thumbnail of Special of the week; Issue 10-71 "A Conversation with Lord Caradon"
Hide -
If this transcript has significant errors that should be corrected, let us know, so we can add it to FIX IT+
NDE are the national educational radio network presents special of the week from W.. Ha. The University of Wisconsin in Madison. Word carried on familiar to many before his elevation to the peerage as Mr. Hugh Foote has had a long and distinguished career in the diplomatic service of his country. In the 60s he served as Minister of State for Foreign Affairs and permanent United Kingdom representative at the United Nations. I met Burroughs and with me to talk with Lord Carrington is Jim Collins program director of WAGA the University of Wisconsin in Madison. Jim noticing that recently the twenty fifth anniversary of the U.N. was celebrated a lot of care I don. I'd like to ask looking back on the U.N. during the last 25 years what are your strongest impressions about the weaknesses in the strengths. What I often say and I say it again now and I think it is a fundamental fact of the situation in regard to the United
Nations that there is nothing wrong with United Nations except the members. And I say it often I say it again and I believe that what was done in San Francisco 25 years ago one of the most astonishing achievement naturally didn't foresee what was going to happen they didn't foresee the Cold War or they got some they got some indication of it but they didn't foresee what was going to take place. But the creation of the four functions of the United Nations which are first to be a forum for world opinion where everyone can be heard. That's the assembly. We could we could make recommendations as you well know because but they're only recommendations and then power is concentrated in in the in the in the Security Council not in the the assembly to the first function is to be a forum where everyone can be heard and I would defend the right to be even small nations to be heard at least. Secondly to be a center for international diplomacy where
once a year when the assembly comes in September 100 foreign ministers come to New York and more work is done in the three weeks more diplomatic work in the three weeks and in the rest of the year put together. And then to be this is an extremely and growingly important it wasn't then regarded so important twenty five years ago to be a machine for multilateral economic development this may be the most important task of all. And more than 80 percent of the men and money employed by the United Nations is employed on economic development economic and social development often forgotten. And fourthly the fourth function to be an instrument for peace and that's the point I make in answer to your question is an instrument. It's not authority. People say why does the United Nations do this or why doesn't it do the other that's ridiculous. It's a place. It's we the members who have the power there's nothing wrong with the power. So you would disagree with those who think that the prime function would be peacekeeping. No I think if you don't keep the peace and everything else down the drain too. But also it is
necessary to keep the peace. But. I wouldn't like to say that the economic development of the border sections of the world is less important. I think it's equally important would you be against the establishment of a permanent military force under the jurisdiction of United Nations. Yes I would in present circumstances I think it may be that one day we reach such a stage but they have a military force marching up and down a parade ground somewhere waiting for the next crisis is not practical sense it will be enormously expensive and each crisis when it comes requires a different force. You have to have a different force in Cyprus from the one you have in Kashmir or the Congo. And therefore what you need and what you need we've got is the earmarking of forces. Many of the Nordic countries as you know earmarked their forces Canada. We in Great Britain would not normally assume that they may know it will be toe carrying powers in the Security Council will provide troops for peacekeeping it's usually the middle powers all the
less about us but we give the guarantee for instance we'll provide logistics support for up to six battalions of United Nations force. That's that the aircraft the transport the expensive side. That's I think the function of the of the permanent members of the Security Council and the United States of course is always been willing to provide to United Nations forces a great deal of logistic support. What I would say is what we need is what we've got it is earmarked troops available at a moment's notice. The Sector General can in effect open his little book of of offers of guarantees and at any moment in a crisis can call it a few hours notice on troops from Canada or Sweden or Brazil India. He's done it before only and usually it works very quickly. I am against establishment of a permanent military force a very clumsy clumsy instrument it seems to me and might not be what you want but has not diplomacy failed in a major crises in this world. Well I don't
think it's fair I wouldn't put it like that. What's held up but the smooth working of the United Nations as we all know is the Cold War is the rivalry between the two superpowers of the United States and the Soviet Union. And I would give my testimony I've been there now speaking for my country six years and I was there before I would give my testimony and in this decade to decade we've just come through there's been a substantial advance in better relationship and a readiness to negotiated with President Nixon talks about the era of negotiation after the era of confrontation Yes I think the something in that. I give just one example. When we were working for two years ago three years ago on the Nonproliferation Treaty of nuclear arms I used to sit down every morning with the representatives of the Soviet Union and and the United States and we would work. As if we were one delegation we would work out the tactics for the day and could not suffer the Soviet Union as a Goldberg of a United States and I and it was a very
