Like many of the nations who are our friends, Cambodia attaches very great Importance to this fifteenth session of the United Nations General Assembly. Its importance has Indeed already been under lined in the words spoken by the eminent statesmen who have preceded me, and by the high Level which the discussions seem called upon to attain.
2. I shall, therefore, as representative of the Cambodian nation, take the liberty of giving voice to certain thoughts which, though they may not have the merit of originality, express the views of the Khmer people on a number of questions,
3. First of all, it is my duty to say how sad and distressed we are at the revival of the cold war between the two blocs, after a period of "detente" which small peoples like ours hoped to see develop into lasting reconciliation and cordial co-operation. However, we find reason for optimism — moderate optimism, of course — in the presence here in our General Assembly, for the first time in United Nations history, of so many national leaders. Our optimism makes us feel that their presence is due both to awareness of the importance of our Organization and to solidarity between Governments, each of which, whether it be weak or strong, bears some share of responsibility for the future of mankind as a whole.
4. Despite its fourteen centuries of history, Cambodia is fully aware of its weakness and hence of its insignificance in a world which belongs either to the powerful (particularly if they are "atomic” Powers) or to those who are fortunate (or unfortunate) enough to represent a more or less vital stake, or sometimes even a bargaining counter, for one bloc or the other. In fact, we ourselves only just escaped this position of being an international "star”.
5. Our little country comes before the Assembly today with none of the attributes which attract international attention. It is poor; it is sparsely populated; it enjoys peace and internal stability; yet it is bold enough to follow its own course and to refuse obstinately to take sides with one camp or another, even the "neutralist" one. In these circumstances, how could we not be aware of the slightness of our influence, how could we not be a little ashamed of coming before the world simply as a "neutral” ?
6. However, if the peaceable Cambodian people has sent me to this Assembly for the second time, it is in order that I should express its anxiety and deep dismay at the growing deterioration of the international situation and at the tragic consequences of the ideological war which is being waged by the two blocs in the countries which border on our own.
7. Since the United Nations has done us the honour to accept us as a Member, I would ask the Assembly for permission to present our humble contribution to the search for a solution to the very serious problems of peace, justice and freedom for all men, these being the problems which alone justify the presence of all of us here.
8. The problem which chiefly exercises the minds of all peoples is undoubtedly that of disarmament. The great leaders have justified their participation in this session by the vital importance of this problem and by the need to find a satisfactory and lasting solution to it. In this respect we have been struck by the statements made by the distinguished representatives of the world's two greatest military Powers, since both express the same conviction that disarmament is essential. This unanimity on the main issue cannot but be encouraging, even though differences on points of detail may remain.
9. Disarmament is certainly an extremely complex problem, as the great producers of armaments do not fail to remind us in justifying the interminable discussions which continue fox months, then are broken off and then are taken up again — "hot-and-cold shower" treatment fox an anxious world. But today, having heard the unambiguous statements of Mr. Eisenhower, President of the United States [868th meeting] and of Mr. Khrushchev, Prime Minister of the USSR [869th meeting], we are certainly not alone in thinking that disarmament is possible and that it will become more and more difficult to justify further conferences which lead to no conclusion. The giants have spoken to us of their will to disarm and each has convinced us of his good faith.
10. As the President of the United Arab Republic has very rightly stressed in his speech [873rd meeting] what is now required is for this common will to be translated into action, as in the meantime progress in the manufacture of ever more deadly weapons is continuing at a prodigious rate. Conventional weapons which have become obsolete are being distributed ever more widely, with touching generosity, to countries that are courted by the imperialists and are easily persuaded to accept these attributes of power and progress! This secondary aspect of the arms race — the doling-out of obsolete but nevertheless highly dangerous weapons to small "lined-up" nations — is one that is causing increasing concern among our own people.
