62. I should like first of all to express the great and sincere satisfaction of the French delegation at the remarkable demonstration of unanimity which has made Mr. Belaúnde the outstanding figure in the United Nations Organization this year. It is a fitting tribute to a man who has devoted his entire career to the service of right, peace and understanding between peoples. Such a mark of recognition was due to him; and France, whose friend he is, welcomes and hails this recognition.
63. Two weeks ago, our President closed his inaugural address [795th meeting] with the words: "May God will that this Assembly should go down in history as the Assembly of peace." These noble words, which bear the stamp of his personality, might well be repeated year after year within these walls, for they represent the real and the only mission of our Organization and the fundamental aspiration of all. Year after year, however, we meet to take note of the constantly increasing difficulties and the constant succession of crises, without any sign as yet, so long after the Second World War and the United Nations Conference on International Organization, held at San Francisco, of that far-reaching settlement which would finally make it possible to lay the foundations everywhere of political stability and enduring peace. May the coming months, during which many new events will no doubt occur, open the way to a new state of affairs to which that hackneyed yet hope-inspiring expression, the easing of international tension, may at last be appropriate.
64. At the opening of the thirteenth session of the Assembly, the world was living under the threat of two major international crises — one in the Middle East, the other in the Far East — which occupied our attention to the exclusion of all else. The world moves quickly. Who remembers them nowadays except as events of the distant past? It is a fact that the situation in the Middle East has become remarkably stable since 1958. No one is happier about this than France, particularly with regard to Lebanon, whose rapid and peaceful recovery after the trials of 1958 is a source of great satisfaction to us.
65. Not all the problems are settled, of course, far from it, as witness the renewed difficulties concerning free transit for Israel ships and cargoes through the Suez Canal. The 1888 Constantinople Convention, reaffirmed by the United Nations, remains for us the basic instrument in this matter. However, real progress has been made, with the help of the discreet and effective presence of UNEF. It is to be hoped that, as requested by the Secretary-General, the Force will be allowed to continue its activities.
66. Mention should also be made of the settlement, in a neighbouring region, of the Cyprus problem, a settlement made possible by the clear-sightedness, wisdom and courage of the three Governments which were parties to the dispute. The close collaboration subsequently established between Turkey and Greece is a subject of particular satisfaction to France.
67. In Asia, on the other hand, there are abundant reasons for concern. The crisis in the Formosa Straits has quietened down for the moment. Elsewhere, however, on the periphery of the vast land mass of China, incidents and even serious disturbances are developing. The whole world is aroused by the excesses committed in Tibet and by the contempt they imply for the elementary rights of the human person. Let us hope that the Tibetan people will soon recover their ancient liberties and respect for their beliefs.
68. The difficulties which have developed in Laos have been before the Security Council for the last few weeks. France, which has a very sincere friendship for that country and has special responsibilities there under the Geneva agreements of 1954, has followed these events closely. It gives its full support to the action taken by the Security Council. It particularly hopes that the Sub-Committee which was sent to that area will be able to carry out its mission of inquiry under the most favourable conditions. It is important to put an end to the instances of outside interference which have occurred. Such interference is calculated to create disturbances which would make Laos, an essentially peaceful country, a victim of the cold war. The Security Council will have to give the matter renewed consideration. Discussion in any other form would therefore be inappropriate, and we hope that the necessary pacification will follow.
69. During the general debate in 1958, I had occasion [758th meeting] to say to the Assembly that the crises then in existence, both in the Middle East and in the Far East, should not make us lose sight of the overall problems, particularly those resulting from the last war. In the forefront of these problems, we French place the tragic division of Europe. Events have already demonstrated that these problems have lost none of their seriousness; indeed, they have since become the burning questions of the day. There is little doubt that in the coming year they will continue to be the principal subject of discussions between the East and the West.
70. Everyone knows that it was the Soviet note of 27 November 1958 that started the so-called Berlin crisis, which is really the crisis of the whole of Europe; indeed, the question of a general European settlement was immediately raised. Everyone is aware, too, of the slow development and the generally negative results of the Geneva Conference. But it had at least the virtue of opening the discussion and also reducing the temperature of the crisis and the seriousness of the threats which had been made or were implied in certain attitudes adopted. The discussions at Geneva were suspended for reasons which are common knowledge. No doubt they will be resumed later on, but everything is still in the melting-pot.