remarkable feeling when you were we were at one and of course next off would say WHAT ABOUT TO YOU. You showed about the Commonwealth countries in Africa are they going to vote right. He turned to me so you better see to it. Get on with it. And he turned to us to go back to see where you are. You might use your inference just make quite sure that the Central American countries are going to come up to the mark and woodworkers to sort of what we normally do in a delegation anyhow. But we did it together. Actually one example I don't overestimate it. All I say is that the Cold War has held up the effective working for agreement on common ground which is our permanent task. It's a bit better. I'm much more concerned with the confrontation between east and west I think that's easing. I think the emergence of China may make a big difference to that. But I'm much more concerned with North and South with a confrontation between the affluent minority which is the older nations and as the United States could be clued in that can't agree
on the one hand and the discontented overcrowded overpopulated colored people of the new nations the great majority of the other that's the more most much the most serious thing. And I'm quite sure that that problem cannot be dealt with except by international action company by one country alone. Not a cure and you've had a unique experience in a long long life of looking over the whole perspective of the UN. What glaring reforms do you think are needed in the UN to make it more effective. Well if there are I think it's a very complacent answer. I say no reforms. I see ever dissatisfied with the instrument. The Russians say to us and we talk as people talk about reforms. Sometimes they say you were lucky to get it in 1945 you wouldn't get it now if you negotiated for it now. Make the best of it. I agree with them. We don't need a better assembly. We don't need a better security council. We don't need a better system of a secretary general. These are it's a very admirable system. The power is
all there in the charter. What we lack. We lack the will amongst the principal members to search for understanding and agreement and never to give up. That's what we lack. And when all the speeches were made in this 25th anniversary today I read didn't listen to it. As you know by a unfortunate lapse of the British electorate last June I don't longer speak for my for my country the United Nations but I read the speeches nearly all of them said you know at the end he said what we lack is the will to work together. Of course I was thinking of all the other people rather than you know. But if we could get the idea that that's it to work. We know the ambassadors who are the good ambassadors they do not people just state an opinion and go to bed the bastards are worth anything at the United Nations having stated the opinion they do that. Well they then go out to search for the understanding and agreement with the others and get a resolution you can all vote for. And when I say used
to see 15 hands go up in the in the Security Council on anything inside myself I would rejoice because that's that's that's what we really need. And you don't get it without working I can tell you. I've seen 15 hands go up in unanimous agreement with all the countries of the world they're represented voting together on subjects as controversial as Middle East Asia Kashmir Congo happens it's low cost it's low but that the main contention is that we don't need to I sometimes say that if you don't like the tune there's no particular fighting kicking the piano. Piano kickers about dead and nearly all the leader writers they've got nothing else to do they know they curse the United Nations for failing never thinking it's maybe their own country has just failed to provide the new initiative to search for the new agreement. And if you don't like the tune you must alter the score. But what we're doing
both as countries and as representatives is to participate in a transitional from the days when we were so really not only nationalists to the days when we become internationalist and we can see it happening you can see it in the individual. You can see it in the country. But I would maintain a permanent optimist I know all the shortcomings and failures I've lived with them for many years all day and most of the night. I don't need to be told of the shortcomings I realize them very well. I'm not complacent about it. But but but. But I would say that the transition from national narrow national interest to international interest is taking place is taking place in your country and in mine. We have setbacks occasionally. Mark Karen one of the first posts which you held at the British colonial service was in what was known then as Palestine. And I know he's that you've maintained a very close interest in the problems of the Middle East right up until this moment
in debating the rights of Arab and Jew. Many people still raise the question who was there first. Is this a valid question Do you believe. Is there a valid answer. Well I wouldn't myself if a bed to go back over that ground but I don't believe it would lead us to nearer to a solution it's much more important to consider who is there now and to work on that basis. And I believe people will go back and argue whether Jerusalem is more Jewish than have really looking for. Before debating points rather than for a solution what we've got now to do I was there for 15 years when I was very young and I saw the thing the tragedy developing. I sometimes say that the two main figures the early stages of course were Balfour and then Hitler Balfour declared on behalf of the British government as you know in
1917 that my government would welcome the establishment of a Jewish national home in Palestine provided nothing was done to prejudice the interests of the local inhabitants. You know this was an idea I didn't think of a Jewish state. And indeed the first 10 years you know when I got there and after the first 10 years no British troops were no soldiers in the whole of Palestine there'd been a decade of comparative peace and the Jews had come to Tel Aviv and established it would seem to in the agricultural settlements built the Hebrew University the Hadassah Hospital in the West and it seems it might work. Then what happened. That is the persecution started in in Germany the flood of refugees came from a comparatively small number. They came in third. Tens of thousands the Arabs reacted in the Arab rebellion of 1936 37 and we were off. I think that it's certainly open to be said that to the Great Britain
