EMBARGO : NOT TO BE PUBLISHED, BRC_ DCAST OR TELECAST BEFORE
6.30 P. M4. ON SUNDAY, 1ST MARCH, 1964
FOR PRESS: P. M. No. 18/ 1264
PRIME~ MINISTERtS LETTER-U0i SOVIET PREMIER
The following letter has been sent to the Soviet
Premier, Mr. N. S. Khrushchaev, by the Prime Minister, Sir Robert
Menzies, in reply to a New Year letter from Mr. Khrushchev:
" Dear Mr. Chairman,
I have given careful and close attention to your
message of 31st December, 1963, -the receipt of which I
acknowledged in my last brief message to you. I should
like to say at the outset that, while I am unable to agree
with some of what you say in the course of expounding your
argument and although you introduce qualificacions which
I could not concede I welccme your clear statement of
belief in the need L renounce the use of force in relation
to disputes between states over territorial claims and
question-o of boundaries. Such disputes are, of course,
only one' category, and, in the way you limit them, a
relatively small category, of the differences whi~ h arise
in international relations: the principle of avoidance
of the use of force, subject to the right of individual
and collective self-defence, is fundamental to the
Australian Government's attitude -towards all international
disputes. Indeed, the general obligation to seek the pacific
settlement of disputes is placed upon all those states which
have subscribed to the Charter of the United Nations. As
members of the United Nations, Australia and the U. S. S. R.
have both accepted this obligation, together with the
obligation stated in Article 2.4 of the % Charter that * all
members shall refrain in their international relations from
the -threat or use of force against the territorial
integrity or political independence of any state.'
I believe, Mr, Chairman, that it is necessary for
us both to strive to live up to these obligations ourselves,
and also to do what we can to secure their universal
acceptance and application by all governments and regimes,
whether or not they are members of the United Nations.
For the Charter provides a code of international conduct
which, if consistently accepted and honoured by all, would
enable problems arising between states, including territorial
disputes, to be settled justly and by peaceful means.
I agree with your observation that methods of
settling disputes peacefully have been improved, and
with particular reference to territorial disputes that
experience shows that peaceful means of settlement are
feasible. The United Nations, despite its imperfections,
has shown itself capable of useful work in this respect;
and I believe that our best course lies in seeking to
make it more effective both in performing its functions of
mediation and conciliahion, and also in its peacekeeping
activities. evo ./ 2
2
" The first necessity is that member Stbates should
fully accept and live up to the principles and obligations
of the Charter. Then, it is essential, if the United Nations
is to carry out its functions, that it should be on a sound
financial footing, which means that all members should
contribute their proper share of its expenses. Also it is
clearly most desirable that meons of peaeeful settlement in
accordance with the Charter shou. d be respected and observed:
that when, for example, procedures of ascertainment of the
wishes of the people of particular territories have taken
place through the United Nations in accordance with the
principle of self-determination, all members of the United
Nations should accept and support the outcome of those
procedures. The problem of territorial disputes is but one aspect
of the wider problem of creating an international comnmunity
that will learn to live in peace and without mutual interference,
whether ideological or physical, and to settle its disputes
by agreed peaceful procedures according to principles that must,
if they are to have any real moaning, bo universally applicable
to all. In this rospcct as I have said I cannot agree with
the various exceptions to the principle of peaceful settlement
that you appear to be stating in parts of your letter in
suggesting that in certain cases the use of force is justified
whilo in others it is not. Nor, incidentally can I accept your
description of certain countries ( the Republics of Viot Nam,
Korea and China) as being ' under foreign occupationt; nor, in
the face of such problems as that of Germany and Berlin, your
reference to the ? postwar settlements' as apparently being
excluded from the realm of unresolved questions in international
affairs. In conclusion, Mr. Chairman, I wish to reaffirm that
the Australian Government accepts and will continue to abide
by the principle of peaceful settlement of all disputes,
including those arising out of territorial or border claims.
I welcome the Soviet Governmentts apparent acceptance of the
same view, and I hope that the Soviet Government will use its
influence in all cases where border troubles are now causing
tension, or may do so in future, towards a peaceful settlement,
in accordance with the principles of the United Nations Charter
and with accepted international procedures.
Yours sincerely,
( Sgd.) R. G. MENZIES
Primo Minister
His Excellency Nikita S. Khrushchev,
Chairman of the Council of Ministers of
the U. S. S. R.,
MOSCOW. CANBERRA,
1st March, 1964.