In the aftermath of the Second World War, Australian delegates attended the international conferences which led to the establishment of the United Nations Organisation. H.V. Evatt, who was later to become Opposition Leader, gave this radio speech in 1945 to explain Australia's ideas of the UN; that it would be a body that guaranteed both physical and economic security.
You can take it that the policy of the Australian delegation at the San Francisco Conference will be clear and definite. Australia, as a nation that has taken part in two world wars, has a deep and permanent interest in the establishment of an international organisation which will secure peace. Therefore, we gladly accept the Dunbarton Oaks proposals in principle. But, in our considered view, these proposals are capable of clarification, improvement and expansion in important respects. Therefore, we are taking steps to propose a number of important amendments.
I shall not attempt in this talk to state Australia’s policy in detail. I want rather to try to indicate the basic reasons for Australia’s attitude.
While people are still suffering all the pains and sacrifices of war it is easy to regard peace as an end in itself. We certainly want peace, but we want peace with social justice—a peace that shall afford to the peoples of all countries positive opportunities to lead full and happy lives. That is why we are especially anxious to expand the statement of the purpose of the new organisation so as to include the moral and political principles on which the United Nations will act. We believe that the Charter should make it plain that the purpose of the new organisation is not merely to preserve peace but to protect and foster those principles of right conduct which must govern the actions of all civilised nations.
Again, we think express provision should be made in the Charter to give better recognition to the ‘want’ of preserving the political independence and territorial integrity of every nation. Unless this basic national right is respected, the sovereign equality of nations becomes meaningless.
Again, freedom from fear can never be separated from freedom from want. Since political security must be built on social justice, we believe it is important that these social and economic aims should be clearly set forth in the Charter. Australia, therefore, wants the Charter to include an undertaking by which all members of the organisation will pledge themselves to take appropriate action, both national and international, to secure for all peoples, including their own, improved labour standards, economic advancement and social security. We believe in particular that the achievement of full employment is not merely a domestic responsibility which each government owes to its own people, but should also be a fundamental international obligation. To provide effective machinery for the realisation of these great aims, we desire the Economic and Social Council to be made one of the principal organs of the world organisation. We feel that in the Dumbarton Oaks proposals this council is given only a minor role. Economic welfare is no less important than political security. We therefore believe that the Economic and Social Council should, like the Security Council, remain in permanent session with the continuous representation of those nations elected to it. We also propose to urge amendments to the Dumbarton Oaks proposals that are designed to produce a better balance between the powers and responsibility of the great powers on the one hand and the middle and smaller powers on the other. We recognise and accept the rights of veto by each of the five great powers, in so far as this applies to the use of economic or military sanctions. But we cannot agree that the veto power is justified at the preliminary stage when an effort is being made to settle a dispute by conciliation, arbitration, or other pacific means.
Again, we do not agree that the veto can be properly exercised in order to prevent the future amendment of the Charter. We fully recognise that responsibility for maintaining peace must rest mainly on the great powers and that they must enjoy an authority commensurate with their economic and military resources. We distinguish, however, between leadership and domination. We support leadership; we reject domination.
We feel very strongly that, in the selection of the non-permanent members of the Security Council, the fullest consideration should be given to the claims of what we in Australia call ‘security powers’. If the Security Council is to work successfully, it must be made up of members who have the proved will and capacity to make practical contributions to security. We think that it should be recognised that outside the great powers there are certain nations who, by reason of their resources and geographical position, will prove to be of key importance for the maintenance of security in different parts of the world. Moreover, there are certain of these powers, and Australia is obviously one of them, who have proved by their record in two world wars that they have not only the capacity and the resources but the determined will to put everything they have into the struggle against aggressors who threaten the world with tyranny. Surely these powers have a claim to special recognition in any security organisation. In urging this claim, we are not trying to push any purely selfish national interest. We believe that the new organisation can work effectively only if it is based on the wholehearted support of these security powers. We are not arguing a case for Australia alone, although Australia is greatly concerned. We are arguing a case which we believe must be accepted if the welfare and security of all peace-loving nations are to be preserved.