11. Today, when the great Powers speak of disarmament, it would seem that they think primarily in terms of nuclear weapons and do not attach sufficient importance to these obsolete "toys” which merely destroyed a few tens of millions of men during the Second World War. I would therefore like to draw the attention of the Assembly to the fact that, for small nations like ours, over-armament in conventional weapons represents an immediate danger, infinitely greater than that of the costly nuclear weapons whose use the manufacturing Powers have hitherto reserved to themselves, while proclaiming aloud the full horror of atomic war! Some even think that the existence of these terrible weapons so frightens the Governments as to prevent them from boldly launching a "hot war", and cause them to fall back on a "tepid" war. This "tepid" war can in fact be waged without risk to the principals instigating it, as it is carried on through small "interposed” nations in various parts of the world, and particularly in the countries of South East Asia haying a common frontier with Cambodia. And if our Far East has not yet become an erupting volcano, it is not for lack of explosive conditions which our friends, like sorcerers’ apprentices, have assembled there, but is thanks to what remains — though it is daily being whittled away — of tolerance and will to peace on the part of the peoples of South Asia.
12. Having said this, I would state my personal view that our country would not, whatever happens, approve the possible use of atomic bombs. It is equally our desire that the great Powers should soon be in a position to dismantle these devices, which do great honour to their inventive genius. But what we ask of them, what we beg of them, is to give up the extravagant arming of medium-sized and small countries, the moral arming of peoples — whose sole desire is to live in peace — with a view to persuading them, to kill each other under the false pretext of the anticommunist or anti-imperialist struggle.
13. However, to return to atomic disarmament, which remains a matter of prime interest to us, we think that the General Assembly will be able to contribute greatly, if not decisively, to it by reaffirming to the atomic Powers the feeling of all the peoples. This feeling, which cannot be doubted, quite clearly amounts to total and unanimous rejection of the use of atomic power for military purposes, including tests. We hope that these nations will thus be sensible of their immense responsibilities with regard to our civilization and the destiny of everything living on our planet, and will seek, with greater sincerity, a ground for agreement and a sound policy for general disarmament. We think, in fact, that the General Assembly could exercise a great moral Influence in this search for the settlement of a problem which as so far been rendered virtually insoluble because of the mistrust between the leading nations of the two blocs.
14. However, given the complexity of this problem and the way in which an agreement would be applied, we think it would be desirable to leave to the great Powers responsible for war and peace, for over armament and disarmament, the task of discussing it and getting to the root of it. Once the long-desired agreement had been arrived at, it would then, and only then, be logical for the procedure adopted to be submitted to all the medium-sized and small nations. We can hardly see how such complicated discussions could lead to anything of substance within the framework of an over-large assembly, as opposed to a small committee.
15. We should like also to draw the General Assembly’s attention to the uselessness and absurdity of ignoring the People’s Republic of China and of thinking that the major problems, and first and fore most peace and war, can be settled without the participation, as of right, in all international conferences of the legitimate representatives of at people numbering 700 million, of a nation whose strength is growing continually. In this connexion — since we are nobody’s satellites, maintain with the People’s Republic of China nothing but relations of friendship on a footing of equality, and therefore cannot be reproached with a biased or Servile attitude — we feel it our duty to insist once again, in all objectivity and without heat, that the General Assembly revise its position on the admission to the United Nations of the People’s Republic of China.
16. Every year the United Nations throws its doors wide open to many nations which have gained or recovered their independence. This is greatly to the credit of the Organization, which has set out with the noble aim of attaining universality; and we are most happy that our, African brothers, so long subjected to the laws of foreign colonialism, should at last be able to make their voice heard as free men. But while small nations numbering one, two or — as in our own case— five million people can sit in the United Nations, we feel it to be senseless and tragic that the nation with the largest population in the world, and one of the most deserving of countries from the standpoint of nation-building, should still be treated as a pariah.
17. Certain critics of the People’s Republic of China regularly oppose its admission to the United Nations, justifying their obstructive attitude by references to the Tibet affair and the frontier dispute between India and the People’s Republic of China. Yet India, the country mainly concerned in the frontier dispute and the most qualified observer of events in Tibet, remains convinced of the need for admitting the People’s Republic of China to this great assembly.
