Mr. MODZELEWSKI, on behalf of his delegation, thanked the Government and people of France as well as the people of Paris for enabling the third session of the General Assembly to be held in Paris. He felt sure that the Assembly’s discussions would be favourably influenced by the atmosphere of Paris, a city with splendid traditions in the fight for freedom, a city which had suffered under fascist oppression.
During the period covered by the Secretary-General’s annual report, an objective observer would have noticed the growth of certain tendencies which weakened the authority of the United Nations. Those tendencies found expression particularly in attempts to subordinate the Organization to the interests of a single Power or group of Powers, as well as in a lack of respect for the decisions taken by the United Nations in accordance with the Charter, and in attempts to modify the structure of the United Nations.
He had mentioned those matters from the very outset because he wished to emphasize that the Polish Government was still convinced of the need to build up the authority of the United Nations on solid foundations. His delegation was therefore determined to defend the Charter of the United Nations, during the present session as it had in the past, and to support any effort designed to fulfil its purposes and turn the Organization into an efficient instrument for the defence of peace throughout the world.
It was quite clear, from the Secretary-General’s report, that the suspension of the activities of the Council of Foreign Ministers with regard to the problem of Germany had been, directly or indirectly, the cause of all the deadlocks and all the failures that had been apparent in the work of the United Nations during the past year. However, the report did not mention the true cause of that state of affairs, which was due to the fact that the fundamental principles of co-operation set forth at the time the United Nations was established had been abandoned.
Those who had read the report knew that it quite rightly did not touch on the substance of me problem, as the question of peace with Germany was not within the competence of the United Nations. It was, however, regrettable that the Secretariat contemplated the possibility that the problem of Germany might be brought before the United Nations.
As the representative of a country directly adjacent to Germany, a country which had been the first victim of German aggression, Mr. Modzelewski felt justified in referring to that particular passage in the Secretary-General’s report.
The problem of Germany was of primary importance for the peace of Europe and of the whole world. A just and lasting solution of that problem was therefore in the best interests of all those who desired a stable peace, and especially of the countries which had a common frontier with Germany.
The Polish delegation had always been of the opinion that a just and equitable settlement of the German problem could only be reached through an agreement among the four Powers represented on the Council of Foreign Ministers. As it had maintained at the previous session, his delegation was still convinced that such a solution was possible.
In February 19 48, when the danger of a dismemberment of Germany appeared imminent as a result of the Frankfurt decisions which had created a new German State called Bizonia, the Polish Government, uneasy at this development, had taken the initiative of calling a conference of three countries at Prague. At the conclusion of that conference a warning had been issued concerning the danger of approaching the problem of Germany in a separatist spirit as the Western neighbours of Germany had done under the influence of certain groups beyond the Atlantic. That warning had been ignored. In fact, the London conversations had set the seal on the partition of Germany, thus causing from the very beginning a sharp conflict in Berlin.
In consequence, the Polish Government, in agreement with the Government of the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics, had convened a conference of eight interested Powers in Warsaw. That conference had drawn up a realistic programme for the peaceful settlement of the problem of Germany; that programme was the only positive one in existence and was a development of the peace programme drawn up at Potsdam.
Events had proved that the Warsaw decisions were still appropriate, as had been confirmed by the need for new four-Power talks in Moscow. Those facts could not be reversed by fictitious air bridges which were simply the sequel of the unilateral policy arising out of the London decisions.
It would be impossible to justify the economic absurdity of supplying coal to Berlin by air. It was clear that the aeroplanes had taken more away from Berlin than they had brought in. No rational economic policy could justify the squandering of goods, neither could any justification be found for the division of a city into different sectors with different economic systems, different monetary systems and different forms of administration. Those who wished to bring about such a state of affairs were anxious not only to partition Berlin but to partition the whole of Germany. Such people could not be greatly concerned with the problem of European peace.
Nevertheless, peace was still the great concern of the Polish delegation, and he felt sure it was also the chief concern of all those who had experienced the terrible consequences of the last war and who wished to avoid another.