in encouraging the establishment of a national home and at the same time in that war backing Arab nationalism in the form of the Arab armies fighting to drive out the Turks. Sect sect. A light to two fires which are what we're what we're going to conflict. Was there anything else that they could have done as you look at it from this perspective. Well I think they do think that. Very often you know in governments you get different people with different ideas the idea of a Jewish national home in Palestine is a wonderful conception. And the idea of the Arab revival against the Turkish Empire was also a fine conception. And the tragedy of it is that really it's a contest between two rights and not between right and wrong. And the still what to do. What we did I was talking about working for agreement what we did in November 1967 was to take the basic. Jewish or Israeli contention
that what they needed was permanent peace and to take the basic out of contention that what they wanted was a withdrawal of Israeli troops from occupied out of territory put them together and we introduced a vigorous resolution of British resolution which eventually voted for unanimously. I placed great credit for that on cause not suffer the Soviet Union who on that other dramatic night he abandoned the Soviet resolution and voted for us. Having worked to my knowledge for two hard days with his government to get them to agree to that. So we did get a basis agreement where we got the. It's a remarkable fact in the situation that we have all voted for the same principles and the Israelis are defending it I was. Have I even has been defending it up to now to say that he doesn't want anything different. He wants that the Arabs have accepted it of the UART and Jordan have accepted it. And what's happened is that we have not had the will the initiative the good sense. In three years three years have gone by and it's been a bloody disgrace that that we the principal
nations of not having agreed. If we cannot agree to it it will be a deadlock but it wasn't a deadlock. We haven't been able to see a way to go forward to put into effect the agreed conclusions this is the scandal. There is an agreement within the United Nations but outside of the United Nations it seems just simply develop into a confrontation between the Soviet Union and the United States with the Soviet Union the United States voted for the first same resolution they both had faced the same danger the danger they face is this. And they're very well aware of it I've no doubt it isn't necessary for me to tell them they're very well aware that the danger is that they back one side and the other but they haven't got the full control of the actions of one side of the aisle. I don't think the Soviet Union wanted the 67 war but they backed the atoms and the atoms right away to run away from them and took their own action. And the same the other way. It's very dangerous for great powers to put the possibility of a World War in the hands of their clients neither of them wish it I'm sure. And therefore I don't think it's a confrontation between the superpowers.
This is a circumstance when the interests of the superpowers largely coincide. I believe it is true that they both need peace a secure peace. What is the significance of the developments this past year in which we have seen the Palestinian guerrilla movement at odds with the established government with great significance and one of the reasons why the three years delay is so inexcusable that I can understand how the Palestinians feel is to live with them for many years that they feel that no one defends their position and they've therefore got to fall back on themselves and nonviolence is the only way to go forward. They have of course adopted a new position as you know which you know is interesting they they say we don't they don't fight for the elimination of Israel or driving the Jews into the sea is used to be said they fight for a state in which all Jews and Arabs can
live together in peace. This is interesting. I think that's true little of the total guerilla movement yet only for you know they all say that because it is the city it means the elimination of Israel as it stands at the moment it just isn't going to happen but it is interesting that they have shifted their ground from a position of mere anger and antagonism into a position which certainly it idealistically has some of its usage for it. I myself would look just like to say this I mean that connection that I have made one proposal of my own proposal. I think many people may have had the same idea. I don't claim it for myself but I believe that Jerusalem may be the key. People have been trying to say leave Jerusalem to the end it's too difficult but I'm sure what could happen in Jerusalem should be an Arab Jerusalem administered by Adams. The secret of Certainly being Israeli Jews to be to be the capital of Israel administered by
Israelis. It should be an undivided city. Freedom of access to it to all the holy sites for everyone. A United Nations presence to ensure that there is freedom of movement both ways. I've been wholly opposed to a divided city. I'm wholly opposed to one side or the other holding the city by force against the other on a basis of equality on a basis of justice on a basis of freedom. The holy city. Might well provide the key to the whole of the whole problem and it has some relation even to what I'm talking about with the Fedayeen. They talk about you see equality and freedom. I think if you introduced equality and freedom introduced that might lead to a better relationship in the end between the Arabs and the Jews and without the better relationship to be you know peace there which seems to be the Jerusalem instead of being the barrier could be the gate to peace.