18. And has it never occurred to these unbending critics that certain Members of the United Nations are very far from behaving better than the People’s Republic of China with regard to weaker neighbours, without anyone suggesting that they might be considered unworthy of sitting among us? It is, indeed, somewhat surprising that in many oases greater attention and greater consideration seem to be shown to those who are constantly infringing the rights of peoples and creating disturbances and discord. Thus my country has seen part of its territory occupied by one of its neighbours while another carried out armed incursions on our soil and threatened to wrest from us all our off-shore islands, without the great Powers who make so many moral pronouncements being in the least disturbed.
19. But apart from these considerations, we must recognize that sooner or later the United Nations will be compelled to admit the Peopled Republic of China. We can also foresee with misgiving that, if the time is put off still further, a moment may come when the Organization will be forced not only to permit, but to beg the People’s Republic of China to join our number. Then the prestige and authority of the United Nations may well be impaired, perhaps irremediably,
20. Having said this, may I now turn on behalf of Cambodia towards the delegations of those countries which are sitting among us for the first time, to offer them our warmest greetings and confirm once more the joy felt by the Cambodian people at seeing them attain full rational sovereignty and assume their rightful place in the concert of nations.
21. This joy would be unalloyed had we no knowledge of the difficulties with which our Congolese brothers are at present contending, and of the Algerian nation’s ordeal, whose outcome we have been awaiting for so many years.
22. With regard to the Congo, it is not for us to comment upon the regrettable events taking place there, or to express our views as to the steps which should be taken to solve the problem of restoring peace in the Congo and maintaining that country’s unity. We will simply state that we Cambodians recognize only one Congo, whose capital is Leopoldville; for we consider that the local rivalries which undeniably exist in no way justify external incitement to disunity.
23. Naturally, we regret the difficulties that the United Nations has encountered, but these difficulties serve to strengthen the conviction which we voiced in 1958 — that if each of its Members agreed to lend it greater confidence and authority, the United Nations would be in a better position to render outstanding services to peace, to the protection of independence wherever it is threatened, and to the cause of reconciliation and understanding between the peoples,
24. I must now mention the Algerian affair — for although its end is desired by all nations, and particularly by the African and Asian nations who are not directly involved, Cambodia as a tried and tested friend of France, wishes to record its hope that, after too many years of killing and destruction, Algeria will soon know peace once more.
25. In this connexion, we were glad to hear General de Gaulle speak clearly of an Algerian Algeria, not rejecting the idea of an independent Algeria. But the President of the French Republic insisted, as a prerequisite to negotiations regarding the future status of Algeria, on the cessation of the hostilities between the forces of the provisional government of the Algerian Republic and those of France.
26. We in Cambodia, who experienced the war in Indo-China and know the courage and determination of those who are fighting in Algeria, are convinced that it is an illusion to imagine that they will be persuaded to "lay down their swords”. For eight years, the former French Indo-China lived through the situation that now exists in Algeria, in which two adversaries, with ever-increasing violence, seek to attain victory through attrition and exhaustion. No one has forgotten that that earlier war in Indo-China was brought to an end only by international arbitration and left behind it terrible after-effects which are still present both in Viet-Nam — still divided — and in Laos.
27. My country, of course, had the great good fortune to preserve its national unity, which enabled it to escape having its fate affected by external events and influences. In fact, eight months before the 1954 Geneva Conference, we succeeded in getting France to restore to us the remaining prerogatives of an independence which had to all intents and purposes been recognized since 1949.
28. As true friends both of the French and of the Arab and Algerian peoples, we fervently hope for their speedy success in arriving at an agreement, for with each passing month the conflict between Frenchmen and Muslims grows more acute and inflicts fresh wounds that will not heal. Nevertheless, General de Gaulle has formally recognized the Algerian people’s right to self-determination. He has also expressed his conviction that, whatever path Algeria may choose, it cannot mean a complete and definitive breaking of its ties with France. We share this conviction and we are sure that, if France grants independence to Algeria while there is yet time, the new State cannot fail to maintain ties of friendship and close co-operation with the former ruling Power, as we ourselves have done. But it is no less certain that the whole world awaits from France an act of greatness in regard to Algeria, an act similar to that just performed by France in respect of its African possessions, an act which will regain for France the friendship of the African-Asian world and of the Arab peoples in particular,
29. Nevertheless, there are grounds for wondering whether it is reasonable to hope for peace in Algeria to be restored without external assistance, although there can be no doubt that the peoples of France and of Algeria both long for an end to this fratricidal war and for a referendum which will determine the status and future of the whole Algerian nation. What organization other than the United Nations could act as an intermediary of guaranteed good faith and objectivity, as a “bridge” between adversaries who will not and cannot “lose face”?
