The United Nations, and particularly those among them which directly experienced the horrors of war and spared no effort to gain the victory, believed — and still believe — that the Charter of the United Nations embodies the fundamental principles which guided the Allies to victory and which form the only basis on which organized world peace can be founded.
There can be no doubt that the statesmen who led the Allied peoples in the war of liberation and opposed Hitler’s bid for world domination voiced not only the interests, but also the conscious will of mankind when they laid the foundations of our Organization The fundamental principles of the United Nations — international collaboration based on mutual respect and the Concept of the sovereign equality of nations — undoubtedly correspond to the deep and age-old aspirations of all mankind. Consequently, these principles alone can serve as a basis for lasting peace throughout the world. For that reason our Organization represents an important step forward in the relationship between nations; and for the same reason the United Nations Charter is an instrument of concord, peace and progress.
Yet now that this Organization has been in existence for two years, the peoples are rightly beginning to ask themselves whether the hopes they placed in it are justified. This doubt is engendered, not by the principles on which the United Nations is based, nor by its structure, but by the policy followed by the Governments of certain influential Members. Several countries, which are among the founders of the United Nations and are also permanent members of the Security Council, are pursuing a policy which deviates from the principles of the United Nations Charter, which is incompatible with the Charter, and which is sometimes even opposed to the development of "friendly relations among nations based on respect for the principle of equal rights and self-determination of peoples”, as well as to "the principle of the sovereign equality of all its Members”.
It is because of this policy that the past year has abounded in events which have incontestably worsened international relations, and which are premonitory signs of the growing danger of another war.
At the request of the United States Government — in other words, the Government of the country which more than any other is today in a position to lend economic assistance to other countries, and whose people realize the moral obligation of giving such assistance, since the United States is the only one of the principal Allies whose production capacity grew during the war, while the economy of most of the other Allies suffered seriously — at that Government’s request, I say, UNRRA, one of the greatest monuments to the brotherhood of the freedom- loving peoples, was wound up at our last session. During the past year the principle of bilateral treaties of economic assistance has been applied, but at the same time certain States have been refused this assistance in flagrant disregard not only of the spirit, but also of die letter of General Assembly resolution 48(1) on relief needs after the termination of UNRRA.
Yugoslavia, the country which, during the Axis occupation, offered the strongest resistance to the occupying forces by forming an organized army within the “fortress of Europe”, was excluded from the list of countries which were to receive the proposed assistance, and this in virtue of a law passed in Congress. This was manifestly a case of political discrimination. And this discrimination goes to even greater lengths. Most of the gold reserve of the National Bank of Yugoslavia, which had been saved from Hitler’s clutches and at a time of dire necessity sent to the United States, an Allied country in which we had complete confidence, has been kept here and has not yet been restored to its rightful owner. There is still another fact I should like to mention. Last spring, while Yugoslavia was suffering from a food shortage due to last year’s bad harvest, UNRRA was prevented from purchasing in this country for cash the potatoes we needed for food and seed, on the pretext that they could not be dispatched to Yugoslavia as all available shipping had been set aside for transporting food to Germany.
This year, outside the framework of the United Nations, an enterprise commonly known as the Marshall Plan for Aid to Europe has been organized. So far the development of this action has made it clear to everybody that its real object is to divide Europe, create a western bloc dependent on America and aimed against the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics and the new democracies, and endeavour to isolate the latter behind a dollar curtain.
This plan, however, is but one aspect of the international action undertaken in the name of the Truman Doctrine — a doctrine which proclaims and tries to justify interference in the domestic affairs of other countries whenever this is deemed necessary by a Government which sets itself up as a world arbiter, and as a judge, and seeks to place itself above all other Governments and even above the United Nations.
This role is costing the United States billions of dollars. True, this money is being spent with the idea of reconstructing and stabilizing foreign countries. But what is actually happening in the countries whose Governments are getting this large-scale assistance from America? What is going on in China? According to official United States data, the quantities of American war material sent to China during the first three months after the end of the war were greater than those despatched during the whole duration of the world war. What is happening in Greece? In Greece, with American money, war is being waged against a people devoted to the cause of freedom.
