The Press TUESDAY, JULY 31, 1945. United Nations Charter

Press, Volume LXXXI, Issue 24632, 31 July 1945, Page 4

The Press TUESDAY, JULY 31, 1945. United Nations Charter

The member for Remuera, whose speech in the debate on the United Nations Charter jolted the attention of the House of Represen-, tatives, did very w’ell to remind the i Primfe Minister that, in opening the debate, he had dwelt rather on the failures of the San Francisco conference and the shortcomings of the Charter, as he saw them, than on the achievement which the House was called on to endorse. To that extent, as was said here then, the Prime Minister’s speech was disappointing and even misleading, and made it very desirable that in replying to the debate he should lay less stress on what he deplores or doubts and more on what convinces and encourages him. Mr Algie’s speech will have served a useful purpose if it moves Mr Fraser to speak for the Charter more as a champion and less as apologist and mourner. But there was, unfortunately, little more to commend, if anything. Mr Algie’s main point, to which he gave a varied application, was that the Prime Minister had failed to inform the Hohse upon the obligations New Zealand will assume by ratifying the Charter, and upon the benefits to be expected, as well. The text of the Charter had been tabled some days earlier; and the obligations, so far as they are presently definable, are defined in it. Mr Algie asked particularly what military obligations would be incurred. The answer is in Article 43, which binds all member States, on the call of the Security Council, to provide such “ armed forces, “ assistance, and facilities, including “ rights of passage ” as may be necessary and will be “ in accord- “ ance with a special agreement or “ agreements ”. These, which will govern the “numbers and types of “ forces, their degree of readiness “ and general location ”, etc., are to be “ negotiated as soon as possible “on the initiative of the Security “ Council ”, between the Council and member States or groups of member States; and they “ shall be subject “to ratification by the- signatory “ States ”. In other words, to ratify the Charter is to accept militaryobligations in principle—a principle it is idle to question—in the knowledge that special agreements will define them later and will themselves have to be ratified before they are? elective. In view of these perfectly clear provisions in the Charter, to ask for a precise account of those obligations now is asking for something both impossible and unnecessary. Article 45 specifically refers to “national air force con- " tingenta ” to be held “ immediately "available”: but the effect of " Article 43 is not varied by it. Other articles contain pledges of co-operation and mutual assistance in carrying out decisions of the Security Council; they need not be reviewed. Other articles, again, contain pledges (i) to contribute to the expenses -of the United Nations, as the General Assembly apportions them; (ii) to pursue “joint and “ separate action ” in fulfilling Article 55, which sets before all member States' such objects as higher standards of living and full employment, the solution of international /problems in the economic and social fields, and the preservation of “ human rights and funda“mental freedoms”; (iii) to accept as “a sacred trust” the task of promoting the well-being of the peoples of dependent territories, and to do so in certain comprehensively defined respects; and (iv) to register with the Secretariat of the United Nations, for publication, all treaties and agreements dated after ratification. These are most of the obligations accepted by ratifying the Charter; and the Prime Minister did not assume too much if he assumed that the Charter had been read observingly. Obligations and benefits go hand in hand. If the obligations are Accepted and faithfully performed; if the functions of such organs as. the Economic and Social Council, the Trusteeship Council, the Bretton Woods creations, and the Food Council are developed as they can be, the benefits will be those of the “ new order ”, growing, rather than “grand”, of which (Mr Algie complained) “ nothing is heard now. It may be that the broad, bright phrase has dropped out of currency because the time for phrases is over and the time to turn to work on the foundations has come. Anyone who misses the fact that such work was done at San Francisco has missed the truth about it. But anyone who expected San Francisco to do more than lay foundations and the Charter to announce more than a conditional promise of the “ grand new order ” was selfdeceived. If the Prime Minister is at fault, it is for discounting the extent of the promise, or seeming to; not for emphasising the conditions on which it can be fulfilled. The heaviest and hardest obligation in the Charter is the unwritten one which insists that only wisdom, patience, courage, and generosity will make it work.