30. Unfortunately, France has already made known its position — which is one of refusal, in advance, to participate in the debates on Algeria or to admit the validity of any United Nations decision on the Algerian question. For our part, it is our duty to try to find some effective means of helping to bring about a just and equitable solution of the Algerian problem. A condemnation of France would not serve this purpose, for it was in order to assist France and the Algerian people to attain the dual aim of a cease-fire and a referendum that United Nations aid was to be invoked. I believe that we should devote ourselves, above all, to finding a formula acceptable both to France and to the provisional government of the Algerian Republic, a formula which neither of the two opponents would be justified in refusing.
31. We are convinced that a properly controlled cease-fire, and a referendum whose results could not be challenged by either party, would be entirely susceptible of achievement with the good offices and guarantees provided by the United Nations. We express this conviction because otherwise we can see no end to the present war and to the deadlock in which France and the provisional government of the Algerian Republic now find themselves. Moreover we have not forgotten the Geneva Conference of 1954 and the agreements which? — although they were, necessarily, not entirely satisfactory to all — did have the merit of bringing to an end a frightful war and of representing, to some extent, a victory for compromise and mutual concessions. It is obvious that, without the assistance of the United Kingdom, the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics and the People's Republic of China, it would have been infinitely more difficult for France and the Viet-Minh to find a practical means of bringing the fighting to a close.
32. Passing now to a more general plane, I will venture to explain to representatives Cambodia's conception of the role of the United Nations.
33. Ever since 1958 we have pressed for the use of the Organization, not as a mere platform for propaganda, but as an undisputed arbiter and an impartial force for the settlement of international disputes with a view to restoring peace, freedom and justice wherever they are threatened or compromised without hope of restoration by normal means,
34. This path, which all peoples of the world would like the Organization to follow, is undoubtedly a difficult one. Nobody has forgotten that, with the agreement of most of its Members, the United Nations intervened In the Korean question, shouldering responsibilities out of all proportion to its regular ones — in the case in point, opposition to, and not participation in, a localized conflict. More recently, the United Nations intervened in Laos, though here, unfortunately, it lacked the means to bring about the peaceful and final solution desired by our friend and neighbour. Lastly, the United Nations, summoned to the Congo in order to ensure the maintenance of order, now sees its action disputed, not only by the parties themselves but by several Member States.
35. For our own part, we have had occasion to call upon, the good offices of the Secretary-General of the United Nations to improve our relations with Thailand, and in this connexion we were able to satisfy ourselves of his impartiality in a problem of this kind and to convince ourselves of his ability to help in finding a formula for settlement and reconciliation. However, while some nations are quite ready to rely on the Organization for the settlement of their disputes, many others remain unwilling to accept a verdict not in their favour.
36. Our feeling is that the United Nations will not be wholly fulfilling the purposes it has set for itself, or the expectations of all peoples of the world, until each nation, great or small, is able to call upon it for assistance when it is in difficulties; until each nation, large or small, accepts and scrupulously respects its decisions or else must agree to be exposed to sanctions, and lastly, until its doors are open to all free and independent nations. In short, it is essential for all countries no longer to content themselves with fine speeches about the grandeur and nobility of the United Nations' ideals, but to endow the Organization with the means to play a part acknowledged, with complete sincerity, by each.
37. Not very long ago, certain statesmen referred to the "so-called" United Nations and some serious newspapers wrote of the "disunited" Nations. This is indeed sad; but we must recognize that our Organization is divided, in a way which reflects the division of the world today. It thus departs from its purpose and its ideal, as these were envisaged by men of goodwill at the end of a war which, had it ended in defeat for the democracies, would have set its seal on the enslavement of an immense proportion of mankind.
