations has been able to carry on with moderate effectiveness because, although relations between the Great Powers were by no means happy, the modus vivendi established in 1945 still worked. In the last year or so it has been breaking down, the most evident indication of this being the inability of the Assembly to reach agreement on the composition of functional sub-committees. It is breaking down not because relations between the powers are becoming worse but because the power relationships are being re-adjusted in accordance with a shift in the balance of real power. The primary cause of the present crisis is the refusal of the Soviet Union and China to accept any longer the positions of strength assigned to them on the basis of relationships in the immediate post-war period and, on the other side, the unwillingness of the Western Powers to put in jeopardy the veto by assured majority to which they consider they have a right in the United Nations.
    
    The failure to reach a new modus vivendi in the United Nations does not mean, however, that the Soviet Union and the Western Powers are unwilling to negotiate. They in fact seem more willing than at any time since the end of the war to strike bargains. The agencies of negotiation, however, are conferences, or what sometimes amount virtually to standing committees, created on an ad hoc basis that is difficult to justify in theory but does enable the sides to get together. As this seems to be the only practical alternative to negotiation within conventional organs of the United Nations, it would be foolish to try to stop it on grounds of theory alone. For the sake of the dignity of the United Nations, it is well for it to try to throw a cloak or blessing over such conferences, enabling members of the United Nations to comment upon the proceedings, to prod and suggest, but not to interfere.
    
    This kind of activity outside the halls of the United Nations does, nevertheless, derogate from the popular prestige of the institution. The best way, perhaps, to minimize the ill effects is to acknowledge that in the present state of affairs, and probably for some time to come, a good deal of negotiation will have to be done outside the Security Council, the Assembly and other United Nations bodies, but to argue at the same time that this is all complementary, that the virtue of the United Nations is that it brings people together and provides varied and flexible methods for dealing with disputes. In fact, this kind of extra-mural negotiation need not do great harm unless the Rousseauian purists among United Nations supporters have it so. Instead of wailing over the collapse of a SanFrancisco dream, one can take the optimistic and historically better justified view that the United Nations is groping its way to forms which will more adequately reflect the realities of the world, that this process will involve not altering the Charter but building upon it in the pragmatic Anglo-Saxon way. This Pollyanna approach, it may be argued, is an attempt to conceal the bitter truth. It all depends on what we are doing. If we approach the matter not in a spirit of self-delusion but rather as an effort to find a workable philosophy adapted to the exigencies of the times, there is justification for putting the best front on what is happening.
    
    As for the particular aspects of Canadian policy, following are a few suggestions for consideration.
    
    In the first place, there is no alternative to continuing patiently and understandingly to build bridges between the races, even though the task is perhaps more discouraging than ever. Canada has achieved a position in the United Nations which we could not immediately renounce if we wanted to, although the failure over several sessions to make substantial contributions to the process of compromise and mediation would soon lose us a position we have gained over the years. However difficult, we must continue to have faith in the possibility of understanding between the Asian and African peoples and the Europeans and not allow ourselves to be diverted by the argument that Asians and Africans are natural allies of the Communists and the only way to treat them is to form a solid NATO or Western bloc in the Assembly. Such an attitude requires even greater effort than before in the establishment of personal contacts in New York and our missions abroad and a more consistent and intense study of the problems of colonial areas to enable our good offices to be used more effectively.
    
    A policy of greater appeasement of the anti-colonialists is not called for or timely. It has never been Canadian policy weakly to agree with either the colonialists or the anti-colonialists in principle. Our reputation is based on a willingness to discriminate, on not voting automatically one way or the other. Without retreating from our attitude of cool detachment towards the colonial and racial policies of countries like South Africa and Portugal, we might find it opportune to grow somewhat tougher or more impatient with the extreme anti-colonialists. If at all possible, we should try to indicate to them that their unbridled behaviour in the past Session is not the best way to achieve results. Because we have been sympathetic to them, we can afford to be outspoken when outspokenness is required. Above all, we should seek to persuade the more influential and the more sober members of the anti-colonial group, members of the Commonwealth in particular, that their tactics are threatening the power and influence of the Assembly and of the other organs of the United Nations as well. We should seek to convince them that the policy of goading to fury the rich and powerful countries is not the way to bring about a reduction of international tension or the launching of international economic aid programmes. We should argue that they, more than any other peoples, are dependent upon the United Nations to exert their influence in the world and as a field for their diplomacy and that a policy of bringing the United Nations into disrepute is weakening the principal arm of their own policy.
    
