For some time prior to the beginning of the present session,. statesmen and the Press have been indulging in comments on the importance of the General Assembly’s work and in forecasts of the course it might take. The range of opinion reflected a diversity of views with respect to the United Nations itself.
I agree with those who maintain that the present Assembly is of exceptional importance, both because of the time at which it is being held, and because of the seriousness of the problems with which it is faced.
With regard to the general international situation, I should like to make a rapid survey of the problems which confront us. They can be divided into two groups: one group concerns the liquidation of the aftermath of the war; the other the building up of the peace.
In conformity with the Allies’ decisions, each of these problems has been allocated to a separate body. The United Nations is only concerned — -and rightly so — with the problem of peace. History teaches us that in the past when these problems have been merged in a single body the results have been rather questionable.
That is why the Polish Government considers that this division should be retained until the last traces of the war have been finally eradicated.
The reason I mention the dual nature of these problems is that the methods of approach and decisions adopted in the one sphere must necessarily have some effect on the other.
Wrong or inappropriate methods of settling the problems left in the wake of the war, overeagerness to forget the differences between the aggressors — who constituted the greatest menace to the entire world — and the victims of their aggression, may have very grave consequences for the building of the peace. That is how these problems are so closely linked, and that is why I wish to speak of these problems on behalf of a country which has a right to express its views.
I do so, moreover, because the Polish Government attaches great importance to the United Nations; it is anxious to see its authority strengthened; it is anxious that it should function properly, as an organization to build the peace and safeguard international security.
I think that a discussion of these problems as a whole should furnish us with directives which will determine the activity of the United Nations in the immediate future. Peace for future generations is going to depend on how these two problems are solved, and organizing peace is clearly the essential aim of our Organization.
I do not intend to speak about the problems created by the aftermath of war in the Far East, problems which are little known in Poland. But I should like to concern myself with the problems of Europe, that part of the world which has suffered most from the consequences of the war, and which, to the members of the Polish delegation, is the nearest and most familiar.
Among the most important tasks, we place the reconstruction of the devastated countries and the raising of the standard of life in these countries to a level which will safeguard the development of the present generation and the education of future generations.
When the United Nations was born — that is, during the final victorious stage of the war — the Allies were agreed on the necessity for mutual aid, especially for those allied nations which had sacrificed human life and material wealth unsparingly in the struggle against the common enemy.
That was the purpose of UNRRA, which greatly contributed to the work of reconstruction, and truly exemplified United Nations solidarity. Unfortunately, the activities of UNRRA ceased prematurely.
I take this opportunity once more to express our gratitude to all who contributed to UNRRA’s work, and in particular to the people of the United States.
If we look at what is happening now, only a few months after the termination of UNRRA, we shall come to the conclusion that ideas have become somewhat confused and that we have gone a long way from the fundamental conceptions of the United Nations, from the spirit, and even from the letter of the Charter.
In reality, we are already aware of a tendency to wipe out the differences between aggressor and victim; between those who aided the aggressor to the very end, under the guise of neutrality, and those who suffered the tragic consequences of his violence. Attempts are being made to establish new criteria, a new division among nations, which would relegate to the background the close co-operation between the United Nations which prevailed in time of war.
But the purpose of this co-operation was not only to bring about the military collapse of the fascist aggressor, but also to eliminate the possibilities of fresh aggression, latent in the hotbeds of fascism. When the Charter was signed, the representative of Poland stated clearly that if the centres of fascism survived, they might develop into a source of grave political compli cations. We are forced to note with dismay that Spain is still governed by Franco, that henchman of Hitlerism, and that the denazification and democratization undertaken in the western zones of Germany have not removed from power the representatives of Hitlerism.
Unfortunately, new criteria have been proposed, on the basis of which appeals have been made to help in the reconstruction of Germany, while the victims of German aggression receive no such aid. In this way an attempt is being made to return to the conditions which existed before 1939, conditions which led straight to the world war. What were those conditions? At that time Germany enjoyed economic hegemony in Europe which forced other European countries to depend upon her till at last they fell under her political domination. Then it was only one more step to German aggression.