38. A way out of this situation exists; but it demands that each of us, on entering this imposing house of glass, should leave behind him, at the door, all tactical considerations and feelings of resentment, cease to think as a "Westerner", a "socialist" or a "neutralist", and bear in mind only the word "brotherhood”; for are not all of us — white, yellow or black — born of the same clay and marked out for the same destiny?
39. In this connexion, I should like to explain Cambodia's position in regard to Mr. Khrushchev's proposal [869th meeting] that the Secretary-General be replaced by a directorate of three members, one belonging to the Western, another to the socialist, and a third to the neutralist group. This proposal is interesting from several points of view, but we cannot entirely agree with the distinguished Head of the Soviet Government, for the following reasons. We believe that we must avoid the splitting-up of our Organization into rival clans — a process which increasingly prevents the United Nations from playing its proper role, particularly as sole guarantor of the survival and independence of the small nations. This division, if extended to the office of the Secretary-General, might well paralyse it.
40. It seems to us on the contrary that the Secretariat with its present structure, headed by a strictly neutral person standing above all disputes of interest or compromise, offers the best possible guarantee of impartiality for the uncommitted nations. We would certainly not say of any man, no matter how neutral he may be, that he will never err; but what we are convinced of is that a directorate would be able to act only with the unanimous consent of its three members, which in the present state of the world is out of the question, and that its action could only be the result of wrangling or of shabby compromise.
41. May we apologize now to our Lao brothers for referring here to their country, in whose domestic affairs we have no right to intervene. But we are so close to Laos by reason of religion, customs and way of life, and the feelings which unite us are so sincere and disinterested, that we venture to express the hope that an end will be put to the external pressure which is now being exerted in order to drag the peaceful kingdom of our neighbour into one bloc or the other pressure which threatens not only peace in this part of the world but the very unity and independence of a nation reborn to freedom in 1954.
42. In this connexion, we must express our distress and apprehension at the increasingly overt manoeuvres, ranging from outside encouragement to direct support, of the rebellion against the legitimate Government of Vientiane. Laos does not deserve to be brutally and cynically sacrificed, on the altar of neurotic anticommunism, by certain foreign rulers or agents who favour secession and can contemplate unmoved the abandonment of the North of the country to communism and the creation of an illusory anti-communist stronghold in the South.
43. I can assure these strategists that their plan of division is doomed to failure, for Southern Laos is in fact just as vulnerable to infiltration by the Pathet Lao as Southern Viet-Nam is to that by the Viet-Minh.
44. The world has its eyes upon the Congo crisis. Nevertheless, I should like to draw the attention of the Organization to the danger which the present situation in Laos represents for the maintenance of peace in Asia. Although the situation undeniably arose out of external interference by both blocs, it has become obvious that, in order to avoid the danger of atrial of strength, the only sound and reasonable way of disposing of this new and dangerous source of disturbance Is through the neutralization of Laos, accompanied by international guarantees of its unity and territorial integrity.
45. Since the formal proclamation of its neutrality in 1955, Cambodia too has been the object of the most open pressure and of innumerable demands from certain committed countries. We have had to face unjust and unjustifiable territorial claims, armed incursions, economic blockades, criminal outrages, incitements to revolt and secession, and incessant provocation by Press and radio. However, the Cambodian people has rallied to a throne almost two thousand years old and has expressed its determination to fight to the last breath in defence of its independence and territorial integrity.
46. Our neutrality, our freedom and our independence are today intact; but this does not lull us into believing, that We have reached the end of the ordeals in store for us as a result of the desperate struggle of the two ideological blocs in this part of the world. At present we are experiencing a period of relative calm, which removes us from the international limelight. Our one hope is for a continuation of this period, so that we may be able to work peacefully on the building of our nation.