    These remarks are not easy points to make, as anyone who has tried to make them will realize. Nevertheless, there are distinguished Asian and African leaders who would understand the gist of the argument if it were put in the right way. Canadians are certainly in a better position to put the argument than are representatives of the Great Powers themselves. We might consider the possibility of waging a tactful but discreet campaign through our missions in Commonwealth countries, not of course by instructing our high commissioners to go and deliver lectures in the Foreign Offices but possibly by asking them to initiate with the local officials a joint examination into the causes of our present discontents in the United Nations, thereby providing an opportunity for scoring a few points on a basis of equality.
    
    We might have another hard look at our positions on some of the colonial topics in the United Nations to see if it is possible for us to budge a little. The complaints of the Europeans against the so-called Afro-Asian Bloc have little effect on most Asians and Africans because they point out that their bloc is by no means as consistent in its voting as the Western bloc. If we complain that Asian countries automatically support Indonesia on West Irian even though many of them have doubts about Indonesian policy on the subject, the reply is that we do exactly the same thing on Algeria. Our own position as a country with an open mind is based on our willingness to vote in disagreement with the major Western Powers from time to time. We cannot maintain this position unless we continue to show our independence, and our position would be strengthened if we could be somewhat more courageous somewhat more often.
    
    Although we shall possibly have to accept the fact that until the United States and the Soviet Union have worked out some new bilateral understandings, agreement cannot be reached in the United Nations on the composition of effective bodies to deal with disarmament and other important issues or to enable the Security Council to deal effectively with all items on its agenda, nevertheless, we should not give up trying. We should continue our strong opposition to the Soviet proposals for parity on the grounds that a scheme of this kind is noxious in principle and would tend to harden the United Nations into a series of rigid blocs. Nevertheless, we should try to persuade the Americans and the Europeans that the previous pattern of composition is unfair, that our intransigence on the subject matches the intransigence of the other side and that we would at least look better in the eyes of the uncommitted if we proposed a composition which seemed to them equitable. We might try to persuade them, and ourselves as well, that life is possible without a guaranteed majority in the United Nations. We have to take our chance on winning majority support in the same way that the Communist countries or the Asian countries have to take their chances and the consequences of losing out a few times in the voting are not as disastrous as they may seem because the United Nations has the power only to recommend and not to legislate. It may be, furthermore, that the knowledge on the part of the Asians and Africans that it is within their power from time to time to win a vote in the Assembly will increase their sense of responsibility because they will realize more clearly the uselessness of passing resolutions which have no chance of being obeyed or carried out.
    
    One practice which we might try to persuade our major friends to abandon, except in cases of dire emergency, is the practice of using our automatic majority for procedural purposes. Although it has become a routine practice for the Americans to use their majority in order to secure priority for their resolutions, it is a practice which causes much ill-will among not only the Communist but also the Asian and African countries. It is also sharp practice not consistent with the spirit of the Charter even though it may be in accordance with the letter of the Rules of Procedure. We should recognize also that we are storing up trouble for ourselves when an increasing number of Asian and African members will be able to turn these same procedures ruthlessly against us.
    
    In our discussion of the issues in the Assembly, we might consider renouncing our policy of seeking soft-soap resolutions on such issues as Cyprus, Algeria and West Irian. These efforts have in some cases done some good in creating a better spirit for change or for negotiation or in putting the right amount of pressure on one or other party to the dispute. Nevertheless, there may be virtue in not concealing differences which exist. It may be, also, that with the passing of time the Assembly has grown tired of this kind of activity and that to continue it longer would serve only to bring the Assembly into disrepute. Too long association of our own Delegation with this kind of activity can also affect our reputation for integrity and intelligence. This is not to say, however, that the role of Canada as a mediator and a seeker-out of compromises in association with the Scandinavians and other friends has lapsed. There is a difference to be recognized between palliative resolutions on political issues which cannot be solved in the United Nations and genuine compromise proposals which achieve a reasonably satisfactory basis of cooperation. Examples of the latter are more likely to be found in practical fields such as the creation of the Special Fund or the establishment of UNEF or UNWRA. There are times also when a resolution, the text of which is pretty meaningless, is of value simply because it represents the association of sponsors of the countries whom we are trying to reconcile. The Middle Eastern resolution in the Special Assembly last year is a good example of this. Action by the Canadian Delegation to help promote this kind of thing is all to the good. On many issues in the First Committee, however, we might seek to maintain our good reputation and help reduce tension by variations from standard patterns in our voting and by speaking somewhat more candidly and boldly in our interventions rather than by chasing after unanimity on any basis.

J.W. H[olmes]

²³ Holmes avait joint la note manuscrite suivante adressée au sous-secrétaire :/Holmes attached the following handwritten note to the Under-Secretary:
This is a rough effort at a paper which is intended to provoke an examination of our U.N. policy not to settle it. We intend to carry on the examination among those directly involved in Assembly matters in the hope of producing some solid recommendations. If you would like to make any comments at this stage, we should be most grateful.

J.W. H[OLMES]