71. The Assembly naturally has all available information about the substance of the problems involved, and several of our colleagues have spoken here about them. I shall therefore merely recall in a few words the point of view taken by the French Government.
72. With regard to Germany it is time, high time, nearly fifteen years after the end of the war, to reach a settlement. This settlement, namely the signing of a peace treaty which would crystallize the new look of that country, can be concluded, in our opinion, only on the basis of the reunification of the two parts of Germany which are today set up as completely separate entities. This was the proposal of the Western Powers at Geneva in a document which they called a "peace plan" because it dealt simultaneously with the German settlement, the organization of European security and the beginning of general disarmament. The reunification of Germany would, of course, ipso facto dispose of the Berlin problem.
73. This reunification could be conceived only in accordance with a democratic process and consequently should be concluded by free elections. This automatically raised the question of the survival of the present regime in East Germany. Here is the reason, in a nutshell, why our plan did not succeed and why — let us frankly admit — It could not succeed in present circumstances.
74. Under such conditions, the only way open to the responsible Governments was to continue the status quo, adapting it to conditions and circumstances to avoid difficulties and incidents; the only possible attitude was to wait until the world situation and the evolution of East-West relations would make it possible to conclude a substantive agreement. That was our opinion, and it was in that spirit that we considered the possibility of concluding a provisional agreement on Berlin. In the light of the substantial concessions which we had stated we were prepared to make — the fixing of a ceiling for Western garrisons, an agreement not to install nuclear weapons in the city, the control of propaganda and subversive activities — this was calculated to allay the concern which the Government of the Soviet Union had expressed to us.
75. Such an agreement — modest in itself, but with far-reaching consequences, if only it meant tackling a German problem — proved impossible because our Soviet colleagues had taken a stand basically opposed to ours. Since reunification by agreement between the two camps is not possible at the present time, they draw the conclusion, not that this provisional state of affairs must be accepted, but that it must become permanent, in other words not only de facto but also de jure recognition must be given to the existence of two Germanies and must be ratified by the conclusion of a peace treaty with each of them. At the same time, they maintain that the anomalous situation which prevails in West Berlin because of the continued lack of a single German Government should be coped with by establishing a permanent regime in the form of a neutralized free city.
76. Such a development would in fact mean essentially the evacuation of the Western garrisons in Berlin. In law it would amount to giving legal sanction to the division of Germany. If this were put into effect it would unquestionably have serious repercussions among the German people, with long-range consequences which could not be measured. We have always considered that it would be contrary to justice and reason.
77. The two sides are thus still very far apart. Long negotiations will be necessary to bring them closer together. We ourselves will never refuse to undertake such negotiations, because it is indispensable, both for the countries directly concerned and for world peace, ultimately to find ways of establishing in Europe a stable and enduring equilibrium. The Germany of today is not the Germany of the past; it will undoubtedly make a large contribution to the establishment of such an equilibrium.
78. The Geneva Conference, which adjourned on 5 August 1959, thus ended on a provisional note of failure as far as the main point of its programme was concerned. On one point, however, we were more successful, for some concrete results were achieved. These were limited inasmuch as only a procedural question was involved, but they were important in that they dealt with the basic question of disarmament. I say basic question, because I sincerely believe that this matter is of vital urgency for all the peoples represented in the United Nations and for all the peoples of the world. I also believe that if this Organization has a mission it is first and foremost to promote disarmament, and I am happy to note that nearly all the speakers on this rostrum have also realized this.
79. It may perhaps not be an exaggeration to state that, under present conditions, the future of man depends upon the decisions which in the years to come may be made in two very different yet very closely linked fields. I mean disarmament and assistance to under-developed countries; in other words, I refer to the battle which we must jointly wage against war and poverty.
80. These two fields are interdependent, not only because they are fundamental necessities of our time, but also because the solution of the one problem, that of assistance to under-developed countries, depends to a large extent on the solution of the other. Effective and large-scale disarmament is the only means by which the wealthiest and economically most highly developed countries can afford to devote sufficient funds to the advancement of the less-developed countries. The French Prime Minister, at the summit Conference held at Geneva in 1955, was the first to propose the idea of allocating to the assistance of the less-favoured countries all or part of the savings to be made from a disarmament programme. The idea has gained ground since then. It was repeated on this very rostrum just a few days ago by the Chairman of the Council of Ministers of the Soviet Union [799th meeting]. We still feel that it is sound and fruitful.
