It would be superfluous for me to echo here the clamour for peace heard from every pulpit and tribune in the world and featured in every issue of the Press all over the globe. The peoples of the world are in deadly earnest and in dire need of having their fears allayed and their anxieties calmed. Words can be of little use in pacifying this agonizing anguish clutching at their hearts and nerves. The sponsors of this Organization felt the pressing necessity for an efficient device to remedy the malady of our world by securing for mankind freedom from fear.
The Charter of the United Nations was meant to be the instrument for this device. Fifty-five nations composing this powerful Organization for peace — all of them supposed to be peace-loving — pledged themselves to the new undertaking. During the last two years they have been endeavouring to lay a solid foundation upon which to erect this peace structure, but till now the progress achieved has been rather insignificant.
War, with all its horrors still fresh in our minds, casts its inimical shadows on this situation. War and talk of war are still a feature of our age, as of all the ages, and the earnest efforts consistently made here are just as consistently neutralized by selfish exhibitions of national ambition. Small nations do not possess the necessary implements to maintain world peace, although they can sometimes disturb it. It is the great Powers which have the resources and implements and which have the ultimate capacity to ensure peace.
To do so, however, they need good will, self-denial and a sense of justice. Only their loyal solidarity can guarantee and realize the aspirations of the world for peace and justice. The world must be convinced that full agreement and complete understanding prevail among the leaders of the world and the fashioners of its policy. Only that solidarity and good will can dissipate the dominating fear of war today, replacing it with tranquillity and confidence.
We all know the source of this fear. It is the extravagant rivalry that now exists among the great Powers, so clearly renounced in the premises of the United Nations. It is a rivalry, in effect, between two social doctrines. Some common ground must be found to extinguish the flames of this rivalry before they spread too far. It is the urgent duty of the rivals to find this common ground among themselves, if they really intend to be faithful to their pledges under the Charter and to the magnificent declarations which they fervently and proudly proclaimed before the tribunes of the world and of this association.
We should not, however, allow despair to overcome us and triumph over our hopes. We count on the sound instincts and fair judgment of these prominent leaders not to defy the billions of eyes gazing on them and imploring them for peace.
There are certain measures which can be taken by the United Nations to safeguard peace and thwart the threat of war, and consequently, to pacify to a great extent the anguish of the peoples of the world. Should a third war be waged, it is greatly feared that it will be an atomic war, and that it will put an end to our civilization. To intercept this horrible eventuality the United Nations must accelerate the conclusion of definite conventions to be pledged and ratified by Member States, aiming at the prohibition of the use of atomic weapons and all other weapons adaptable to mass destruction, and at ensuring the world of strict control of atomic energy in its production and use. This problem has been studied in the respective organs of the United Nations for about twenty months, and yet the concrete result is still not in sight.
The unfortunate discovery of the means of releasing the formidable energy of atoms is now spreading fright throughout the world and bringing the prospect of misery rather than bliss to millions of mankind. If we are unable to eliminate this dangerous invention by turning it back to the mysteries of nature, we should at least chain it and render it incapable of sinking its fearful talons in the flesh of its prey.
Another measure which can be taken by the General Assembly for ensuring peace is the codification of international law in conformity with the principles and purposes of the Charter. The adherence, of all Member States to this law will greatly help in establishing the relationships between the nations on a solid basis and in avoiding numerous incidents which cause disputes and which arise from opposing views on the clauses of international law dealing with mutual obligations. The committees designated to study this subject have worked well and prepared good proposals which will be studied by the proper Main Committee during this session. It may be hoped that this achievement will aid in adjusting the behaviour of nations in their international relationships.
One of the principal safeguards for peace is the reduction of armaments and armed forces. The Security Council started the work in this respect, and displayed considerable effort in this field, but it is to be pointed out that there have been some dilatory matters which should be settled before any final or complete action can be taken.