47. Some people will perhaps accuse small countries like Ours of showing selfishness, of thinking of nothing but their own situation and of refusing to participate in the ideological trends which divide the world. But are not the great Powers themselves concerned above all, and in all their actions, with their own interests? That is perfectly natural. We for our part believe that, in view of the crucial problems which face us, we are entitled to remain outside blocs and so-called defensive military organizations that in practice often tend to draw peoples into ventures which do not concern them and in which they stand to lose everything and gain little.
48. The small, poor, under-developed countries like ours consider it, generally speaking, more urgent to cover the distance which separates them from the modern and prosperous countries, than to participate in quarrels which do not concern them, to take part in conflicts which in any case are beyond their scope, or to nurse the vain and reckless delusion that they can play a historic role in world development. For our part, we leave it to the great Powers to write the history of the world; our modest ambition is simply to contribute, in all sincerity and as far as our small means allow, to a better understanding between the peoples and to the maintenance of peace.
49. Desiring thus to minimize the danger of friction between the contending blocs in this critical area of the World — South East Asia — with a view to establishing calm conditions for peaceable but weak peoples, Cambodia believes that it would be in the general interest for Cambodia and Laos to constitute a neutral zone, whose very strict neutrality would be seriously and formally guaranteed by the great Western Powers — the United States, the United Kingdom, France, and their Asian allies Thailand and South Viet-Nam — on the one hand, and by the socialist Powers — the Soviet Union, the Peopled Republic of China, and their ally North Viet-Nam — on the other. As a consequence, the two blocs would by joint agreement expunge Cambodia and Laos from the list of areas in which they are competing for influence, and regard these two States as buffer States whose function would be to prevent direct contact, a permanent cause of conflict. We should remember that France and Great Britain, the two great colonial Powers of the last century, sometimes resorted to the establishment or maintenance of such buffer States between their external possessions. That example, which has proved its usefulness in the past, deserves to be borne in mind today as a means of averting calamity.
50. Since the Geneva agreements of 1954, the possibility of neutralizing Cambodia and Laos has repeatedly been mentioned. In fact, however, there is great reluctance to admit that this neutrality can be effectively established. Not only has there been external pressure, but within the two countries — contrary to the deepest wishes of their peoples — factions have been brought into being which agitate or conspire to promote association with the East or with the West, and this is seriously described as pro-Western and pro-communist neutrality’
51. Cambodia knows and practises only one kind of neutrality; and the entire Cambodian people hopes that the great Powers will, not only in word but indeed, recognize this neutrality, which is our only guarantee of survival as a free and independent nation.
52. The very concept of neutrality is questioned in the Western world. Certain newspapers claim that neutrality is an absurdity, and non-commitment a form of cowardice. It is nevertheless true that the concepts of neutrality and non-attachment have great attraction for the peoples of Asia, Africa and Latin America who have experienced colonialist and imperialist domination and are rightly suspicious of so-called defensive military organizations and of political organizations serving as a mask for resurgent imperialism.
53. The committed nations, which dislike seeing their propaganda beat in vain; against the firm determination of the third bloc to remain neutral, should show somewhat more understanding for the peoples that refuse to align themselves. Then, perhaps, they might realize that their chief subjects of concern are very different from those of the peoples whose primary problem consists in escaping from their state of under-development. Furthermore, how can there possibly be a genuine political alliance between nations whose peoples are separated by levels of living ranging from opulence to dire poverty and even a state of perpetual hunger?
54. Recent events in Cuba, Japan, South Korea and Laos have confirmed this trend towards a position of neutrality, towards a refusal to participate in the dangerous game proposed by the great Powers. Is this attitude, adopted by more than one third of the human race, absurd and cowardly, or is it simply a manifestation of the instinct of self-preservation and of a very human love of liberty?
55. In 1953, when France transferred to Cambodia the remaining powers it had retained, certain newspapers reflecting Semi-official opinion predicted that our country would not survive longer than four years "by the grace of Buddha and Mr. Ho Chi-minh". In 1955, after we had proclaimed our neutrality, the same newspapers, together with a number of Western politicians, prophesied for us a disastrous collapse within an even shorter time. Yet seven years have passed, and each year has seen some consolidation of our independence and neutrality; while within the same period many countries, neighbours or non-neighbours of ours, have, unhappily suffered serious misfortunes. Our enemies, in order to explain the success of our neutrality, allege that the countries surrounding us have had the courage to commit themselves in our place and thus to draw upon themselves the hostility of the communist world!
