The atmosphere in which the fifteenth session of the United Nations General Assembly opened and, still more, the atmosphere in which our work has at times taken place, has not been comforting. I am very much afraid that the anxiety and pessimism which have been almost universal for the past few months have in no way been dissipated but have rather been exacerbated as the result of our labours.
115. If, as I believe, this is true, we have failed in our duty. The United Nations reflects and has undoubtedly always reflected world tensions, but it is equally true that the United Nations has always helped to diminish these tensions, to encourage reconciliation and to solve very serious problems. If for the first time it is to change its functions and, if, instead of a home where the presence of the whole family helps to calm tempers, we are to make of it an arena where tempers are unleashed and are intensified by loudspeakers reaching to every part of the globe, then we shall have set the United Nations on the road to decline and bankruptcy, for I wonder how many of us would retain our confidence in and, consequently, remain faithful, to an Organization in which, instead of comfort, we found uneasiness, and in which, instead of understanding and reconciliation, we found only an intensification of differences and antagonisms.
116. There are certain fundamental truths which it would be well for us to remember. The Organization was founded upon the blood shed by millions of human beings who sacrificed themselves for a better world. It was founded by fifty-six nations which, after years of sacrifice, suffering and destruction, were determined, by following the United Nations Charter, to save succeeding generations from the scourge of war and the violation of fundamental human rights,
117. The Organization has succeeded, not altogether, but to a very large extent, in fulfilling its task. If today feeling runs high over the fate of the Congo (Leopoldville) or less important matters and if we feel anxious on the subject, how can we forget that in the last fifteen years we have lived through far more serious crises which have been settled thanks to the United Nations? Who among us can doubt that, in certain, crises of the post-war period, far more blood would have been shed and far more suffering would have been inflicted on mankind, without the intervention of this world body?
118. Who among us doubts that certain local conflicts have been avoided and others limited, and possibly a much greater conflict spared us, thanks to the United Nations?
119. But thanks to what United Nations? Thanks to the United Nations with which we are familiar, and not the United Nations whose outline seems to be emerging now. That is a fundamental point. We must concentrate upon it, particularly since it consists net of specific and tangible facts, but rather of an atmosphere which is being created and of trends which escape us and for that very reason may set our feet upon the downward path. I say this because the thought that we are deliberately and wittingly setting about the business of weakening the United Nations is far from my Government’s mind and far from my own.
120. We believe that all peoples and all their representatives want peace and international understanding. The means differ, and, to use a very useful expression, the approach differs.
121. This is a point which I venture to bring to the Assembly’s attention, for the hour is truly grave, truly full of menace and danger to the most fundamental interests of all mankind. It is in this spirit and with full awareness of its responsibilities, as the representative of a people and as a founding Member of the United Nations, that the Greek Government is participating in the work of the fifteenth session of the General Assembly.
122. Before venturing certain opinions on the most serious problems now before us, I should like to say a few words on the most outstanding event of the fifteenth session. I mean by this, of course, the admission of the new Members, and in particular those from Africa. The Republic of Cyprus is particularly dear to us for reasons which are well known and were referred to only a few days ago from this very rostrum. That is why I greeted with such emotion the affirmation of its international personality, completely free and independent, out of which will certainly spring a new flowering of its 3,000-year-old civilization. Today, however, in this more general debate, I should like to lay particular stress on the importance among us of the new African States, today sixteen in number, and tomorrow seventeen with the addition of Nigeria, that vast and populous State whose independence was proclaimed on 1 October 1960.
123. My country has been closely linked for thirty centuries with the ancient but ever young peoples of the whole northern coast of that vast continent. Our civilization and our interests are and have been influenced by them; their civilization and interests are and have been influenced by us. Moreover, for some decades, several tens of thousands of my compatriots have been living as brothers among almost all the African peoples. Apart from the African States bordering the Mediterranean, which are the closest to us, Ethiopia, the Sudan, the Congo, Cameroun, Ghana, Nigeria and many other countries in that vast continent have been and are for us a second beloved and respected homeland.