I don't and I find when I say this to Israelis or to or or to Arabs Israelis are very reluctant to think of giving up anything in Jerusalem it's quite true but many have recognized the fairness of what I'm saying. And the added a C in it I believe a possible breakthrough to peace undivided demilitarised freedom of movement freedom of access to all holy sites. Each side being able to administer to its own people and therefore meeting on the basis of equality. What sort of government will injure us not to have a government revenue to over two municipal governments one would be running the Arab tribe which is pretty well self contained. The other the Israeli side which has long been administered by the Israelis and you would have a far to merely to ensure de between the two sides was no barrier to dealing with customs passports and the rest. Which is not impossible. But I do used to be a United Nations originally. Many years ago spoke of
an international i city. No no it's not going to happen. It's not it's not now a live issue. It could do you not going to get it neither side would agree but for each side to administer its own and come together in freedom and and equality is not an impossible conception in my mind at all. How do you look upon the current efforts of Libya and Sudan and Egypt to form a federation. Well you have secrecy for the generations of spoken about. Unity and they have a unity in their religion and in history and in their outlook and in their common cause against Israel therefore. I think that these moves which from time to time take place of closer association with the Arabs likely to increase and develop and I think it's going to be welcomed. You don't get peace in such a terrible situation without strong governments. You need a very strong Israeli government to
make peace and you need strong Arab governments that was there. I think the setback of the death of President Nasser to you without a strong government in Cairo. They've got to take very distasteful decisions. And so the Israelis and the Israelis have got to agree to withdraw in the end. They're Arabs have got to agree to ensure the safety and security of Israel and not easy things to do. Therefore if this new move. Which is basically not done and not now not impossible to bring about. They're contiguous they have common interests to put together they'd be much stronger than if they were separate. And if it if it is more than a loose federation I think it's certainly to be welcomed. Even as a new generation of children will make advantages that military certainly when they go together you know as I just say again that if you had a strong government in Cairo backed U.S. by the Sudan and Libya with the Libyan oil revenues and the rest they're much more likely to be able to carry their people through into the difficult negotiation where they've
got to give ground. You can't get all they want on either side. And therefore I welcome a strong government. That's why the fighting between the Fedayeen and the Jordanian troops is as so much to be deployed in that it means a weak Jordan if you could only get peace with a strong Jordan and a strong the USAR should this these guerrilla forces be seated at a conference table should they be involved or would this be simply to further divide. Well it's much much debated. My give you my answer that I don't feel protected it has an especial method I would say that to the Palestinians and they're different. Methods of representation should be consulted and the system as you know is an indirect consultation through Ambassador going to yachting of Sweden. I think gay is instruction should be varied to the extent that in addition to consulting the state's concern he should also be in instructed to consult representatives of the Palestinians. But I think very difficult to seat them at
a conference table. I think they must be consulted. The must be a generous settlement of the refugee problem most certainly. So I would say that to have them at this stage represented in the Peace Conference would be very difficult to achieve. I certainly think that in the due goshi ations they must be fully consulted. Can the refugees be absorbed back into the area now controlled by Israel. But the number going to go back to the West Bank or when withdrawal takes place without difficulty What's that to us. Three hundred thousand but that's not the bulk. You've got more than a million who were refugees before and the United Nations attitude has been that they must either be allowed to go back or to be settled elsewhere and they should be given the choice. I've argued that it's not good enough to go and say to the refugees some of them been for 20 years refugees. You want to go back to Israel or do you want to be settled elsewhere. You must
tell them what settlement elsewhere means to give them a fair choice. We're going to the House are going to get. Cattle them loans to start where would it be anyhow. You're going to be what. But if you give them a clear choice and this all ought to be worked out this will be advocating we'd have a commission to work out the alternative settlement. Then they can look at it and say well do I want to go back to Israel and be an Arab in Israel state or do I want to start again with all this assistance which can be provided I think a very considerable proportion would decide to stay in Arab states. But don't these refugees have the same sort of romantic view of the homeland that perhaps the Jews did to verify the region of Israel have an image just of unjustified because they left their homes and they remember their homes but still all of us have to accept the facts of the situation and one of the facts of the situation is that there is an Israel and another factor the situation is not going to be destroyed and put it at its lowest the United States wouldn't allow it to be destroyed nor indeed would my country nor would a Soviet Union.