He had always been convinced that the implementation of the so-called European Recovery Programme would make clear its true meaning. It had become clear that that programme aimed, among other things, at the reconstruction of Western Germany. That plan tended to make of Germany a vassal State fit to start a new aggression. That fact was proved by the fact that in the Western Zones of Germany revisionists recruited from among the ranks of former Nazis were being tolerated and encouraged, and by the way in which the dismantling of German war factories, as well as reparations and denazification, had been abandoned. All this was designed to achieve a single purpose; to turn Western Germany into an obedient tool in the hands of its masters, a bastion of reaction and revisionism which would serve as a spring-board for the warmongers who wished to conquer the world. If it were added that the same policy, in a slightly different form, had been carried out in Japan and that in several other countries fascists or their successors were gradually receiving more and more support from the same source, it was obvious that small attention had been paid to the resolution of the General assembly to the effect that warmongers should be condemned.
He trusted that a thorough examination of the problem of warmongers would be made during the present session. The only sound principle on which to base such an examination was the recognition of the fact that the work for peace must begin not merely with a condemnation of warmongers; it was necessary to go to the very roots of warmongering and to oppose resolutely any groups interested in fomenting war.
The United Nations was not doing as much as it could in that direction. He thought that it should have shown more interest in the World Congress of Intellectuals for the Defence of Peace, which had recently been held in the Polish town of Wroclaw, and that it should give full support to every sincere effort for the prevention of war.
The past year had also brought a great disappointment for the United Nations with regard to the implementation of the resolution of 14 December 1946 on the subject of disarmament, including both atomic and other weapons. There had been no positive results in that very important field and, in fact, the first steps taken in preparation for disarmament had been abandoned.
The Atomic Energy Commission had suspended its work altogether, and the Commission on Conventional Armaments had not yielded any results. Those failures could be explained by a glance at the continually growing estimates of armament expenditure in some countries and at the increasing profits of Wall Street bankers, who had an interest in the munition industries.
He felt, however, that such considerations should not be decisive in the General Assembly, which should raise its own voice to drown the false rumours that war was inevitable.
The Polish delegation was of the opinion that the General Assembly should do more than simply examine the problem of disarmament; it should accept suitable and categorical recommendations on the subject.
Mr. Modzelewski recalled that his country had reduced its military expenditure to nearly one-third of its pre-war estimates because his Government had based its policy not only on the need for peace, but also on the possibility and the likelihood of maintaining peace. His delegation was convinced that different economic and social systems could exist side by side, and his country did not wish to impose its own principles on anyone else, even though it was convinced of their superiority.
It would be helpful to the prestige of the United Nations if those principles were applied during the present session and were proclaimed without reservation to the whole world. It would then be easier to achieve that unanimity among the great Powers, which was so often attacked and which remained the very foundation of the United Nations.
Mr. Modzelewski did not propose to dwell at any length on recent events in Asia where, apart from the war in Indonesia, oppressed peoples were claiming their right to self-determination throughout vast and ever increasing areas. He did, however, wish to examine again certain questions that had been discussed at the previous session.
The Greek problem had been on the agenda since the beginning of the United Nations existence. Even at that time, the Polish delegation had felt that the Greek people should be left free to decide their own fate. The Polish delegation was still of the opinion that foreign troops should be withdrawn from Greece and that outside intervention should cease completely. Bitter fighting had been going on in Greece for the last three years causing devastation to the country and death to tens of thousands. Millions of pounds and dollars had been spent, but to no avail, as the Greek people did not want to accept a dictatorship imposed upon them from outside, which was at the root of their disputes with the neighbouring countries. The Greek people were opposed to the cruel regime of terror and mass executions, and it was for that reason that the end of the struggle was not in sight. The Polish delegation had been right when it refused to participate in the United Nations Special Committee on the Balkans and when it opposed the discussion of that Committee’s report (A/574). It had done so because it refused to support in any way the intervention policy dictated by interests other than those of Greece.
The Polish delegation maintained its view that only the withdrawal of British forces and the end of American intervention could restore peace in Greece. The leaders of the Greek democratic forces had for long been asking for a just peace. Their voice should find support in the United Nations, as its principal purpose was to maintain peace in the world.