In order to eliminate the slightest tendency to fresh aggression such as might be encouraged by too rapid a process of reconstruction in Germany, we must create a new balance of power. Indeed, a new equilibrium is being formed. The speeding up of German reconstruction is actually a repetition of the errors committed in the period between the two wars; its results are contrary to the interests of the peace and security not only of Germany’s neighbours, but of the whole world. Therefore, any tendency to revert to the status quo is dangerous because it puts a premium on aggression. Such a policy does not eradicate war; it merely lays the foundation for a state of affairs comparable to that which existed previously and develops a new breeding-ground of aggression.
We note with regret that this new state of affairs is being created by unilateral actions contrary to international agreements such as the Potsdam Declaration. Thus, an attempt is being made to divide the world into two blocs, to separate the greater part of Europe from the rest of the world. With respect to Germany, I shall repeat what the Polish Government has already stated several times: we are prepared in the future to enter into normal international relations with a democratic and peace-loving Germany; we do not wish to build a wall around our country.
However, in the process of European reconstruction, in the liquidation of the aftermath of the war, and even in the construction of world peace, we wish a certain hierarchy to be maintained, an order of priority not only based on needs, but also taking into account the relations between Allies and enemy countries.
We are not opposed to a settlement of Germany’s economic problems; Poland has no desire to delay the settlement of problems resulting from the war. We consider that this settlement must be accelerated, but this can be done only by harmonious co-operation between all the Allies, by respecting international agreements not by by-passing them. Such methods cannot but create a lack of confidence, particularly among the nations which have been the victims of aggression.
In the field of economic reconstruction we are struck by the fact that it is taking place in a highly irrational manner. In an era when mankind is capable of rationalizing, hastening and organizing the most complicated processes in the laboratories of science, sound principles are rejected in seeking the most effective way of putting economic processes into operation, and we find »a reversal to methods based on selfish and narrow interests and to an illiberal political outlook which takes a warped view of the economic situation from the outset and makes economic stability illusory, or in any case doubtful.
For what is the most characteristic feature of the European reconstruction plan so widely discussed recently? This plan precludes the possibility of obtaining large-scale results at relatively small cost. On the contrary, under the conditions laid down in advance, this plan must entail large outlays on consumption goods, and holds out little prospect of any real increase in production at a time when the wealth of the world is already extremely limited and unequally distributed.
We Poles do not consider the problem one of general aid, but one of reconstruction and an expansion of productive capacity.
There can be no question of reconstructing Europe by a system which does not spring from economic needs, but is derived from the political plans of those who now possess the resources and who impose their own economically irrational standards.
That is why, two and a half years after the end of the war, conditions in many European countries which theoretically emerged as victors are worse than they were during the war.
By way of illustration, let us take the example of certain allied countries in which the bread ration is said to be 200 grams, whereas the Germans are to receive 500 grams.
At the very moment that UNRRÀ relief is being terminated — for it was a wartime expedient — not only have the United Nations been unable to invent any better method, but on the contrary, the system of European reconstruction which has been proposed constitutes a step backward.
I am sorry to say that the United Nations -and those of its organs which were best equipped to help the work of reconstruction in Europe have not been taken into consideration, although only recently it was admitted that they had a most important task to fulfil. This fact is obviously inconsistent with the emphasis which should be laid on the work of our Organization.
May I express the hope that the voice of a nation which lost more than six million of its citizens will be heard and appreciated at its true worth by the speaker who preceded me on this rostrum, and 'who has made such a great contribution to the defeat of the German aggressor?
I should also like to state, in the name of the Polish delegation, that the Polish Government cannot be a party to this kind of reconstruction or to this method of settling the problems resulting from the war.
Furthermore, I reiterate, on behalf of the Polish Government, that it will oppose in every way any attempts to divide the world, and Europe in particular, into two camps, and that it will not permit Poland to be cut off by the “iron curtain” so mysteriously constructed by certain elements frustrated in their efforts to subordinate Poland.