As for Western Europe, France, Italy, and certain other countries are quite obviously unable to find a way out of their post-war difficulties. The black market flourishes, the cost of living is rising, and fascist elements are raising their heads and once more proving dangerous. These countries, including Germany and Austria, are a paradise for the quislings and traitors of Eastern Europe, who live and operate there freely, pursuing their propaganda in favour of an atomic war against their countries of origin not only verbally and in writing, but also through their own radio transmitters. Even some of the worst war criminals, who according to our unanimous resolution 3(I) of last year should have been handed over to the authorities of the countries in which they perpetrated their heinous deeds, go free in several of these States. We must note, when speaking from this platform, that thus far no Italian war criminal has been handed over to Yugoslavia, although no one can deny the gravity of the crimes they committed in our country during the war and occupation. You will probably be surprised to hear that the commander of Mussolini’s Second Army. General Roatta, a war criminal who had thousands of hostages shot, and who burnt down hundreds of villages in my country, has recently published his war memoirs in Rome.
In this connexion I must also emphasize that armed fascist bands have already made their appearance in Italy, and are back at their despicable work penetrating the same crimes as those committed before and after Mussolini’s rise to power. A week ago, these criminals carried out their first large-scale attack against the Slovenes of the Julian Marches who, during the twenty-five years of Mussolini’s dictatorship, were the victims of pitiless repression.
You know that the frontier in the neighbourhood of Trieste and Gorizia has recently been modified as a result of the entry into force of the Peace Treaty, A few days beforehand; and manifestly in anticipation of this, these fascist bands, together with troops of the Italian regular army, entered Gorizia and perpetrated countless acts of violence against the Slovene population, maltreating the inhabitants and looting their homes. In the New York Times of 20 September 1947 this was referred to as “hunting the Slovenes”. During these outbreaks of anti-Slovene violence, the Italian fascists publicly burnt thirty thousand Slovene books. This took place on 14 September, two days before the opening of our present session.
Such is the state of affairs in Italy, a country whose Government, as you know, slid toward the right during the past year, and under very curious circumstances. The consensus of world public opinion is that the State Department did not play the least important role in this process.
The picture presented by the eastern European countries is in striking contrast to all this. There, notwithstanding the tremendous devastation of war, reconstruction is making rapid strides. Democratic institutions are settling down in an atmosphere of peace, hard work, and growing stability.
We cannot attribute to mere chance the fact that these are precisely the countries which reject outside interference in their affairs, which have
no hand in enterprises like the Marshall Plan and which look only for loyal international collaboration in keeping with the principles of the United Nations.
Faithful to these principles, the USSR has given assistance to certain war-devastated countries, but has not asked for any privileges or any control in return. This has rendered very read assistance to the peoples of these countries. The people of France, too, have experienced its benefits.
Naturally, the Governments which pursue a policy contrary to the principles of our Organization, regard the Charter, and any decisions taken by us here in the spirit of the Charter, as undesirable obstacles.
I have no intention of listing here all the articles of the Charter and all the decisions of the last General Assembly which various Governments have failed to comply with during the year. The list would be a lengthy one. What I must stress, however, is the open and direct attack on one of the fundamental principles of the Charter: the rule of the unanimity of the great Powers. There is an effort to Weaken and at the same time circumvent Article 27 by setting up a special, committee on security in which the principle of unanimity would not apply. The establishment of such a committee would constitute a major alteration in the structure of our Organization. Without following the procedure provided for revising the Charter, and under the designation of a “subsidiary” body, an organ would thus be set up which in point of fact I would take the place of one of the essential organs of the United Nations. This, in reality, would be tantamount to establishing a new organization different from ours.
Such a situation, both in the world and in this Organization, throws fresh light on one of the most serious problems this Assembly has to face.
The so-called Balkan Question was settled by victory in the war of liberation. With the exception of Greece, where the great Powers are continuing, in a new form, their old game of imperialist power politics, all the Balkan peoples have shaken off the age-old yoke in order to live free and independent at last, in concord and friendship — an aim which is at the same time in keeping with the interests of world peace.
Nevertheless, the Greek problem still exists , and has become an international one; but for this neither the Greek people nor their neighbours are responsible.
Allow me to recall a few facts of history which confirm my words and which, you will all agree, do not require any international inquiry for their verification.
British troops entered Greece at the moment when the Hitlerite army collapsed in the Balkans, after Greece had been liberated by her own people’s army. At no time did these troops come m contact with the fleeing German units, but on the contrary they turned their weapons against the Greek people’s army.
