The Press SATURDAY, MAY 22, 1971. N.Z. initiatives in the United Nations

Press, Volume CXI, Issue 32613, 22 May 1971, Page 16

The Press SATURDAY, MAY 22, 1971. N.Z. initiatives in the United Nations

The positions taken this week by the New Zealand Ambassador to the United Nations (Mr J. V. Scott) on two issues of importance to the international community will not go unnoticed in the rest of the world. New Zealand has given a lead in attempting to draw official attention to events in East Pakistan: even more significant in the eyes of many member States, this country has changed its vote on the perennial United Nations resolution condemning apartheid—from abstention to a vote in favour of condemnation. Many Afro-Asian States have tended to treat New Zealand with polite suspicion, regarding this country as well-meaning but ineffectual, and likely, because of its close association with Britain and the United States, to take its line from them. The changed apartheid vote will do much to improve this country’s reputation. The United Nations has been powerless to Intervene in the Pakistan civil war, as it was in Biafra, because of the clause in its Charter which forbids interference in the internal affairs of members. New Zealand, in the important Economic and Social Council, has supported a move begun by India to consider the violence and suffering in East Pakistan because fundamental human rights, which the United Nations is pledged to preserve, are threatened. The council can do no more than make recommendations, call conferences, and co-ordinate the work of specialised United Nations agencies. But it might do much to concentrate world opinion on Pakistan, which is already diplomatically isolated, having received support for the handling of its civil war only from Communist China. Of more practical importance, the council might encourage member States and agencies to assist in mounting the huge relief operation which is necessary in East Pakistan and among the millions of refugees who have fled to India. The New Zealand vote on apartheid, while likely to draw considerable attention, does not indicate any significant change in policy. Mr Scott has said before that “ the policy and practice of apartheid are “abhorrent to the Government and people of New “ Zealand ”. This time, again as before, he expressed reservations about the wording of the resolution, particularly on the clauses which describe apartheid as a threat to international peace and security and which declare it a “crime against humanity”. Previously the phrasing of apartheid resolutions has led New Zealand to join France, Britain, and tile United States in abstaining from the vote; this time New Zealand has established unequivocally its rejection of the philosophy of apartheid. The Government was wise to support the general intention of United Nations attempts to condemn racial discrimination: because of what seemed its excessively cautious approach New Zealand’s attitude has led to much misunderstanding, particularly by Afro-Asian States. At the same time, it would be unfortunate if the reservations expressed by Mr Scott were ignored. Impractical and rhetorical resolutions have become all too common in the United Nations. While this country should be at pains to establish its good faith, it would serve no good purpose by joining a majority blind to the practical difficulties of putting into effect its unexceptionable principles. Idealism, tempered by a strong sense of what is possible, has been a characteristic of New Zealand’s participation in the United Nations. This is only common sense: but it is a quality that the organisation needs more than ever while it is trying to cope with its greatly expanded membership.