The Polish Government is maintaining and developing economic relations with most of the nations here present. Its intention is to extend and cultivate those relations with all freedom-loving peoples. We are ready to conclude cultural, economic and political treaties with all free peoples, whether they live east or west of the Oder or the Elbe.
By making ever larger exports of coal, by developing her industry and agriculture, and by the exchange of goods, Poland is taking part, and will continue to take part, in rebuilding Europe and wiping out the material effects of the war.
By her democratic attitude and her struggle against all breeders of fascism, Poland is taking part, and will continue to take part, in wiping out the moral effects of the war.
What is the present position as regards the problem of building the peace?
I am far from sharing in the pessimism that now prevails or the clamour that is made about a third world war, but I cannot but note that we shall have to overcome great difficulties in building a lasting peace. The obstacles we are meeting are no surprise to the Polish delegation. They are evidence of lack of faith in the' great motivating ideas of the struggle to defeat aggression and stamp out the germs of that aggression.
Despite my optimism, I must nevertheless admit that, at the present moment, while the United Nations are deliberating, there is no peace in Indonesia, or in Greece, or in Palestine.
The situation in these three countries has already been discussed in the Security Council, and the problem of Palestine was discussed during a special session of the United Nations General Assembly. I do not intend at the present moment to expatiate on how these questions were dealt with. I am rather concerned about the problem in all its aspects.
In Greece, the problem of peace arises from the fact that it is impossible to govern — and hence to keep a Government in power — against the will of the overwhelming majority of the nation, if not of the entire nation. That is why the attempts to cast the blame for the civil war in Greece on neighbouring countries are not conducive to peace, but serve rather to fan the flames of war. When the question of the presence of foreign troops on Greek soil was first raised in the Security Council, the Polish delegation was averse to scrutinizing the aims and intentions of those who dispatched those troops. The fact remains, however, that their presence has not only failed to restore peace; it has, on the contrary, as nearly two years have shown us, been responsible for prolonging the civil war. That is why now, as then, the United Nations must adopt an attitude consistent with the sovereign right of the Greek people to determine its own destiny and must call for the withdrawal of foreign troops from Greece, and for an end to foreign interference in Greek affairs.
The Greek nation, for which Poles have always felt deep sympathy, made a heroic stand against invasion by the troops of Mussolini and Hitler, and has clearly proved by its past history its ability to determine its own destiny.
The problem which arises from the war launched by the Netherlands in Indonesia is a similar case. This question was also considered by the Security Council early last year. At that time a minority proposal supported by Poland, advocating the dispatch of a commission to study existing conditions and help towards a peaceful solution of the problem of the independence of the seventy million inhabitants of Indonesia, was rejected. It would probably have prevented bloodshed; peaceful discussion, instead of guns, could have been used to settle the question of the free development and co-existence of sovereign peoples in that part of the world.
With regard to the Palestine problem our position is well known. I shall have occasion to refer to it again in greater detail after having studied the report of the United Nations Special Committee. We are not indifferent to the fate of the Jews. I should like to draw attention to the unanimity of that Committee on one point — the necessity for withdrawing foreign troops in order to permit a peaceful settlement of this problem.
The Polish delegation takes a similar view on the question of the evacuation of British armed forces from Egypt and the Sudan.
The disarmament question is an integral part of the problem of building the peace. The Polish delegation considers it wrong to deal with disarmament by dividing weapons into categories: major weapons, minor weapons, most lethal weapons, etc. Either we have disarmament or we do not have it. I realize that in practice disarmament can be achieved only in stages. Nevertheless, the principle should be a single one of general application; it should apply to all categories of weapons, including atomic weapons.