So we've got to face the facts and work out what we can do in the on the basis of the facts. And I better understand the feelings of the Arab refugees perfectly well they had their homes they don't know how many of them that they did they the they find themselves for 20 years living in filthy refugee camps on charity. They feel that they are deeply aggrieved to feel many of them there's nothing for it but violence. But to put them in an alternative a practical alternative it might alter the whole situation. At the moment we've got no alternative to offer them except to continue to be fighters. Carillon could we go back to another part of the Mediterranean. And about ten years ago or a little bit more you were governor of Cyprus and commander in chief there at a time when they were striving for their independence. And I wonder if looking back now from 1970 you think things have gone well or
what are your reflections on the independence of Cyprus the way it's arranged. Well I think Cyprus is got two examples which are useful one it can show that if everyone seeks an initiative for agreement it can succeed as it did succeed in 1959 when the Greeks and the Turks with the leadership of two remarkable men foreign ministers all of Turkey a foreign minister a very powerful groups working with us. Achieved a settlement. I was there at the time and worked out the settlement for an independent Cyprus. It was an achievement it was the way to do things by negotiation after a lot of bloodshed and bitterness. And I'm glad to say that almost immediately after the good relations was restored there wasn't the bad feeling that might have existed if if we'd been rough and I think in dealing with what amounted to a rebellion. So then I'd broke down again in five six years later and the United Nations has provided a peace force which has kept the peace ever since. It's another example of what the United Nations
can do in the in in the way of keeping peace. But I was there. I went back almost exactly 10 years after the time I left and uneasy about it because they haven't settled again they haven't repeated this previous settlement or found a new one rather. And therefore the danger exists every day that an incident between the Turks and the Greeks may set alight the the the violence of bad feeling and I did see on both sides a willingness to meet and to try to find a way. And they've been arguing about it for a couple of years now. Neither side wants the thing to break down but neither side has quite that will which will be necessary in the Middle East or anywhere else in the end. To give way in order to get agreement on both sides are going to have to give way. It's the lack of will or lack of initiative the lack of determination to work for peace which is the thing we lack in the world. I think it's obvious that I have but I do know from
having been in the international field for some time that where you work where you are prepared to understand where you're prepared to try to meet the other man. Nearly every case I believe there's an answer provided that you're not just standing on a narrow national position. Jim Collins and Ed Burrows talking with Lord Garrett on a WHCA the University of Wisconsin-Madison this has been special of the week from any are the national educational radio network.
Special of the week
Issue 10-71 "A Conversation with Lord Caradon"
Contributing Organization
University of Maryland (College Park, Maryland)
If you have more information about this item than what is given here, or if you have concerns about this record, we want to know! Contact us, indicating the AAPB ID (cpb-aacip/500-g15tc79w).
No description available
Public Affairs
Media type
Embed Code
Copy and paste this HTML to include AAPB content on your blog or webpage.
AAPB Contributor Holdings
University of Maryland
Identifier: 71-SPWK-516 (National Association of Educational Broadcasters)
Format: 1/4 inch audio tape
Duration: 00:30:00?
If you have a copy of this asset and would like us to add it to our catalog, please contact us.
Chicago: “Special of the week; Issue 10-71 "A Conversation with Lord Caradon",” 1971-00-00, University of Maryland, American Archive of Public Broadcasting (GBH and the Library of Congress), Boston, MA and Washington, DC, accessed June 5, 2023,
MLA: “Special of the week; Issue 10-71 "A Conversation with Lord Caradon".” 1971-00-00. University of Maryland, American Archive of Public Broadcasting (GBH and the Library of Congress), Boston, MA and Washington, DC. Web. June 5, 2023. <>.
APA: Special of the week; Issue 10-71 "A Conversation with Lord Caradon". Boston, MA: University of Maryland, American Archive of Public Broadcasting (GBH and the Library of Congress), Boston, MA and Washington, DC. Retrieved from