81. But it is easy to speak of disarmament. It is easy to show what absurd and ruinous burdens the arms race imposes on the nations which engage in it. One need not have a mastery of scientific or technical knowledge to describe the incredible dangers which the accumulation of nuclear weapons involves for the earth.
82. Obviously, the best course would be to go all the way: ever since wars began, man’s dream has been of a world without armies. Man also dreams of universal peace and of a society where poverty and all forms of inequality would be banished forever. Let us respect this ideal, let us preserve it and let us try to use it to achieve some progress along a path where even the most modest results would mean almost revolutionary progress.
83. The Assembly is already aware of the arrangements made at Geneva for the Governments principally concerned to resume the discussions on disarmament in the near future. These arrangements were recently approved by the Disarmament Commission [see DC/146], which fully understood that in accordance with the Charter it retained the major responsibility in the matter, and that the action taken by the four Powers [see DC/144] was intended to accelerate the technical studies and discussions of a problem which was constantly being changed and made more complex by scientific progress. The Ten-Power Committee is expected to meet at the beginning of next year. It will take up the question of disarmament where it was left off in 1957 at the end of the last session of the Sub-Committee of the Disarmament Commission.
84. Two suggested work programmes have already been put before you, one by Mr. Khrushchev, the other by Mr. Selwyn Lloyd on behalf of the United Kingdom delegation [798th meeting]. The first will be the subject of a preliminary discussion by the present session of the Assembly. This discussion will undoubtedly provide more exact information about possible means of putting into effect and controlling the total disarmament which has been proposed. The second is based on the French-United Kingdom plan submitted in 1956. It has already been worked out in much greater detail and it is very broad in scope. Like the first plan, it should be very carefully studied by the Ten-Power Committee and I should like for the time being to confine myself to a few remarks on two points which are fundamental as far as disarmament is concerned.
85. The first of these remarks concerns the eternal problem of control, about which the Western Powers and the Soviet Union have always held widely divergent views. The other day we heard Mr. Khrushchev forcefully explain his point of view. The Soviet Union, if my understanding is correct, accepts the idea of control but assumes that it would not be set up or at any rate function effectively until the disarmament measures agreed on had been put into effect. We feel, on the contrary, that the disarmament process itself and the application of control cannot be separated. The latter guarantees and consequently conditions the former. Moreover, in the absence of real control, the indispensable element of confidence would be completely lacking. I use the word confidence by design, for it is the keyword. The disarmament problem has technical aspects and these are important; but basically it is a political problem.
86. Disarmament is not, cannot be and never will be an end in itself. In any decisions taken, considerations of defence, international responsibilities and political relations in general must have priority. Economic, financial, moral or psychological considerations are inevitably secondary. It is undoubtedly correct to say that disarmament can be a factor in the relaxation of tensions but it is not conceivable without this relaxation itself. Nor is there anything contradictory in this, since interdependence is one of the facts of life. Disarmament is both a result of the relaxation of tensions and a factor in bringing it about; this means that there is an urgent need of a first step which can be taken only in the field of politics. For example, the Berlin problem would be brought into perspective and efforts would be made to find there, as elsewhere, conditions for peaceful coexistence; there would be no attempt to impose on some the will of others. We would try to settle all together the conflicts arising in Europe, Asia or elsewhere. Indeed, it would be the beginning of that fundamental change in East-West relations for which the world hopes. Everything would then become possible, to begin with; effective disarmament.
87. The second point concerning disarmament to which I should like to draw the Assembly’s attention is the nuclear problem. Obviously, that is the vital point; and I should not like there to be any misunderstanding whatsoever concerning the French Government’s position. I stated last year [758th meeting] and repeat at this time: a disarmament programme must first and foremost cover nuclear weapons, that is, it should provide not only for the halting of tests, but also for the cessation of manufacture, the progressive reconversion of stocks and lastly a ban on possession and use.