At the time, the world Press published reports revealing that British guns had shelled Athens from the Acropolis at die very moment when the British Prime Minister, Mr. Churchill, arrived on board a warship. Such action is known the world over as “armed intervention”.
It is not surprising that after such intervention Greece had a regime which was on the best of terms with the United Kingdom Government, and that representatives of the latter played a direct part in the administration of the country. As a nuance of this, I should like to quote an exchange of letters between Mr. Leeper, then the British Ambassador, and Mr. Voulgaris, then Prime Minister of Greece. These letters, dated 8 May 1945 (No. 221/34/45) and 12 May 1945 (No. 6944), recognized that the British Mission in Athens had absolute competence in connexion with organization, administration, the training of gendarmes and police, and the Greek prison service.
The nature of the regime thus established, in which active quislings held posts as high as that of Minister of Public Safety, is illustrated by the following passage from the report of the Commission of Investigation set up by the Security Council:
“This body of evidence was to the effect that opposition political groups in Greece had been subject to persecution in violation of the Varkiza Agreement of 12 February 1945, and that the civil rights of the Macedonian and Chamuriot minorities had been restricted. The persecution of opposition groups was said to have taken the form of large-scale arrests, of imprisonment or exile, beatings and other brutalities and the burning of houses as a punitive measure. The evidence indicated that this persecution was conducted by some members of the Greek gendarmerie and by officially tolerated right-wing bands...”
The valiant Greek people, which heroically shed its blood during a long and devastating war, resisting an enemy so vastly superior as the Italian and German fascists, could not resign itself to such an unworthy fate. It therefore decided to resist the unbearable regime of a minority established and maintained by foreign intervention.
Such is the chain of events which has led to the present war in Greece.
Considering the danger to international peace and security which was inherent in the course of events in Greece, the Yugoslav Government drew the attention of the major Allies to this problem in 1945. This same problem was subsequently raised twice before the Security Council: once by the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics and a second time by the Ukrainian Soviet Socialist Republic.
Mr. Tsaldaris himself admitted at the time that the struggle taking place in his country involved other factors, which had no bearing on the allegations contained in the charges brought against Greece’s northern neighbours. On 12 August 1946, he said to the correspondent of The Times of London: “The present activity of Greek anarchist bands in northern Greece raises only a purely internal Greek question on the maintenance of law and order among the Greek population.” “He did not think,” the correspondent adds, “that these guerrilla activities could be regarded in any way as an issue between Yugoslavia and Greece.”
A few months later, however, Mr. Tsaldaris, perhaps after having consulted the oracle at Delphi — or somewhere else — expressed a diametrically opposite opinion, obviously in an attempt to absolve the Greek regime and its protectors from any responsibility and to attribute it elsewhere. He then brought charges alleging that Greece’s northern neighbours were helping Greek guerrillas.
Mr. Tsaldaris’ regime and the United States Government have now gone further. They are accusing Greece’s northern neighbours of threatening that country’s independence and even its integrity. This assertion was of course warmly welcomed by all the warmongering Press, which exploited it for its own ends, by sounding the alarm, in the style of Goebbels, against Yugoslavia and even against the Soviet Union.
Mr. Tsaldaris’ regime brought its accusation against Greece’s northern neighbours before the Security Council in December 1946. I would draw your attention to this date. Although the Yugoslav Government drew the attention of the chief Allies, to the dangerous turn of events in Greece as long ago as July 1945, and although the Government of the USSR and also that of the Ukraine brought the matter before the Security Council during 1946, without any result, it was not until December 1946 that the Security Council decided to undertake an investigation in Greece as a result of the charges brought by Mr. Tsaldaris.
In his speech to this Assembly, Mr. Marshall based his remarks on the report of the Commission of Investigation, or, rather, on the conclusion of die majority of that Commission.
We are not concerned today with the facts relating to that investigation, but we do think it necessary to mention the fact that during the eighty-second meeting Mr. Marshall made the following statement from this platform: “You know that that Commission and its Subsidiary Croup, by large majorities, have attributed the disturbances principally to the illegal assistance and support furnished by Yugoslavia, Albania and Bulgaria to guerrilla forces fighting against the Greek Government.”