124. Apart from this fact of particular interest to us as Greeks, we regard as members of the international family, the spiritual and political awakening of Africa as an event which will make a profound impression on the history of the world. All these States — rich in moral and material resources, and strong and vigorous in their youth and their legitimate aspirations to domestic progress and international recognition — will undoubtedly give new impetus to our family of nations. I say family, because even though — as Mr. Nkrumah, the President of Ghana, stated [869th meeting] so brilliantly — the African continent is a well-defined entity, it is none the less true that modern technology has brought the continents closer together than regions or even neighbouring valleys were to one another in the not so distant past.
125. The proofs that they can fully achieve such international recognition exist already not only for the relatively old African States but also for those which have just become Members of the United Nations. Their presence among us has already, made itself felt in a manner full of wisdom and dignity. Many delegations, certainly my own, have been impressed by their culture, the profoundness of their political thinking and their spirit of serious and constructive international collaboration. We have found this spirit, to cite only one instance that applies to a great many cases, in their official acknowledgement of the fact that independence was undoubtedly earned and deserved, and that it was at the same time offered with dignity, good will and promptitude.
126. It is true that the deep satisfaction evoked by the achievement of political recognition on the part of a vast continent has been somewhat marred by the situation in the Congo (Leopoldville), to which independence was also offered with good will and promptitude, On behalf of my Government, I had the honour, during the fourth emergency special session of the Assembly, of taking a stand on this matter, which is as important as it is painful. It only remains, therefore, for me to repeat that we hope whole-heartedly that order and well-being will be restored in the Congo under a Central Government which is both effective and legal from the international point of View. We firmly believe that this can only be brought about if all nations abstain from any intervention in the Congo’s internal affairs, since any action along these lines will inevitably provoke interference by other parties and turn a peaceful and independent country in the heart of Africa into a vast battlefield of the cold war. This cold war, which Africa certainly does not want, is only too likely, if it finds a suitable battleground, to degenerate into war pure and simple.
127. We firmly believe, therefore, that all who are Sincerely interested in the independence and wellbeing of the Congo should accept and support the assistance which only the United Nations can offer, for the United Nations is supra-national and universal and hence able to act as a disinterested and pacifying mediator, and the United Nations has executive organs whose capability and objectivity have already been proved in all the great crises with which we have so far been faced. We are convinced that they are being Similarly proved in the Congo today, and we have confidence in the action of these organs. If we needed a further example, we were given it a very few days ago by a person who can certainly not be accused of conniving with the colonialists. I mean the statements of General Ben Hammou Kettani, Commander of the Moroccan contingent of the United Nations Force in the Congo, who said, as reported by the Press throughout the world, "The United Nations troops have done their duty and, thanks to them, the situation generally is calm”.
128. I should like now to speak; of the problem, by far the most important with which we have to deal, which occupies and more particularly preoccupies us all: namely, disarmament.
129. The need for the regulation of armaments is specifically referred to in the basic provisions of the Charter. This means that there was created for us all — and for all without exception — an obligation to make a start on disarmament. Today, fifteen years later, this obligation has not been fulfilled. On the contrary, the grave dangers created by the never-ending arms race are daily becoming more threatening. The entire international community is already faced with the spectre of total destruction. I mention these facts, which are only too well known, to emphasize our very heavy responsibility for the deadlock now affecting the disarmament question.
130. Despite the slaughter and the mountains of ruins caused by the Second World War and its aftermath, the progress in armaments during the past fifteen years has been gigantic. Rockets streak incessantly across the heavens while disarmament sinks deeper and deeper into a morass of endless discussions and printed matter.
131. While rearmament constitutes for all of us the real action and the real fact, disarmament appears for some States to belong only to the realm of words or propaganda. Thus, at the very moment when armaments are increasing and being perfected, disarmament has been made into a means, a tool, of political antagonism. In other words, disarmament has become a weapon. In our contemporary world where so many words have lost their true meaning, we have thus arrived at the paradox of disarmament itself becoming a weapon.
132; However, though facts must be faced, lamentations are useless and superfluous. Instead we must look closely at the problem and see what we can do.
133. The Greek delegation, which is here to convey the ardent faith of the Greek people in peace, freedom and security, will spare no effort to contribute, as it has in the past, to the progress of this matter within the framework of the various United Nations bodies engaged in this task. At the present time, the problem with which the General Assembly is faced is not that of finding a solution to the question itself, but rather of finding an adequate method whereby disarmament will cease to belong to the realm of words and will become a practical reality. In this connexion, I should like, very briefly, to describe the principles upon which my country's attitude to this problem is based.