I wish to take this opportunity of stating that Poland has not waited for the results of the discussion on disarmament before taking the initiative in reducing her armed forces to a strength not only ‘ relatively below that of the post-war period, but also below pre-war strengths. At present the Polish armed forces are 142,000 fewer than at the end of 1938. This means a reduction of about 50 per cent. Similarly, while military expenditure in 1939 accounted for 33 per cent of the Polish State budget, and between 1927 and 1930 was in the neighbourhood of 30 per cent, this expenditure in 1947 amounted to only 11.8 per cent. I might add that only 40 per cent of men of military age are at present serving with the colours in Poland. Moreover, our industrial reconstruction plan does not provide for the replacement of war material.
»
I think that what I have said may serve as an encouragement to other nations, particularly those who complain of having to endure heavy military expenditure and at the same time of being unable to put the whole of their productive machinery into operation owing to shortage of man-power.
Moreover, with regard to disarmament, the Polish delegation reserves the right to submit a motion with the purpose of expediting decisions on this matter.
Recently, reference was made in the United Nations to the lack of unanimity in the voting of the great Powers, and an attempt has been made to attribute the series of failures attending the examination of various questions in the Security Council to the use of that right which is wrongly called the right of veto. I should like here and now to declare that the Polish delegation is categorically opposed to any attempt to revise the principles of the Charter. Not long-ago we all agreed that the maintenance of peace requires the maintenance of unity of action by the great Powers. The unanimity rule was born of this necessity; it still exists, and that is why those who would seek heedlessly to undermine, this principle bear, in my opinion, a heavy responsibility.
The Polish delegation considers that the best way to strengthen the authority of the United Nations and its organs is the following: (1) to carry out the obligations arising from the signing of agreements regulating international relations, and not to interpret them unilaterally and violate them; (2) not to by-pass the United Nations when steps of decisive importance for international relations have to be taken, but to act through the intermediary of the United Nations and after previous agreement with it, or with organs of the United Nations specially created for the purpose; (3) to give realistic and objective consideration to the problems placed before the United Nations and, above all, to examine them in their political implications.
The implementation of these three principles, and the establishment of an atmosphere of sincere co-operation based on equality and mutual respect, will make the United Nations an effective guiding force in building up good neighbourliness. In this way the unanimity rule will not be a stumbling block; on the contrary, in accordance with the idea which, lay behind its formulation, it will truly be an instrument for strengthening the authority of the United Nations and confidence in that body.
The weakness of the League of Nations lay in its lack of universality as well as in the absence of sanctions. From this point of view the United Nations is in an infinitely better position. What must be done, then, to strengthen still more the authority of our Organization, and make its action more effective?
The Polish delegation considers that; the primary need is to return to the methods of work which were used during the early period of the Organization’s existence. It is said that during the war it was possible for great and small Powers to collaborate, for they had a well-defined enemy — the aggressor, fascism, the enemy of progress and of the free development of liberty-loving peoples. Today, in the tasks of building the peace and solving the problems resulting from the war, the enemy is no less clearly defined: it is the selfishness of groups whose petty interests blind, them to the need for the unity of peoples — a unity free of all discrimination, racial or political, national or social. The peoples of the world, the ordinary folk, do not desire conquest; they are anxious only for constructive work and peace.
Just as no nation fought a separate war against the common enemy, just as the United Nations fought a total global war against fascist aggression, so today the peace cannot be built according to any one nation's system. Peace must be built for all the peoples of the world and by all the peoples, great or small, rich or poor. There is not, and there cannot be, any settlement of the problems resulting from the war by applying any one exclusive system. For an effective settlement of these problems must be achieved through a common effort and the application of a single criterion; he who can help most will give most help; he who most needs help, and who can produce the best results from this help, will' receive the most help.
In the name of the whole nation, the Polish delegation appeals to all the peoples whose representatives are here assembled. It exhorts them to rise above the special interests of selfish groups, to consolidate and develop the splendid ideas contained in the United Nations Charter, to implement the Charter by measures requisite for the creation of a durable and indivisible peace, to raise the general standard of living while respecting the rights of peoples great and small, regardless of race, religion and social ideology.
That will be the guiding force in the work of the Polish delegation during the present session, and that is the hope cherished by the Polish people with regard to the results of our deliberations.