88. Until such time as these decisions are taken, atomic devices will continue to make up the essential part of the military arsenal of the principal Powers. This will be true even if these Powers give up future experiments and merely continue tests related to the launching of nuclear devices, i.e., the construction of inter-continental and other types of rockets. Under these conditions, which do not constitute disarmament, we ourselves cannot undertake commitments which in fact would amount to sanctioning and hence running the risk of perpetuating the present situation. This point of view has been criticized and will be criticized again. We are prepared as in the past to explain it before the Assembly; I hope that a debate on the subject will serve to convince everyone of the necessity for genuine nuclear disarmament.
89. With regard to the above question, a movement has developed which is reflected in the submission of a special item for inclusion in our agenda, protesting against the prospect of nuclear tests being carried out in the Sahara by the French Government. The African countries, or at any rate some of them, have expressed the fear that there might be radioactive fall-out on their territories. We are prepared to provide all necessary explanations on this point. The precautions which will be taken will absolutely eliminate any risk whatsoever. We are convinced that an objective examination of the facts will give every assurance, just as a similar examination has already convinced the Governments of the African States associated with the French Republic in the Community.
90. A few minutes ago, I stressed the undoubted connexion between a reduction in military expenditure and the expansion of international assistance to the less- developed nations. This is true, from the financial point of view and it is also true from the political point of view, for such assistance will only take on its true meaning and become truly effective in a world from which the cold war has been banished. In this field, too, a relaxation of tension would be of significance.
91. Only concerted action by the more favoured nations could reduce the present inequalities in the distribution of resources and the difference in the rates of development. Such an undertaking would answer the demands not only of reason but also of justice.
92. France has consistently supported the steps taken in this direction within the United Nations. It was for these reasons that it supported the plan to set up a Special United Nations Fund for Economic Development. In the same spirit, we welcomed the establishment of the Special Fund, whose objectives are perhaps more modest but whose effectiveness already seems to be assumed.
93. This year we learned with interest of the plan of the United States Government to set up an International Development Association, which, with its more flexible regulations, would be a useful adjunct to the International Bank for Reconstruction and Development. We shall support this plan, on the grounds that such an agency would fill a gap in the complex machinery for the distribution of international economic assistance.
94. Lastly, we ourselves have on several occasions proposed general plans of varying content but all inspired by the same philosophy. Our own experience has led us to take a global view of this problem — and here may I be permitted to point out that, having regard to its national income and taking into account the assistance which it affords to the Territories for which it has special responsibilities, France is probably doing more than any other country on behalf of the under-developed countries.
95. Although we do not reject piecemeal plans, we are sure that the assistance needed for the launching of development plans cannot be a permanent solution. In the last resort, nations must find the mainsprings of their progress within themselves. For this there are a number of preconditions, one of the most important being the stabilization of prices for primary commodities. Price fluctuations cause serious disturbances in the developing countries, from which for the most part these commodities come. If there could be some organization of markets to guarantee, through appropriate machinery, stable revenues to the commodity-producing countries, a large proportion of mankind would escape the phantom of poverty and would be able to face the future without fear.
96. Our activities in the field of technical co-operation, too, are directed towards economic development. I shall not expatiate on them today, but I am glad that they are to be further extended and consolidated. France has always considered this to be the most effective and fruitful form of assistance and it is delighted to see that international solidarity in this field is becoming increasingly close and confident.
97. I shall devote the second part of my speech to problems which are, for the most part, outside the competence of the United Nations, but on which we feel it might be well for the General Assembly to have some information. I refer to those regions of Africa in which France has special responsibilities.
98. Some of these problems have been discussed year after year by the General Assembly, in accordance with the Charter. These relate to the African Trust Territories under French administration. On 1 January and 27 April 1960 the Cameroons and Togo- land under French administration will respectively attain independence. The Assembly has already given its sanction to this evolution, which France, with your assistance, has brought to a successful conclusion. Everything has taken place in accordance with the wishes of the peoples concerned, as expressed by Governments properly set up as a result of free and democratic elections.
99. There are other territories, in Africa south of the Sahara, over which France has exercised the rights of sovereignty for many years, sometimes for centuries, and which, with French assistance, have made tremendous strides. This transformation was ratified on the occasion of the drafting, followed by the approval by popular referendum, of our new Constitution. The peoples of these territories were invited, in the most solemn and explicit manner, to decide for themselves how they wished to build their future. They were offered a choice between two solutions. One was the breaking of the ties which had hitherto bound them to France. The other was entry into a Community, which we were ready to build with them, within which they would have complete autonomy in the management of their own affairs while sharing with France certain responsibilities such as those of defence and external affairs, and retaining special and mutual ties with the Republic in the financial, economic and cultural fields.