134. It can, or rather must, be taken for granted that there is a basis of good will, but if we are to free ourselves from the present paralysis and avoid a descent into propaganda, the political aspect and the technical aspect, which together constitute the complex problem of disarmament, must be, separated. Considerations of a technical nature constitute the basis and at the same time the primary condition for the adoption of any political decision on this matter, it is natural, therefore, that the technical aspect, which is preliminary but decisive, should have priority over the purely political aspect. We believe therefore that there is one essential prerequisite.
135. As the Prime Minister of the United Kingdom so eloquently put it in his statement [877th meeting], disarmament under effective control — and more particularly certain aspects of control — should be the subject of expert study. The experts — specialists in disarmament, defence and the application and control of the proposed measures, and also technicians and scientists — should be called upon to submit their conclusions to the United Nations within a reasonable time, possibly determined in advance. Such an arrangement, I believe, would take into account the remarks made by Mr. Nehru, the Prime Minister of India, in the course of his brilliant statement [882nd meeting]. It may be pointed out in this connexion that the experience acquired in other fields has been encouraging in so far as the usefulness of dealing with similar problems by technical methods is concerned. I refer to the conference of experts at Geneva on the detection of nuclear explosions. I may even go so far as to say that the progress made by these experts is the greatest and the only really tangible achievement in the whole field of disarmament.
136. Today, at the political level, we speak of controls without knowing exactly what we mean. There is talk of balanced disarmament, the purpose of which is to protect one side from suddenly finding itself weaker than the other. There is good reason to sneak of this, for it is a serious obstacle that impedes effective progress, but we do not know exactly how this balanced disarmament can be brought about. Today the tremendous diversification of weapons, ranging from machine-guns to tanks, and from aircraft to nuclear missiles, makes an answer even harder to find. Tomorrow, on the other hand, after detailed study by experts, these questions and many more will be presented in their true light and in their exact and precise dimensions, and this will make it possible, at a second stage, to evaluate them and to take the necessary decisions at the political level.
137. I shall now go a step further by proposing that the discussion at the political level should take place not in the Ten-Nation Committee on Disarmament, but in a smaller committee whose membership would reflect that of the Assembly, or would at least include the Chairman of the United Nations Disarmament Commission, who is at this moment that very distinguished man, Mr. Padilla Nervo, representative of Mexico.
138. I shall venture to take yet another step forward, this time a somewhat more ambitious one, and propose a concurrent study of measures to strengthen peace by transforming the international community into a genuine community of law. The creation of a system of stable peace and security does not depend only on disarmament or, in other words, on the elimination of the means of exerting force, for such means will always exist. It depends rather on the replacement of force by legal standards and the rule of law. This is above all a problem of organization. It relates in particular to the settlement of international disputes, or at least various categories of international disputes, by compulsory recourse to international juridical institutions.
139. It is my impression that, at least in most cases, this is the best means of putting into effect the many injunctions to resort to peaceful methods for the settlement of international disputes. This is the second aspect and is just as important as disarmament to the problem of international peace and security. I therefore have the honour to propose that it should be seriously studied as an organizational problem, so that it too can subsequently be the object of decisions at the political level. Without this, I am very much afraid that we shall achieve nothing practical, and, as a great French statesman once said, politics, is the art of finding practical solutions.
140. As this aspect of the strengthening of peace is very important, I regard it as my duty at this point to make a few more general remarks.
141. The question of strengthening peace is becoming more and more a problem for the entire world. Steadily increasing interdependence in international relations, the ever more threatening danger of a general conflagration provoked by local Conflicts and the dizzy and ever-growing speed of the vehicles of death all prove that international co-operation and solidarity can only be fruitful and effective if they are universal. In other words, in the efforts to strengthen peace, it is difficult, in our day, to isolate any one sector or region from the whole,
142. If this statement is true in certain fields, it. is absolute in the vital sector of collective security. To the extent to which collective security is based upon disarmament, it will in practice be impossible to create local or regional security zones by isolating them from the security systems prevailing in the rest of the world. This observation is based upon entirely Objective criteria. These criteria have nothing of the political in them; they are purely technical, it is not a question of differences of opinion, but of facts as they are.
