Extracts from a memorandum for the information of the Government
by the Department of External Affairs
Report by Permanent Representative to the United Nations on the Eleventh Session of the United Nations General Assembly
Enclosure B: 'The Eleventh Session of the UN Assembly'
(417/130)

No doubt, an official report of the delegation to the Eleventh Session will be issued by the Department in due course. In the meantime, I beg to submit the following informal account of the work of the session which contains in addition to particulars of Ireland’s participation in it, some conclusions and reflections of a general character about the United Nations and our policy in relation to it based on the experience we have gained during the past six months. These conclusions and reflections are personal to myself and are, of course, open to objection and argument.

[matter omitted]

Activity in the lobbies:

5. It would be a mistake, however, to think of the work of the annual delegation merely in terms of attending and making speeches at the meetings of the Assembly and its committees. Most of the work of the session is done in the corridors. It is there – and in the informal caucus meetings which take place on particular matters from time to time – that opinions are brought to bear, solutions are hammered out and influence is acquired and developed. The work of cultivating and developing informal personal contacts with members of other delegations, leading correspondents, UN officials, etc. is in many ways just as important and rewarding as that of listening to speeches and making them oneself. Unless it is done properly and systematically, one is constantly liable to be caught unawares by fresh developments and confronted at short notice with new situations and proposals of the background of which one knows nothing. The delegation of each of the larger countries includes several ‘liaison officers’ whose task is to devote themselves exclusively to work of this kind. We obviously can not afford to be so liberal. In our case, most of this work must be done by the members of the delegation themselves. It is essential, however, to have on our annual delegation one officer who will not be assigned to any particular committee but will be available at all times for ‘liaison’ purposes – finding out the attitude of other delegations, ascertaining the tactics to be followed in major debates, getting wind of intended new initiatives, etc. In my view, the annual delegation will find itself at a serious disadvantage without proper provision being made in this regard.

Part played by Ireland at the recent session:

6. Apart from the Minister’s speech in the general debate in the Assembly¹ (which was generally acknowledged to be the best speech made in the debate), 30 more or less formal statements were made by various members of the Irish delegation, either in the Assembly or in committee, during the course of the session. Among the matters on which we intervened were the admission of Communist China to membership; the situation in Hungary; the problem of Algeria; the situation in Cyprus; the withdrawal of Israeli troops from Egypt; a Soviet complaint alleging subversive activities on the part of the USA in East European countries; a draft convention proposed by the Argentine providing for more diplomatic consultation among members of the UN; the limits of the territorial sea; the nationality of married women; the draft convention of Human Rights; a proposed Special United Nations Fund for Economic Development (SUNFED); a US scheme for constituting national food reserves; the expenses of UNEF and various other budgetary matters. On some of these subjects (e.g. Hungary and SUNFED) we intervened several times. We took a fairly active part in the discussions at the Western European caucus meetings about Hungary and the Egyptian situation, and we were a member of the working party set up to try to hammer out an agreement about the SUNFED proposal. At the request of the US, we introduced the joint resolution proposing the setting up of the Special Committee on Hungary.

Ireland’s policy and attitude towards UN problems:

7. Our general policy, and our attitude towards the principal political problems before the Eleventh Assembly, were outlined by the Minister in his speech in the general debate. Our subsequent interventions were based on the principles and viewpoints expressed in the Minister’s speech. Broadly speaking, the main considerations which determined our votes and our speeches were (a) support for the principles of the UN Charter; (b) opposition to Soviet imperialism; (c) support for policies designed to check the spread of Communist influence; (d) opposition to policies calculated to impair the unity and cohesion of the free world; (e) support and sympathy for dependent peoples struggling to achieve their freedom; (f) unity of action, so far as possible, with powers with outlooks similar to our own (e.g. the USA and European Catholic countries such as Spain, Portugal and Italy); and (g) support, wherever possible, for the European-American-Commonwealth point of view against the more neutralist and ‘fellow-travelling’ attitudes of the Afro-Asian bloc. In specific cases – such as the question of Algeria, for example – these considerations came into conflict and required to be balanced against one another. In framing our statements, however, we made it a constant aim to eschew any temptation to see complicated problems in terms of black and white and to avoid the kind of oratory suggestive of one-sided and superficial judgment. Our general line was to take fair and frank account of the merits and demerits on each side of the case and the conflicts of principle, if any, to which they seemed to us to give rise, and, by so doing, to present our final attitude as the result of a reasonable and just assessment of all the issues involved. I believe that, so far as we are concerned at any rate, that kind of moderate, balanced, dispassionate approach will always assure us more influence and sympathy in the Assembly than the kind of one-sided and indiscriminate vehemence which characterises so many of the other speeches.