100. The choice thus offered was exercised on 28 September 1958 by means of a referendum held simultaneously in France and in Africa. By approving the new Constitution by a large majority, the French people ratified in advance the choice which was made by the various African peoples. The latter, by deciding freely for or against the draft Constitution, made it clear whether they opted for the new Community or for secession.
101. One African territory, Guinea, decided in favour of the second. Its new status was immediately recognized by the French Government.
102. All the other territories, by ratifying the Constitution, decided in favour of entering the Community; that is, they decided to assume responsibility for their own future by becoming States while at the same time maintaining their co-operation with France. These are the circumstances in which in the autumn of last year, between 14 October and 18 December 1958, twelve republics were constituted, one after the other, to form with France, the new Community: the Malagasy Republic, the Sudanese Republic, the Republic of Senegal, the Republic of Chad, the Mauritanian Islamic Republic, the Gabon Republic, the Republic of the Congo, the Central African Republic, the Republic of the Ivory Coast, the Republic of Dahomey, the Voltaic Republic and the Republic of the Niger. All of these have now ratified their own Constitutions, held regular democratic elections for their own legislatures and properly constituted their own Governments. All of them are now States, born in freedom, fraternity and non-violence.
103. This is why the delegation which has the honour of representing the French Republic at this General Assembly also represents all the other States of the Community, and therefore includes people who are specially representative of those States.
104. I should add that by entering this new system, the originality of which I need not emphasize, the various African States and the Malagasy Republic have not determined their future once and for all. According to our Constitution, agreements may be entered into to alter the sphere of affairs under joint management. There may be territorial regroupings. Already, the countries which once constituted French West Africa and French Equatorial Africa have agreed to set up a customs union among themselves. Lastly, there is an article in the Constitution which provides that any member State may cease to be part of the Community. Clearly, the principles which served as the basis for the formation of this Community remain valid for the future, so that at any time the States forming it remain members only because they freely desire to do so.
105. Thus the right of peoples to self-determination, laid down in Article 1 of the Charter, was the rule followed by the French Government in the policy which has led it over the last eighteen months to define its relations with the African Territories for which it was responsible. Elections and referendums have been held in complete freedom everywhere, and everywhere the people concerned have voted and made their decisions in circumstances which no one, inside or outside, can claim to be irregular or invalid.
106. I have dealt with the Community. I think it is time now to raise a very different question, one which is unique, namely the political future of Algeria. In his statement of 16 September 1959, General de Gaulle, the President of the French Republic, solemnly laid down the conditions within which the political destiny of Algeria will be determined.
107. Once again, the case of Algeria cannot be compared with that of the Territories which have now become the African and Malagasy Republics of the Community. The territory of Algeria, which, as General de Gaulle said, has never, since the beginning of time, known unity, still less Algerian sovereignty, has for nearly a century and a half been bound by innumerable close ties to France, whether in the field of demographic structure, economic affairs^ culture or administration.
108. One million citizens of European origin are established there, many of them having been there for five or six generations. More than 300,000 Algerians work in France and support by their remittances a million and a half people in Algeria, or more than one-fifth of the Moslem population. Algeria cannot by itself support a population already too large and expanding at an increasing rate. Its economy has for a very long time, and of necessity, been closely geared to the French economy. It can only make up for the resources it lacks by selling on the French market products which would find no outlet elsewhere, by sending a large part of its working population to earn a living in France, and by organizing jointly with France, and by means of the tremendous investments made by France over a period of many years, the gradual exploitation of its territory.
109. The development scheme known as the Constantine Plan has provided a decisive Impetus for this exploitation: from 1960 onwards 100,000 million francs, equivalent to $200 million, will be set aside by the French budget to finance this programme, without counting the large contribution of private capital and the money spent by France in Algeria on the civil administration. The petroleum and gas of the Sahara will also provide the cheap and abundant power which is essential for new industry.
110. For more than four years, Algeria has been torn and ravaged by an insurrection, which quickly took on the aspect of a real civil war. This is certainly not, despite the over-simplified and harsh claims of propaganda, a civil war in which the Trench forces are ranged on one side and the Algerian Moslems on the other. On both sides, most of the combatants and most of the victims are Algerian Moslems. One hundred and twenty thousand of these, that is, many more than there are in the rebel ranks, are in the French army, most of them volunteers. Among those killed in the fighting, the ambushes and attacks, the proportion of Moslems is much the highest.