143. I need give only one example, which is a convincing one. When nuclear missiles can reach any corner of the globe, the concept of regional disarmament loses its significance, for a region which has no missiles can be attacked with missiles launched outside its boundaries.
144. The conclusion to be drawn is that general disarmament, which is the primary responsibility of the great Powers, constitutes the only possible and realistic answer to any idea of, or proposal for, regional disarmament.
145. It is in the light of these observations and with the reservations that I have just made, that the Greek delegation takes its position on the Romanian proposal, concerning “Actions on the regional level with a view to improving good neighbourly relations among European States having different social and political systems”, an item included on the agenda of the fifteenth session at the request of Romania [A/4440],
146. As a State which, while not bordering on Romania, is still its neighbour, and because we maintain not merely normal but good relations with that country, we have carefully studied the explanatory memorandum accompanying the proposal in question, as well as the relevant passage in the speech made {873rd meeting} by the chairman of the Romanian delegation, Mr. Gheorghiu-Dej.
147. Before making a few general remarks on this subject, I would like to draw attention to a certain contradiction between the title of the item and both the explanatory memorandum and the explanation given by the chairman of the Romanian delegation in his speech. In the original texts, as well as in the verbal explanations which we were given a short while ago, it was a question of European States in general, while from the speech the proposal appeared to be limited to the Balkans and the wish was clearly expressed that it be accepted by the Governments of Greece and Turkey only.
148. While this contradiction gives rise to some astonishment, it is still more surprising to hear Mr. Gheorghiu-Dej say, in another passage in his speech, that certain States in the Balkans and public opinion in all the Balkan countries have received the Romanian proposals with interest and sympathy. As far as my country is concerned, I would ask Mr, Gheorghiu-Dej and anyone else who likes to make a distinction between the wishes of the Greek public and those of the Greek Government and even frequently likes to draw conclusions on the basis of this distinction, I would request them, I repeat, to remember that six times since the war, six times in fifteen years, general elections have been held in Greece. The honesty and the validity of these elections have never been questioned by anyone. Hence complete and unassailable proof exists that the Greek Government alone expresses the will of the Greek people and represents them.
149. We, although we do not possess such unassailable proofs in regard to every country, have never made such distinctions between the will of peoples and the attitude of their Governments. We do not intend to do so in the future, nor shall we ask others to provide these proofs which we ourselves possess. We are satisfied if at the international level a Government is recognized as lawful. Since, however, this absurd distinction is, for propaganda purposes, being made insistently and at our expense by official personages (and has even been heard from this rostrum), it is necessary to make these remarks and to say that those who insist on this distinction may well impair the good relations that the freely-elected Greek Government, which alone legally and in fact represents Greece, wishes to maintain with them.
150. I Shall now revert briefly to the Romanian proposal as formulated in the official texts submitted to the United Nations. As I have just said, we have studied this proposal carefully. We are duly appreciative of the Romanian Government's intentions. We believe that its proposal contains some useful ideas with which we would in principle agree.
151. One constructive element is the observation that good neighbourly relations must and can be developed even between States with different political and social systems. This, in conjunction with the principle of non-intervention in internal affairs and the principle of mutual respect, is but a recognition of present realities and corresponds with the policy invariably followed by Greece
152. My Government is in no sense antipathetic to political or social systems differing from its own. Co-operation, and even close co-operation, with countries having a different system of Government, is for us both possible and desirable, provided there is sincere and complete mutual respect for existing treaties and for the independence and dignity of others and non-intervention in their domestic affairs. It is when this condition has not been respected that peaceful coexistence is endangered.
153. As far as Greece is concerned, whenever this principle has not been sincerely applied by a country, whether great or small, we have made it clear that coexistence was impossible. We have decided to maintain the same attitude in the future, for, whatever vicissitudes we may have to face, we shall defend our independence and our dignity, our honour and our philosophy of life without which existence for us is meaningless.