One of these matters is the conclusion of the peace treaties with all ex-enemy States on the basis of justice and equity with a view to obtaining a stable readjustment of all pending questions to the satisfaction of all nations concerned, so that they may consider large standing forces no longer necessary, and so that the Security Council will be enabled to fix the size of the force to be kept in each State for the maintenance of internal public order or for self-defence, under Article 51 of the Charter. To realize this end, the General Assembly may make recommendations to the State concerned to expedite the course of work in the peace conferences and to submit the final treaties to be registered in the Secretariat of the United Nations.
Another matter which ought to be settled prior to the reduction of armaments is that of fixing the size of forces to be placed by the Member States at the disposal of the Security Council, in implementation of the provisions of Article 43 of the Charter. The Military Staff Committee and the Security Council may be urged to achieve this task without further delay so that the Security Council may proceed to prepare the agreement to that effect and in order that it may possess the capacity to maintain or restore peace wherever and whenever it may be necessary. This sanction is the only efficient way for peace.
The veto practice has been exercised on frequent occasions by one or another of the permanent members of the Security Council. I do not deny that this practice has been avoided in some cases by simple abstention. On the other hand, and in other cases, in the opinion of the majority, it was used unnecessarily, but in the opinion of the vote-holder himself it was necessary. As long as the vote-holder has that privilege under Article 27 of the Charter, there is no possible way to limit his freedom in exercising that right whenever he deems it useful to his objectives.
Many delegations have advocated amending the Charter in respect to Article 27. When this question is discussed in one of the Committees, it must be remembered that such amendments cannot come into force without the concurrent consent of the five big Powers. Care must be taken in that respect for the integrity and solidarity of the United Nations Organization.
The admission of new Members has been obstructed by equivocal preconceptions of the permanent member's of the Security Council. The qualifications of applicant States were not always measured by the requirements of the Charter. The idea of strengthening one bloc or weakening another played a principal role in the casting of votes. The Syrian delegation in this matter was actuated by Article 4 and paragraph 6 of Article 2 of the Charter, irrespective of any other responsibility. It would be advisable, in the present circumstances, for the General Assembly to make urgent recommendations to the Security Council to reconsider its resolution on this subject, especially after the ratification of the treaties, which were considered an obstacle and resulted in deferring for another time the consideration of five of the previous applicants.
The General Assembly in this session is seized with the problem of Palestine, by virtue of the report of the Special Committee constituted during the recent special session. For this purpose, my delegation, being primarily concerned with this subject because of the fact that Palestine is an integral part of Syria, may be allowed to dwell on this point. I feel obliged to explain to the General Assembly in this general debate the attitude of the Syrian Government and people regarding the report of the Special Committee, reserving the right of expanding on the details in the proper Committee.
As a first step, I venture to make a brief analysis of the recommendations presented by seven of the members of the Special Committee, to which the senior representative of the United States of America referred in his speech as worthy of being given “great weight” by the Government of the United States. I do not think he meant that his delegation must necessarily give full support to these recommendations, but hi view of such a statement, I feel it appropriate that the General Assembly should be acquainted with the views of my delegation in this regard.
We consider these recommendations are not in conformity with the terms of reference of the Special Committee nor with the Covenant of the League of Nations, nor with the principles of the Charter of the United Nations, nor with the principles of justice, nor with the facts of history and the principles of public rights. The proposal recommended the partition of Palestine into two separate States, granting the lion’s share to the Jews and depriving the rightful owners of the country of their homeland. The majority go so far, in their proposal, as to prepare a draft basis for a constitution, treaties and legislative bills to be forcibly imposed on the people of Palestine.
We cannot give weight to such recommendations; they violate one of the fundamental principles of the Charter — namely, the right of self-determination of peoples. This right of determining their fate and regime of government should belong to them alone, as well as the right to determine their relations with others.
In its terms of reference, the Special Committee was instructed by the General Assembly to study the question of Palestine in all its phases. One of these phases is the legal aspect, which should have been considered the most important, along with the political, social and economic aspects.
The Arab States, as well as several other delegations, raised this legal issue before the First Committee and before the General Assembly. They contested the legality of the Balfour Declaration and the exceptional terms of the Palestine Mandate. They emphasized the contradictory nature of these terms and their violation of and contradiction to the Covenant of the League of Nations, as well as to international law and the sacred rights of peoples. They presented substantial arguments to prove-their points.