56. I appeal for greater fairness to us, since, although there are small grounds for that allegation, we on our side are justified in expressing our apprehension about the threat to our peace constituted by the serious deterioration of the situation in the neighbouring countries. Furthermore I venture to appeal to the Assembly for effective assistance to the peace-loving peoples of the States of what was once Indo-China, so that they may recover and maintain the peace and stability which with all their heart they desire.
57. In my humble opinion, there is only one solution which would enable that end to be attained: genuine, effective and strict neutralization of those countries, unhappily placed, by an accident of geography, between the two rival blocs, together with the abandonment of all pressure, interference or subversion on the part of foreign Powers.
58. I beg representatives to forgive me if I prolong my speech by describing how Cambodia envisages peaceful coexistence. I do not think these explanations will be useless, for although peaceful coexistence is a topic of the day it is very possible that not all those who proclaim their devotion to it interpret these two words in the way that we do. Peaceful coexistence should not consist merely of mutual toleration, or of shaking hands with him who remains the enemy while hunting for his weak points.
50. In that connexion we have been very glad to hear leading statesmen express their desire to put an end to the arms race and turn to peaceful competition. The adjective "peaceful" is undoubtedly attractive at first Sight, and unquestionably represents an advance over the principally military nature of the existing competition. Nevertheless, this new competition contains the seeds of ideological struggles pregnant with trouble. Moreover we do not consider that the achievement of ideological uniformity is a desirable aim for humanity.
60. Our people has adopted a form of Buddhist social democracy which is peculiar to it, entirely corresponds to its aspirations and enables it to make definite material progress, without at the same time forsaking its traditions or a conception of life which nothing in the world would persuade it to abandon.
61. For us, the people of Cambodia, coexistence should in the first place be genuinely peaceful; in other words, it should entail not only the renunciation of generalized, total war, but also the renunciation of localized trials of strength, of small wars waged through intermediaries, Such as our country has known and such as Laos, the Congo and many others are experiencing.
62. Peaceful coexistence also means the absolute renunciation of any attempt by one country to impose its policy or its ideology on others. It implies the renunciation of efforts, by corruption or indoctrination, to de-nationalize members of any country’s population and to induce them to betray their country’s interests, disregard the deepest feelings of their people, and seize power by violent means such as "coups d’état” or revolutions.
63. Lastly, coexistence means that the rich and powerful nations should increasingly come to the aid of poor and weak ones, and that they should do so in a truly disinterested spirit of solidarity and not with the aim of propaganda or subversion. If the super-great Powers are to carry on peaceful competition, the finest and noblest sphere of activity in that line is, I think, assistance to peoples victimized by hunger, epidemics and the convulsions of nature.
64. Up to now, the volume of the assistance given to the under-developed countries has been in proportion neither to their population, nor to their poverty and their need, nor yet to their determination, their efforts to build for the future, or their deserts. In most cases such assistance is measured by the value of these countries as pawns in the blocs’ struggle for influence, the extent of their docility or willingness to join one of the blocs, or their potentialities as threats or sources of trouble to them.
65. May we now congratulate our powerful friends, and particularly our Soviet friends, on their amazing scientific progress, which will shortly enable man to undertake the conquest of space. This progress, however, brings home to us the tragic irony of the fact that men, whose power is continually increasing, show So little wisdom in their behaviour and persist in slaughtering each other merely because they have different conceptions of how to achieve happiness, or for other and even less valid reasons!
66. As I draw to my conclusion I am aware how much I have abused the time and patience of the President and the members of the Assembly, particularly in view of the fact that, as the representative of so small a country, I should probably have shortened my speech by two-thirds, I beg forgiveness, and ask indulgence for my possibly over-bold remarks on the subject of blocs and the great Powers.