I am sorry to have to draw Mr. Marshall’s attention to the following facts. In the Commission’s conclusions, one can find nowhere the assertion that the disturbances in Greece are mainly due to the assistance given by her northern neighbours to Greek guerrillas. The causes of the war in Greece are described as follows in the conclusions of the majority:
"The Commission, in considering the relation of Greek internal policy to the area of its inquiry, recognized that the disturbed conditions in Greece are a heritage of the tragic events of the war and of the consequent problems facing the Greek Government since the liberation.”
The contusions state, it is true, that the northern neighbours are giving assistance to the democratic armed forces in Greece, but the majority which approved these contusions of the Commission is very small, since it consists of six votes to five. There is, therefore, no question here of the large majority claimed by Mr. Marshall.
The members of the Commission representing the USSR and Poland voted against the part of the document called Conclusions. The French members abstained from verting and submitted a written statement to the Commission, which was attached to the conclusions and which reads:
“Conditions under which the inquiry was carried out were not, probably, such as to allow us to draw from it any conclusions based on sound juridical principles. Even if come delegations feel that it is possible to reach conclusions dealing with isolated facts, this method involves considerable risk. For indeed, by throwing a bright light on one particular aspect of the question, while leaving others in the shade, the perspective of the investigation might be distorted. Partial conclusions, therefore, would of necessity be unjust to the parties concerned, and misleading to the Security Council ”
The Belgian and Colombian members who signed the conclusions also reserved their opinion on the question of the responsibility of the northern neighbours, in a written statement relating to these conclusions.
What are the proofs underlying the conclusions of these six members to which Mr. Marshall refers?
Why is it not said that the principal witnesses proposed by the Greek Government were either criminals or persons whom tortures in prison had forced to bear witness against Yugoslavia, Bulgaria and Albania? Why is it not said that their depositions were full of contradictions and that these were retracted on many occasions?
With your permission, I should like to quote the moving words of one of the principal witnesses. He said: “I am unable to explain why I have not yet been executed. I think they wanted to keep me so that I might make statements to you today against neighbouring countries.”
Thus, if the Commission of Investigation had done its duty scrupulously and conscientiously, examining only the actual facts, without regard for political considerations, with the sole purpose of establishing the material truth In order to enable the competent organizations of the United Nations to formulate firm conclusions in accordance with the spirit and letter of the Charter, in conformity with Article 34, the Commission would undoubtedly have ascertained that the guilt for the serious conditions prevailing in Greece falls back upon those who are attempting to escape from their positions as defendants and to assume the role of prosecutors and judges.
In this connexion it is essential to emphasize once more certain facts which are well known and irrefutable.
The United States, which in the meantime has assumed the role formerly played by the United Kingdom in Greece, has paid $250 million to the Greek, regime on the condition that it, the United States, should control the use of this money. It is already exercising this control, as is proved by the fact that the present Greek Government was formed in the United States
Embassy at Athens. The establishment of this Government was accompanied by characteristic statements, for instance by that of Mr. Griswold, which contains the following open threat: “Failure to carry out United States order will effectively influence the programme of American assistance.”
The New York Times of 2 September 1947 illustrated the nature of this demand as follows: “A meeting of the Ministers and chiefs of staff of the three armed services, the Premier and the chiefs of the United States and British military missions was held yesterday to consider means by which the Greek Government forces could regain the initiative from the guerrillas.” The same newspaper stated that the United States was spending $103,000 a day on feeding the Greek Government army.
If we take all this into consideration, we must inevitably agree with the statement of the editor of Vima, the principal organ of the present Greek Prime Minister, Mr. Sophoulis, who, on 26 June 1946, made the following declaration, word for word:
“The intervention of the Americans in the internal affairs of our country is so considerable that we may say that Greece has surrendered a large part of her independence and has placed herself under the economic and administrative control of the United States. Any future activities of the Greek Government will have to be previously approved by the President of the United States and by his representative in Greece. I am not speaking of foreign policy, for Greece no longer has a foreign policy of her own, even in theory, and this is quite understandable. It is obvious, hard though it may be to admit it, that our country has become a protected State, the fate of which depends more upon a foreign will than upon its own.”
This is clear proof that there is and can be no ground for the charges brought against Yugoslavia, Bulgaria and Albania. On the contrary, a heavy responsibility rests on those who are imposing upon the Greek people a regime which the latter refuse to recognize. The responsibility for this rests upon the Governments of the United States and of the United Kingdom.