But the First Committee did not consider this legal aspect at all. It gave it no attention. It overlooked the question of the illegality of the documents which gave birth to this problem. The Committee restricted its efforts to dealing only with the symptoms of the disease rather than with its causes.
Had it not been for that Mandate and its exceptional terms and stipulations, and the extravagant imperialistic ambitions of the First World War victors, Palestine would have remained as it used to be for centuries, a province of Syria.
Moreover, the Special Committee did not confine its liberality towards the Jews within the terms of the Mandate, but went much further, bestowing upon them a sovereign State instead of a national home, which was all that was provided for in the Mandate. Its members took the liberty of giving the term “national home” much wider scope than was intended and interpreted by the authors of the Declaration and the authors of the Mandate themselves. The term “national home” was never construed to mean a sovereign State.
The Arabs revolted against the idea of the national home, which was made possible only by the invasion of their fatherland and the settlement upon their soil of foreign immigrants under the protection of the bayonets and armed forces of a great Power. The Arabs never thought that this national home would undergo a metamorphosis which would turn it into a sovereign State.
The British Government, on many occasions and by decision of its Parliament, declared that it never intended to give the national home the significance of a State, and the Committee’s majority surpassed in liberality even the gratuities of the Mandate.
The Special Committee gave no weight to the explicit promises of His Britannic Majesty’s Government to King Hussein and other Arab officials and organizations in regard to recognizing the independence of Syrian districts, including Palestine.
During the second part of its first session, the General Assembly adopted a constitution covering all proceedings for the repatriation and resettlement of refugees and an agency was created for that purpose. The Special Committee was not asked to interfere in the functions of that organization. In spite of the fact that the aforesaid constitution adopted by the General Assembly prohibited the re-settlement of refugees in non- self-governing territories without the consent of the indigenous inhabitants or when such contemplated settlement might disturb friendly relations among Member States, the Committee deliberately visited the refugee camps and proposed the admission of a large number of the refugees in these camps into Palestine against the express will and the determined refusal of the great majority of the people of Palestine and against the refusal of the neighbouring States.
The Special Committee, in its report, denied to the Arabs the right of independence, alleging that the Arabs had never been an independent separate State in the past. For more than thirteen centuries Palestine has been an integral part of the Arab and Ottoman empires, enjoying all the rights and privileges and bearing all the duties and responsibilities of the other provinces of the empire, including the prerogatives of independence and sovereignty. When any province is detached from an independent State of which it was an integral part, it is unfair to deny it the right of independence on such a flimsy allegation.
The Committee assumed that the Jews are a race and a nation entitled to cherish national aspirations. The Jews are not a nation. Every Jew belongs to a certain nationality. None of them in the world is now stateless or without nationality. In their entirety they embrace all the nationalities of the world. Nor are the Jews a race. The Children of Israel today are a very small fraction of the Jewry of the world, for the Jews are composed of all races of mankind from the Negroes to the blond, fair-skinned Scandinavians. Judaism is merely a religion and nothing else. The followers of a certain religious creed cannot be entitled to national aspirations.
Suppose the Quakers, who have their majority in the United States, were to rally their congregations and demand that the United States Government should satisfy their national aspirations for a national home and give them some state like Texas, for instance, to be established for them as a sovereign State. I do not know what would be the attitude and the reaction of the leaders of United States policy in such a case.
There are many religions in the world. The Charter did not recognize the establishment of any State on the basis of religion. States are established on the basis of their existence as nations, irrespective of religion, creed, faith, colour, race, and so on.
The Committee assumed the validity of the Jewish claim to Palestine on the basis of historical rights in that country. What are these historical rights? In the report of the Committee, it is stated that the Jews had a dynasty in Palestine two thousand years ago. Everybody knows that all civilized rules of prescription hold that when rights are neglected for such a long time, they are lost. Even the right to property would be proscribed after the lapse of a few years — a maximum of thirty years. But after 2,000 or 2,500 years, what kind of right would be based on historical rights?