67. In this connexion I should like to try to dispel a misunderstanding. Certain newspapers of the "free world" have alleged that the neutral or neutralist countries are taking advantage of the rivalry between the two camps and playing them off against each other With diabolical skill, thereby reaping immense moral and material benefits. That view attributes to the small nations truly remarkable qualities of Machiavellianism, duplicity and irresponsibility! Cambodia, which is neutral, is too well acquainted, by experience, with the disastrous consequences of rivalry between the great ones of the earth to dare to try to use it for its own ends.
68. The celebrated magazine Time which takes a great interest in our country, wrote with somewhat dubious humour: "Sihanouk unveiled a second rule of aidmanship; always bite the hand that feeds you." We are used to such amiabilities and have passed beyond the stage of indignation. Need I say that this acrimonious statement bears no relation to truth, so fax as either we or the other under-developed and uncommitted countries are concerned?
69. We are sincerely grateful for the aid given us by the great and wealthy Powers, but the only assistance we can accept is that which will help to improve the lot of our people and enable us to emerge from our under-developed state. Many representatives are perhaps unaware of the fact — known, however, to a number of small nations which have received aid — that the friendly assistance provided for in official agreements is too often accompanied by clandestine assistance of a much less friendly nature.
70. This latter form of assistance, which is never referred to and the mere mention of which arouses indignation, can take a number of forms: direct subversion, or the support or artificial creation of rival groups, or the bribing of men who are supposedly influential (enough to achieve the secession of certain provinces, to destroy neutrality and the national regime, or, again, the conditioning of public opinion through the purchase of part of the national Press.
71. Despite all my goodwill and my feelings of friendship towards those countries which have granted us official aid, I cannot ignore this assistance for which we did not ask and which is a direct threat to our independence, territorial integrity and national unity. If the granting of official aid is to entail obligations which run counter to our convictions, our real interests and our honour, and leave us open to contempt, we would prefer to be the wolf in Aesop’s fable rather than the dog!
72. In short, I wish to make it clear that I am biting, not the hand which feeds our people, but the other hand, which seeks to contrive their death.
73. I hope that members of the Assembly will be kind enough to allow me to express some ideas with regard to the organization of this and future sessions of the United Nations General Assembly. The traditional aspect of the Assembly has been radically changed by the decision of Heads of State and world leaders to take part personally in the debates. In our view, the participation of Heads of State in the annual sessions of the General Assembly constitutes a two-edged weapon with regard to world problems calling for a solution. The presence of Heads of State may expedite the solving of those problems; but it could also be Very dangerous, if the words uttered and the acts performed led to no practical results.
74. The presence of. Heads of State at the United Nations has given rise to great hopes in all nations' and among all peoples. It would be disastrous if those hopes were to be disappointed.
75. In the past, international diplomacy was carried on mainly by ambassadors, whose actions could be disavowed. In recent years its conduct has become the prerogative of Ministers for Foreign Affairs, then of Heads of Government and finally of Heads of State. My compatriots were undoubtedly very keen on this new kind of international diplomacy, with its Summit Conferences and meetings at the highest level. They were, however, greatly disappointed by the collapse of the recent Summit Conference in Paris which destroyed their hopes for peaceful and friendly coexistence and reopened the cold war, to the growing alarm of the isolated, small, “unclassified” nations like our own.
76. Hence we consider that the Heads of State and Heads of Government who are with us here this year have a formidable responsibility for the success or failure of the work of the United Nations at this fifteenth session. If we are Unable to give the peoples whom we represent definite assurances concerning an early and happy conclusion to the discussions on vital problems, the result may well be catastrophic.
77. What will be the reaction of the hundreds of millions of people who long for peace, freedom and justice, if the representatives of the great Powers meet only in order to agree to continue to disagree?
78. On behalf of my country of Cambodia, I should now like to address to the new President of the General Assembly our very sincere congratulations on his election. We are particularly glad to see this manifestation of the world's esteem for Ireland, a nation which is proud and courageous and treasures its independence.
79. Lastly, I should like to convey to all the delegations here present our warmest wishes for the success of their work.