154. On the other hand, whenever this principle has been sincerely respected, we have been able to coexist harmoniously and even actively. To mention only one example, among several which affect us, and perhaps it is the most characteristic, I shall refer to our relations with Yugoslavia. Our co-operation is close in a number of peaceful activities. Last year we signed a series of agreements covering many aspects of our economic and cultural relations. Yet we live under entirely different political and social systems and, as is also known, hold different views on certain international questions. None the less the differences that I have just mentioned, and they are by no means unimportant, do not prevent a peaceful and active coexistence with Yugoslavia or keep us from being friends.
155. Another point in the Romanian proposal which is constructive and cannot be disputed is the emphasis on the need for the Governments concerned to pledge themselves, on the regional level, to refrain from violence and other aggressive acts in their bilateral relations.
156. Both points, however, have been the subject of earlier. General Assembly resolutions and are also dealt with in the Charter of the United Nations,
157. It would be futile to stress the concept that States must refrain from all acts of aggression in bilateral relations, since aggression in any sphere is strictly prohibited by the Charter. International law would be weakened if this prohibition was applied again in a more restricted field.
158. States must act in conformity with international law and maintain good and peaceful relations with one another, not because they are neighbours, but simply because they are members of the international community and of the United Nations.
159. It is true that within a particular region disputes and problems do arise between neighbouring States, but this only affects the parties concerned, who must settle their problems by respecting their international obligations and by giving effect to existing treaties. The violation of this principle is not a serious problem for a particular region, but a serious problem for the international community as a whole. But it would be dangerous to go beyond that observation and to admit the principle that the region, either directly or indirectly, has a right to intervene or interfere in the field of bilateral relations.
160. The same, of course, holds good when a region or even a continent wishes to give expression, in formal arrangements, to its racial and cultural affinities and their logical consequences.
161. I do not think there is any need for me to give my views on other proposals which have been made to us from this rostrum, not only because what I have just said is in the nature of a general reply, but above all because some weeks ago we indicated our first reactions to these proposals, and nothing more is needed for the time being.
162. I have never been in favour of long speeches. I trust that in the past and in this hall the President has had proof of this, in the course of our harmonious and peaceful coexistence. There are, however, at this critical moment certain subjects which I feel it is my duty to touch upon before conducing my statement.
163. I shall deal very briefly with the first of these points, but I am bound to answer it. One of the speakers who preceded me at this rostrum — and I refer to the representative of Albania — said [872nd meeting] that Greece has established rocket-launching bases on its territory and that these bases constitute a direct threat to the freedom and independence of Albania and of the Balkan area. I accordingly feel it to be my duty to state that the information is absolutely incorrect and that there are no rocket-launching bases in Greece. Even if, however, that were not so, the existence of these bases could only be attributed, in view of the fact that five times in a single generation Greece has been the victim of aggression from the north, to a legitimate concern to protect Greek territory and to that alone.
164. In a more general way I should like to take this opportunity to say that several factors make it imperative for Greece to be concerned about its independence and territorial integrity. While not neglecting other means, which unfortunately are not yet fully effective, the Greek Government in the matter of armaments and alliances is guided solely and exclusively by concern for the protection of its national territory. This is also true of various other countries. It is true of a country against which we have fought two appalling wars but which, after the Nazi orgy, is now, we believe, imbued with a true democratic spirit; everyone will realize that I am referring to the Federal Republic of Germany.
165. I shall now pass cm to a second point, which I shall likewise deal with briefly. My Government has on many occasions expressed its full and complete confidence in the Secretary-General personally and in his fellow workers; it believes that Mr. Hammarskjold and the staff of the Secretariat have been one of the essential factors in the successes So far achieved by the Organization in every field, and especially so in times of grave crisis.
166. Quite apart from these considerations, however, we are unable to accept the proposal to replace the office of Secretary-General by a collective body. A revision of the Charter to this effect would result in a complete weakening of the executive branch of the United Nations and would reduce its efficiency to nil. The great international crises through which we have passed in recent years have required immediate action; a delay even of one or two days might well have produced a number of victims which we should have greatly regretted, and such a delay could have plunged us into hazardous ventures. In an organization which embraces the whole world and can be suddenly called upon to take action in any part of the globe, the decision-making organs are and must be collective. Certain delays, which are sometimes extremely regrettable, cannot be avoided, but if to collective decision-making organs are added collective organs to carry out those decisions, the inevitable result will be, not regrettable and dangerous delays, but total immobility. If this were to happen and the executive organ, in times of grave crisis, had to spend days or even weeks discussing the meaning of decisions and the way in which they should be carried out, that organ would have no other duties to perform except to report on “faits accomplish”.