Everybody knows how the Jews first came to Palestine. They were not the original inhabitants of Palestine. They came from outside as invaders, massacring everybody before them, and killing every living creature in order to take a small part of Palestine on the eastern side in the mountains. Even Jerusalem was not occupied by them until the days of David in the tenth century before Christ.
According to the proposal of the majority of the Special Committee, the Jewish State is to be on the seacoast. The seacoast was always held and fought for by the Philistines. The name of Palestine is taken from the Philistines of history, of antiquity, who fought against the Jews and strove with them for a very long period, and did not allow them to reach the seacoast. The country now given to the Jews was never occupied by the Jews and the Jews never settled there. It is not a historical principle which has been adopted. It is simply some fantastic dream of the Zionists who wish to have that country for themselves. When the Jews had that dynasty in Palestine, 2,500 years ago, there were many other tribes and nations which flourished at that time. They all disappeared, and do not exist now. There were the Babylonians, the Sumerians, the Akkadians, the Assyrians, the Phoenicians and the Hittites.
There were so many nations that contributed greatly to the civilization of the world and which were stronger and more powerful than the Jewish dynasty. Yet we find none of them in existence now. They were not exterminated; they were assimilated by their invaders and became adapted to the environments in which they found themselves. Of the peoples of antiquity only the Jews maintain their isolation and seclusion, to the dissatisfaction and anger of their compatriots and their neighbours, who never failed to molest and persecute them, on each occasion giving to the world a problem of refugees; a problem of displaced persons. Not a single century in history has been free from such a problem as we now face. The world has always been faced with the problem of Jewish refugees and displaced persons and Jewish persecution at some time or other. Why is that? The only reason is the special manner of life which the Jews adopt for themselves and to which they adhere in spite of all the developments and the metamorphoses which have taken place all over the world for all nations. The Jews are all alone, and the United Nations now is faced with the last, but not the least, of these problems. It is as important as any ,of the previous problems.
In order to solve this problem, I understand that the Jews wish to have a sovereign State. It would be extraordinary to find judges who would admit that claim and admit also the historical claim for Palestine. It would be very strange to reach that point of view.
The USSR prepared a way to satisfy this Jewish aspiration, as it was asserted that they have aspirations which ought to be satisfied. The USSR gave them a certain area which was vaster than Palestine, and called it the Jewish Socialist Republic of Birobidzhan. Birobidzhan has an area, as I have said, which is more than double the area of Palestine, and already there are about 200,000 Jews who have immigrated there and who are very happy. The country there is sufficient to contain perhaps all the displaced Jews, and more than that number. They say it can contain' about four million people. The soil there is very fertile, and there are rich mineral deposits and virgin forests. They have established textile and other industries there. They are exporting to other countries.
I do not see why the International Refugee Organization has not thought of taking the displaced Jews of Europe to that country to live happily with their co-religionists and save the world from this problem which has given so much annoyance and difficulty to all the Members of the United Nations and the world in general.
Finally, in that respect, I should like to state that the Arabs are convinced that the United States of America, whose money finances the widespread Zionist propaganda and their terroristic underground activities, is able, if it wishes, to ' put an end to all these evils, and render, by such an act of justice and fairness, an honest service in support of the principles of the United Nations. United States arms and money are freely sent to other countries to aid a majority against the opposition of a minority within the same nation. But in the case of Palestine, United States arms and' money are willingly sent to aid a minority of intruders against the lawful indigenous majority, and against the mandatory authority itself. It requires a great amount of tolerance and hypocritical courtesy to refrain from denouncing such an equivocal attitude.
In conclusion, I must solemnly state that the peace-loving Syrian and Arab peoples squarely oppose the recommendations of the Special Committee, and will never allow a wedge or a foreign hostile bridgehead to be driven into the heart of their fatherland. They expect that this great Organization, which was created to maintain peace, may be reminded that justice is the only safeguard of peace. They also earnestly hope and wish that they shall not be compelled by acts of injustice to have no other course but to resort to the sacred right of self-defence.