This is one of the most serious questions which our Organization has had to face up to the present time. As a result of foreign armed intervention and external economic pressure, a Member of the United Nations has lost its independence. The responsibility for such a serious infringement of the Charter falls upon two great Powers which are founding Members of the United Nations and permanent members of the Security Council.
In these circumstances, we must inevitably ask the following questions. Why have States which are not interfering in the internal affairs of Greece been accused of intervention for a whole year? Why has nonsense been spread — why is nonsense still being spread — such as repeals that an international brigade armed in Yugoslavia had been sent to Greece? You will recall that this particular piece of nonsense was almost immediately disproved. Is it really possible that those who are conducting a policy of intervention in the internal affairs of Greeks can be concealed from this Assembly by such a thin smokescreen?
This problem has been on the Security Council’s agenda for nine months. At the end of the discussion the United States representative proposed to the Council a solution which disregarded the essential fact — namely, the open interference of his own country in Greek internal affairs. The adoption of this proposal would have given his country a free hand for future intervention in Greek internal affairs. Unfortunately, the majority of the Council accepted this point of view.
Decisions are not, however, taken by a simple majority in the Security Council. Consequently, the USSR representative was able to prevent a decision which would have been patently unjust, discriminatory and harmful, not only to the Greek people, but also to the cause of peace as a whole, and was thus able to prevent a serious infringement of the principles of the United Nations.
The majority of the Council, however, succeeded in referring the case to the Assembly. This attempt can only be attributed to a hope of achieving what could not be achieved in the Council; namely, to obtain from us, here and now, a free hand, for the continuation of American intervention in Greece, or even for eventual armed intervention.
Thus, the United Kingdom Government, when it realized the impossibility of imposing a foreign will upon a people as proud as the Greeks, allowed the United States to undertake the burden. The latter country is already confronted with similar difficulties, and is now trying to secure the sanction of the United Nations for its policy in Greece and to make that Organization assume the responsibility for that policy.
This is naturally embarrassing for a good many people; but for us the judgment of history and our responsibility towards future generations should have more weight than any other considerations. We cannot take a decision contrary to the great Charter of peace, which provides, among the fundamental purposes of our Organization, that which consists in developing “friendly relations among nations based on respect for the principle of equal rights and self-determination of peoples”. It is in this spirit that we should find a solution for the Greek problem.
The immediate withdrawal of all foreign troops and of all foreign agents from Greece would be the only possible solution, for it is the only way in which the Greek people can decide their own fate freely and democratically.
Thus, it is possible for us to find a solution for the Greek problem if we have the coinage to face realities, setting aside our own particular interests, and if we are certain that our decision is inspired solely by our responsibility towards mankind as a whole.
If we follow this course, we shall find solutions for many other problems with which we are confronted, and shall be able to consolidate peace, instead of drifting towards war.
There can be no doubt that this is the profound conviction of all sincere democrats and of all the peoples which long for a lasting peace. It is also the profound conviction of the peoples of the Yugoslav Republic, which are engaged upon the reconstruction of their country under difficult conditions and which consider freedom and peace as their greatest treasures.
It was in this spirit that Mr. Vyshinsky submitted to this Assembly a proposal for common action against the instigators of a new war. This Assembly will best fulfil its high mission, which is to ensure that international peace, security and justice are not endangered, if, in the grave atmosphere of today it adopts the proposal of the USSR as a condition for all normal work on the part of the United Nations. The Yugoslav delegation whole-heartedly supports this proposal.
Perhaps I have said many things of grave import. Let us, however, maintain our faith in the strength of the ideas which sustained us throughout the trials of war. Let us prove that certain great voice has not been forgotten in this country. May I recall the memory of Franklin Delano Roosevelt, whose name — and I say this with regret — is now mentioned here less frequently than at the previous sessions. Let me quote his last thoughts, written, but not spoken, on the day of his death, 12 April 1945: “We seek peace-enduring peace. More than an end to war, we want an end to the beginnings of all wars — yes, an end of this brutal, inhuman and thoroughly impractical method of settling the differences between Governments.”
Surely, that is what we want: peace, peace with respect for the sovereign equality of all nations great or small, peace with respect for the right of all peoples to choose their way of life, and peace, with dignity, in the spirit of the Charter of the United Nations.