167. To say that the office of Secretary-General should not be collective is not intended to imply that we are against a more adequate representation of groups of States whose importance has increased as a result of the presence in our Organization of a considerable number of new Members. To accomplish this, we favour an increase in the membership of certain United Nations organs, such as the Security Council and the Economic and Social Council
168. Another vitally important question on which I feel that I should say a word or two is that of assistance to the under-developed countries. There are two aspects to this problem; the one concerns what is just and right, and the other, political obligations.
169. The Greek Government attaches the greatest importance to this matter. The question is vital to the whole human race, but it is being approached from the wrong angle. Effective action is hampered on the one hand because much is said and little is done, and on the other because the real nature of the problem is frequently not grasped. My country has had a great deal of experience in this regard because, after being covered with graves and ruins, it was able, through the hard work and ability of its people and the generous and unconditional aid given by the United States, to make a spectacular recovery within a period of ten years. I shall not in the Assembly either praise or make useless propaganda concerning this recovery which, suffice it to say, is still affording us further opportunities for development in certain fields.
170. On the basis of our own experience, I would like to point out that aid to under-developed countries is closely connected with the organization of production and the possibility establishing fair and reasonable prices for exports. Cases do exist — I could mention them if necessary — in which very substantial financial aid has been nullified and even counteracted by a simultaneous drop in exports. In such cases is there not a flagrant contradiction, and is it not true that instead of providing the under-developed countries with aid, we are placing difficulties in their way? In such cases, what ought these countries to do? They can, it is true, export on a bilateral basis, but that, as everyone knows, eventually leads to an. artificial economy and may have various undesirable consequences.
171. The under-developed countries can also ask for greater understanding and more open-mindedness and for a fair evaluation of the basic facts involved in their problem. However, to ask without receiving an adequate answer is no solution, and without a solution the under-developed countries cannot improve their level of living; they cannot even organize their .economy, since their exports, that is to say the existing basis of that economy, sometimes fall dangerously low. What must they do in such cases, which are unfortunately all too frequent?
172. This is most certainly not an appropriate time to formulate the answer. I would merely point out that the problem is basic, that it is complex and that often, unfortunately too often, it is dealt with inadequately, or even wrongly.
173. I promised that I would be brief. I know that the meaning of the word “brevity” cannot be stretched beyond certain limits. That is why I shall refrain from speaking of other important problems such as those of the Palestine refugees and of Algeria, and still others which are of interest to us both as Greeks and as members of the international community. Our delegation will, in any event, have an opportunity to state its point of view on these problems when they are debated.
174. Before leaving this rostrum, I should like merely to go back to the point with which I began my statement. The United Nations sprang from the suffering and destruction caused by the Second World War. In several instances it has saved us from further suffering and destruction. For many years we have Seen it at work both in the field of peaceful activities and in really difficult and grave moments.
175. This work has borne fruit. Even in the Congo crisis, the measure of success can be gauged merely by realizing what would have happened if the United Nations had not acted. It is more than probable that this new African State, which bears the imprint of civilization, and whose vigorous people have no less a right than others to aspire to independence and tranquillity, would have become, to say the least, the focal point of fierce local and international antagonisms and one of the most active theatres of the cold war or of war itself.
176. Almost all this has been avoided as a result of the action taken by the United Nations. Therefore let us try to maintain our Organization intact; let us preserve its efficiency and the atmosphere which has thus far prevailed but has now been disturbed.
177. The beginning of our proceedings, the happy event of the admission of so many new Members, the calm addresses of the speakers on the first day — in particular, the brilliant address of the head of the great democratic people of the United States [868th meeting] — all this entitled us to hope for a better atmosphere.
178. My delegation will do all it can to help to restore a calmer atmosphere more propitious to concerted action, for it fears that in the absence of such an atmosphere the United Nations, after fifteen years of constructive activities, will slide down a slope at the end of which dissolution awaits it. If that were to happen, the closer we came to the end of the slope, the louder and more numerous would be the laments uttered by mankind. May that never happen. May the United Nations preserve the character and efficiency that have been its customary marks up to this day.