The Polish delegation had proposed to include the question of Franco Spain in the agenda of the present session. It had done so because the prestige of the United Nations required the scrupulous observance of its decisions taken in accordance with the spirit of the Charter.
Unfortunately, the resolutions adopted on 12 December 1946 and 17 November 1947 had not been carried out. There had even been indications recently that some Members of the United Nations were helping to strengthen the Fascist regime in Spain. This attitude was not a disinterested one. He could cite many instances of infiltration into Spain — economic, political and military infiltration — which fanned the smouldering fire of Franco’s dictatorship.
Peace was at stake. Fascism and its adventurers had always been a danger to peace. He hoped the present session of the Assembly would give serious attention to the implementation of its own decision as regards the liquidation of the remnants of Hitler’s «New Order» which had collapsed in Europe at the time of its military defeat, but its traces in Spain created an unbearable situation for the noble and freedom-loving people of Spain.
The Palestine question had been settled by a decision taken at the second session of the United Nations Assembly. If, during the period under review, the United Nations had worked to carry out its decision instead of undermining it, a great success would have been achieved, and its authority strengthened. Unfortunately, instead of implementing the General Assembly decision, those who defended their own interests — mainly oil interests — had tried and were still trying by various means to prevent the realization of the decisions taken. Accordingly peace, which was needed by both the Arabs and the Jews, had not yet come to Palestine.
Experience had shown, however, that the solution contemplated last year was a practicable one. No one would deny that the Jewish State of Israel had come into being, that it existed and that it showed proof of vitality.
Mr. Modzelewski believed that if the Jewish and Arab populations had been left free to settle the question among themselves, they would have managed far better. The Assembly should not forget that fact and should not let itself be diverted from the just path leading to a peaceful and final settlement of the Palestine question. The admission of the State of Israel into the United Nations would crown that policy.
Turning to economic and social matters, he pointed out that, although the so-called European Recovery Programme — better known as the Marshall Plan — remained outside the scope of the United Nations and was ever at variance with its principles, it was mentioned in the report of the Secretary-General who dealt with it in a positive way. Yet it was common knowledge nowadays that it was essentially a political plan. The economic principles on which it was based were not concerned with the reconstruction of Europe; the contradictions inherent in that plan were already clear. Those principles spelt economic decadence rather than the promised prosperity.
It was known that Poland had decided not to associate itself with the Marshall Plan. It did not want to help in rebuilding an aggressive Western Germany, dependent upon the will of financiers. Poland stood for the democratization of Germany. The rejection of the Marshall Plan had enabled Poland to work out and carry out its own plan, the Polish plan.
A similar situation existed in all other European countries which had not accepted the Marshall Plan. He thought that that view would be shared by the representatives of the majority of the countries represented at the Assembly.
The first direct consequences of that plan were now clear. It had divided Europe and was trying to divide the whole world into countries of different categories. For political reasons, the plan tried to regulate and control the exchange of goods between the United States and countries included in the plan, as well as other countries. It also tried to control trade between the « Marshall Plan countries» and others. It was thus introducing everywhere a system of privileged and under-privileged countries, a system of control over free goods and prohibited goods. Such a system, discriminating as it did against one group of nations in favour of another, had nothing in common with the true economic purposes of the United Nations and of its organs.
The Polish delegation, on the other hand, wanted economic exchanges with all countries, be they in the west or in the east; but it wanted them to be based on equality and respect for the sovereignty of all parties.
That plan of division and discrimination had also influenced the activities of some organs of the United Nations. The Economic Commission for Europe was doing its utmost, despite great difficulties, to increase trade between the so-called Western countries and the so-called Eastern countries in Europe. The same could not be said of the International Bank for Reconstruction or of the International Monetary Fund, which were far from objective in their attitude and which were becoming more and more the instruments of the financial policy of a single State.
The Havana Charter for an International Trade Organization was based upon the principle of abstract equality which, on paper, conferred the same rights and obligations on all countries without taking into account their needs and possibilities. In that case there was also discrimination, because countries that had no industry had theoretically the same rights in the field of imports and exports as those which were highly industrialized. That was to the advantage of large monopolies and trusts, which were naturally anxious to lay their hands on all markets.