Formal speeches:

8. The timing and styling of speeches, both in the Assembly and the main committees, is a matter of considerable importance. With the exception of important declarations by delegates of the big Powers or of the countries directly involved in some current crisis, most speeches get a very inattentive, and often an impolite, hearing, mainly because they are intolerably long and prosy. The best chance a small country like ours has of catching the ear of the Assembly and commanding a good audience lies in paying close attention to the subject-matter, literary style and length of its interventions. Except in a few individual cases (e.g. Krishna Menon of India, Dr. Belaúnde of Peru, Mr. Zeiniddine of Syria, etc.) speeches invariably take the form of reading a text prepared in advance. The delegates of the great Powers always follow this practice, at least as regards debates in the Assembly and important political discussions in committee. Indeed, the practice can be said to be virtually universal and the few individuals who don’t adhere to it to be quite exceptional. The secretariat and the simultaneous-translation staffs are inclined to insist on having advance texts of important statements, and experience has shown that it is essential to get texts into the hands of newspaper and radio correspondents beforehand if proper coverage is to be assured.

The system of blocs and groups:

[matter omitted]

At this Assembly – for the first time, I believe – the Western European group met together with the United States and the Commonwealth group on a few occasions for the discussion of matters of common interest. From the point of view of election to offices, committee memberships, etc., we probably suffer somewhat from the fact that the only group with which we are associated is the loosely-organised and rather ineffective Western European group. In present circumstances, however, we have hardly sufficient staff to be able to take on such appointments – during the period of the Assembly, at any rate – and, in any case, there are certain advantages in maintaining a position of complete independence, although indeed, independence of action is by no means necessarily incompatible with membership of even well-organised groups, such as the Afro-Asian bloc.

[matter omitted]

Partition:

15. In our speeches at the Eleventh Session, we missed no opportunity of keeping the problem of Partition before the minds of the delegates. We referred to it frequently. We made no specific proposal about Partition, however, and took no steps to bring the matter formally before the United Nations. The question whether any such action should be taken requires the most careful consideration. I hope to submit a memorandum with regard to it at an early date. In both the radio interviews I gave, I was asked whether we intended to bring the question of Partition before the UN. In each case, I replied that that was a question of policy for decision by the Irish government and I was sure that, in deciding it, the government would be guided solely and exclusively by the consideration whether the fact of bringing the question before the United Nations would help to bring the end of Partition nearer or not. I said that, of course, we were a very new member of the UN and the government would probably like to have more first-hand experience of the practical working of the organisation before reaching a decision; for one thing, I said, they might well feel that it wouldn’t necessarily help towards bringing Partition to an end if the effect of raising the question in the Assembly were simply to provide the enemies of the free world with an opportunity of exploiting the problem for their own propaganda purposes. It is worth recording that, although these interviews were broadcast on the national networks, we did not receive any criticism from any Irish-American source about this reply. In fact, so far as I remember, we have had only three complaints about our action in not bringing the Partition question formally before the United Nations – one from a young man who said he was on his way over to Ireland to join the IRA; another from an Irish-American in New York whom nobody was able to tell us anything about; and the third from a Father O’Doherty of Minnesota, copies of my correspondence with whom I have sent to the Department.

Conclusion.

16. The Eleventh Session of the Assembly was an exceptionally busy and important one. Our delegation didn’t try to spread itself; we reserved our interventions for those questions in relation to which our point of view appeared likely to command special interest and attention – Algeria, Cyprus, Hungary, etc. I think that this tactic paid dividends. To my mind, there is no question but that we should be in the United Nations. The membership is now so universal (81 members) that it is easier to explain and defend being in it than being out of it. The positive value of membership to us is something, however, which it will take more time to assess.

    As I am sure the Secretary of the Department will agree, we were exceptionally fortunate in the choice of the personnel of the delegation to the Eleventh Assembly. Miss Murphy and Mr. Morrissey were extremely effective representatives on the Third and Sixth Committees respectively and were very popular with their colleagues. As I have already reported, when the Secretary of the Department of Finance visited Washington recently, he received warm compliments from the senior officials of the World Bank on the style and content of Mr. Kennedy’s speeches in the Second Committee. Several people have spoken to me in complimentary terms about Mr. Keating’s work on the Fifth Committee. Undoubtedly, one of our greatest assets, however, was Dr. C.C. O’Brien’s skill in formulating political ideas and expressing them in eloquent and forceful language. He composed practically all our political speeches, including the speech in the General Debate and the speech on Algeria which are generally rated as the two best speeches made during the Eleventh Assembly. Whatever credit and prestige the Irish delegation gained for itself at the recent session was very largely the result of these two speeches. It was entirely due to Miss Mooney’s untiring zeal and devotion to duty that she managed to discharge all the secretarial work of the delegation single-handed.