111. The rebels seek to impose secession by force. We say: no one has the right to force a regime on Algeria; the regime it is to have can only be the result of the freely expressed wishes of the Algerians themselves. Fighting, violence and terror are not the way to find a solution. Let them be brought to an end and let the men and women of Algeria, all of them, without distinction of race, religion or political conviction, be allowed to decide for themselves in peace and liberty. This is the programme which France Las formally enunciated.
112. In the circumstances, there is no political or moral justification for the rebellion. "Why, then" said the President of the French Republic in the statement to which I have already referred, "why, then, should the hateful fighting and fratricidal violence which is still bathing Algeria in blood, go on?"
113. For more than a year and a half the way has been prepared for the decision which the Algerians are called upon to make. The system of a single college has been instituted, which gives the Moslem population by far the greatest majority of voters and representatives. Many elections have already taken place, in which various candidates of all shades of opinion have campaigned for the voters’ favour. The most important occasion was, the participation of the Algerians in the referendum on the draft Constitution, on 28 September 1958. In this vote, the significance of which can hardly be over-estimated, the vast majority of Algerians signified that they wished their future to be linked with that of France and — why not say so? — that to that end they placed their trust in General de Gaulle.
114. The instrument, therefore, exists. When peace is restored, it will be used to conduct the referendum in which the Algerians will choose their destiny. Such a referendum is not conceivable until all fighting has ceased. I have already said that the fighting has now become meaningless. The offer of a cease-fire, made a year ago, retains all its validity in this respect. Once peace has been restored, as an essential requirement, some time will be needed to organize the voting in circumstances which can give rise to no dispute. A maximum term of four years has been fixed. It is essential for the balloting to take place in a peaceful country, where normal living conditions have been restored. The exiles must have returned and the fighters gone back freely to their homes. The most complete safeguards are provided whereby all, regardless of position or party, will be able to participate in political life, make their voices heard and play their part. In all truth, 1 cannot see what more could be done to ensure the validity and honesty of such a consultation. Moreover, anyone will be able, without hindrance, to come from abroad to observe the carrying out of the operation. I ask you, how would it be possible, in the world of today and on such a subject, for the voters to be forced or led into total error?
115. The subject of the referendum will of course be a choice between the possible solutions, of which as everyone knows, there are three: secession; complete integration with France; and the government of Algeria by Algerians, in close union with France in the fields of economic affairs, education, defence and external relations.
116. This is what France proposes to do with the Algerians and what a voice far more authoritative than mine has told them all, Moslems and Europeans alike, whether on our side or fighting against us. The way is clear, sincere, unambiguous. It is the only solution which can bring to a speedy close a drama which has been going on all too long.
117. For several years now the United Nations has had the Algerian problem before it and has discussed it. The French delegation has always voted against such a discussion because it considered and continues to consider that under the terms of the Charter the question is not within the competence of the United Nations. This year again, a majority in this Assembly has overridden our objections. Many of those who voted against us were moved by intentions which may have been generous but were, I think, ill-informed. I for my part am convinced that United Nations intervention in the past has not helped to solve the Algerian problem but rather the contrary. To stir up feelings cannot serve the cause of peace. What I want to say for the future, and for the present session in particular, is that, even if the' United Nations has decided to go beyond the bounds of competence laid down for it in the Charter, I do not really see how it could now justify an intervention. It does not rest with the United Nations to take, on behalf of one of its Members, decisions which are the latter’s sole responsibility. The French Government not only recognizes but proclaims, by its formal decision to have recourse to self-determination, that it rests with the Algerians to choose their own destiny. They will do so in full freedom and in full knowledge of the facts.
118. I have set before the General Assembly, in broad outline, the French Government’s views on the principal problems before it, some international, others national. I believe I have shown that on all these questions — the Middle East, Asia, Germany and Europe, disarmament, assistance to the under-developed countries, the French Community, Algeria — France is inspired by the same sentiments and guided by the same principles: an overriding wish for peace, respect for fundamental human rights, faith in liberty and fraternity, a dogged search for international agreement. Thus, France remains faithful to its traditions and to what is and always has been its true vocation.