In practice such an equality made it impossible for non-industrialized countries ever to create their own industry, and left them as a prey to foreign exploitation by condemning them to permanent economic, and hence also political, servitude. The Polish Government, therefore, had not signed the Havana Charter.
The report of the Secretary-General also dealt with activities in the social sphere. Poland was taking part in almost all undertakings and social organs of the United Nations. For special reasons, however, it was not a member of the International Refugee Organization. Instead of helping refugees to return to their native countries, that body had in fact become an organ reminiscent of an international labour exchange which supplied cheap labour to all sorts of employers. It had, however, been unable to stop the movement of repatriation and in certain cases it had even been forced to contribute funds for that purpose. It would be wrong, however, to give the organization credit for that activity. It had done so little in that direction that the general character of its activities had scarcely been changed.
A very large number of Polish refugees still remained outside the frontiers of Poland. They were dispersed throughout the world and were often forced to accept working conditions akin to slavery. When, after bitter experience in far-off countries, they approached the International Refugee Organization and asked for help to return to their own country. They were told that they must pay all the expanses, although it was known that they could not afford it.
The Polish representative stated that his delegation would submit proposals on this matter and intended to discuss the problem in all its aspects since it was closely linked to that of equal wages and conditions for foreign and domestic workers. Moreover, the Polish delegation felt that the principle of freedom of choice should be respected; refugees ought to be given the opportunity to return to their countries irrespective of where they might be at present. The representative of Poland wished to point out particularly that his Government would never give up its right to help and protect Polish refugees as long as they remained citizens of the Polish Republic, no matter where they might find themselves.
In connexion with the refugee problem, the Polish representative felt impelled to speak of another problem. He referred to the return to Poland of tens of thousands of Polish children who had been deported to Germany during the Nazi occupation with the intention of educating them on German lines. Up to the present time and despite repeated efforts, the Polish Government had not succeeded in persuading the occupying authorities in Western Germany to surrender to their mothers those tens of thousands of Polish children who were still in Germany — particularly in the British Zone — three years after the end of the war. Through a curious conception of humanitarianism, the occupying authorities, on the ground that the German foster parents had become attached to the children who had been thrust upon them, refused to admit that those children had been forcibly taken from their mothers, who were awaiting them in Poland. The Polish representative was raising the issue because if such actions were to become a matter of policy, it would be futile to speak of promoting the activities of the United Nations in the field of social advancement.
Obviously, assistance should be extended to children, as the Secretary-General stated in his report, but first the children should be returned to their parents and the kidnappings which had occurred under Hitler’s regime should be stamped out. The representative of Poland wondered how, in the light of such facts, one could speak of those noble human rights.
The representative of Poland proceeded to comment next upon the resolution adopted a year ago establishing the Little Assembly. One year of work by that body, which had attempted illegally to usurp the prerogatives of the Security Council and of the General Assembly, had once more proved to all the world not only the utter uselessness of such an organ which was at variance with the Charter, but also the fact that any departure from the basic principles upon which the United Nations had been founded merely led to disorder and confusion. There was no other basis for peace than the agreement of the great Powers, the permanent members of the Security Council. The sovereign equality of the Member States of the United Nations demanded that they should support the principle of unanimity, which had been wrongly described as the right of veto.
The Polish delegation considered it superfluous to discuss that question. It would not have been difficult to prove to what degree the principle of unanimity, as applied by the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics, had helped the United Nations to avoid errors which might have entailed fatal consequences.
The Polish delegation considered that the period covered in the Secretary-General’s report once more confirmed the position it had taken up and its hopes for the future of the United Nations. Those hopes could be realized only on condition that respect was shown for the basic principle upon which the Organization was founded, the principle of sincere co-operation among all the Members actuated not by selfish group interests but by the determination of the peoples to live in peace, and on condition that the decisions agreed upon by all in accordance with the letter and in the spirit of the Charter were carried out.
The Polish delegation hoped that those groups which interpreted the task of the United Nations in that way would finally triumph over materialistic interests and that those defending the peace would overcome those who advocated disorder and war. It was in that hope, that the Polish delegation was beginning its work in the present session of the General Assembly.