France

The French delegation joins in the tribute paid to Fiorello La Guardia. France remembers that he was always its friend even in times of adversity. It will treasure his memory reverently and devotedly. On a day in spring, basking in the California sun, the peoples who, at a huge sacrifice, had emerged victorious from the most terrible and the most justifiable of wars, joined together in a solemn oath to spare mankind the recurrence of just such another holocaust. From one end of the world to another their enterprise, which they called the United Nations, was greeted with the highest hopes. It seemed then to everyone that the noble blood which had been shed, the enormous destruction which had been suffered and the incredible burden which had been laid upon the States most directly concerned in the conflict — it seemed then that all had been well worth while, as amid the ruins brought about by criminal aggression, an era of harmony, brotherhood and co-operation for a just an free peace was dawning for the survivors and for future generations It is no fairy tale I am telling tins Assembly today. It is not even ancient history; these events took place barely two years ago. In so short a time, then, we have passed to the realities of today from the hopes and dreams — for we must pay great attention to the dreams of those who suffer — from the hopes and dreams which we all shared and in which many of us played a part when the Charter was drawn up. Men should not despair abandon hope, especially if they bear a responsibility for the future. Truth is more essential when times are difficult than at any other moment. That is why we should not conceal the fact that the path we have hitherto followed was not the right one, since it has led to the situation which confronts us now as shown by the statements we have heard. The French delegation thinks it futile and dangerous to dissimulate the extent and gravity of the crisis towards which we have been moving for some time and which is now patent. The very existence of the United Nations Organization is at stake; at any rate, its structure and its effectiveness. In these circumstances, we must speak coolly, but clearly. If we do so, the spirit of conciliation and mutual understanding upon which the United Nations was founded can and must survive. France feels that it has served, with a perseverance which has ignored even the cool reception given it, the cause of co-operation between peoples and especially the cause of great Power agreement. At the very opening of the San Francisco Conference, I had the honour of announcing this determination and I added that, if this agreement were to be broken, then “God have mercy on mankind”. It would ill become me to describe here how this conciliatory task has been discharged with greater or less success. It is the desire and the determination of the French Government and people to persevere and to miss no opportunity of doing their best to quell disputes, to mitigate differences and even — I am not ashamed of saying this — to propose rather poor compromises calculated to bring us forward inch by inch toward a better and lasting result. We do not ourselves intend to set any limit on this activity, which has been less beneficial than France had hoped, although it has not been altogether useless. The limit will only be reached on the day when, by not committing itself, France would have to be untrue to itself. At the present time, however, there are few possibilities of finding common ground between the two main statements the Assembly has heard. It must in all honesty be said that it is hard to see how they can be reconciled. Now that the days of mutual understanding are fading away, or before they return, the time has come to bear witness. The French delegation will restrict itself to stating its opinions and the position of its Government with regard to the questions before it. France has never concealed its preference for a simpler, less rigid and less unwieldy organization than that which has emerged since San Francisco. What is commonly called the veto power is neither its invention nor its preference. When it was provided for in the Charter, France accepted it as a means of compensating, as between States mutually desirous of building peace, differences in resources and of ensuring equality of dignity as well as of rights. Although majority rule is the basis of any democratic organization, its application on an international plane is derived not from the principle of equality between men, but from another principle, equally essential, but of a different nature, that of the sovereignty of States. In any case, the Charter has established a system which seeks to strike a kind of balance between the special responsibilities of the Powers who bear the greatest obligations or who possess the greatest resources, and the rights of all nations. It tried to achieve this balance by allocating powers between the General Assembly and the Security Council, and by applying the two-thirds majority rule in the Assembly and the great Power unanimity rule in the Council. In practice, this system went wrong for the reasons I have just pointed out. The authors of the Charter thought that matte brought before the Security Council would be problems in which the great Powers would act as arbitrators and would not themselves be parties to disputes. In the numerous disputes which have followed one another, differences between State', medium-sized or small, have never remained confined to the parties concerned. Nowadays, a merely local dispute is such a rare phenomenon that it is not even certain that it exists! The Security Council has, therefore, had to deal with matters directly or indirectly affecting the great Powers. Furthermore, the veto power was intended to be exercised only in exceptional cases, as a last resort in cases of vital necessity or in order to safeguard an essential principle. This criterion has been greatly broadened and its frequent use certainly largely explains the unpopularity of the veto. Thus the Security Council has found its activity obstructed. It has become not the place where disputes are settled or where situations are regulated, but the place where passions find vent, where conflicts are aggravated instead of being appeased, and where antagonisms are exacerbated rather than dispelled. Will anyone claim that this is not true? The Assembly has before it proposals to amend file Charter in order to rectify this disturbing situation. The difficulty lies in the fact that changes in the machinery, so far as any can be made, will operate more on the effects than on the causes of the evil, since the evil lies in the original disagreement, which is the fault of men and not of the machinery they create. The French delegation is, nevertheless, prepared to agree that the proposals before us be given appropriate consideration, and it will take part in these deliberation? with a completely open mind. It would, however, point out that amendments to the Charter — which require, moreover, the unanimous vote of the permanent members of the Security Council — are not a solution, at any rate, not the only solution of the general problem with which we are confronted. Apart from the proposal to limit the veto power by amendment of the Charter, the United States delegation has submitted a proposal that the Assembly’s activities should be extended beyond the present session, as a sort of experiment. The French delegation has always favoured the full exercise, of the Assembly’s powers, as it does not fear a world forum and would like all States to have full opportunity of making themselves heard and exercising an influence on world affairs. The distinction between small and large Powers does not figure in our vocabulary, except, unfortunately, as a convenient expression. It would therefore not behoove the French delegation to try to limit the powers of what I will call the “States General” of the world. On the other hand the proposal before us is so important and so serious that it requires thorough study, especially from the point of view of die “restraints of the rule of law”, which were referred to by Mr. Marshall and to which we must all defer. The problem we have to clarify is how such a body can be made compatible with the statutory rights of the Security Council and work side by side with it. It is enough to pose this problem to see what a delicate matter it will be to solve both from a legal and practical standpoint. Another United States proposal before the Assembly bears on the affairs pf Greece, which have been debated at such length in the Security Council. The French delegation is deeply conscious of the gravity of the situation in Greece and of the consequences involved if it should be indefinitely prolonged. We have here one of the worst forms of war, civil war, and a civil war aggravated by extraneous factors and by ideological passions. We are convinced that this is a test case, in which the United Nations is duty bound to act and to propose a solution, since there is the twofold problem of ending the war and setting up a really democratic regime in the country when peace has been established. The resolution submitted to us must be discussed in detail, and the French delegation reserves the right to submit amendments in due course. On the substance of the question, however, I think it might be unanimously agreed that in this case it is necessary to establish or maintain on the spot appropriate bodies which would proceed to the area to investigate the situation and make any necessary recommendations. No country should hinder the work of a commission on the pretext that it is not responsible for prolonging the disturbances, since the commission’s visit would actually give it an opportunity to prove that the charges brought against it were unfounded. The attitude of the French delegation in this matter — and we think we have given abundant proof of this — is one of absolute impartiality in the sole interest of peace. We urge all delegations in join us in seeking a means of putting an end to the vicissitudes of the noble and unfortunate Greek people, who have suffered so tragically during the war and its aftermath. On every occasion, even at election time, the Greeks have requested supervision. Whatever criticisms may be directed against any of their successive governments, by this request, the Greek people have at least given an example, and my only regret is that this example has not inspired other countries. With regard to the future government of Palestine, the French Government has received and studied most carefully the report drawn up by the United Nations Special Committee, which is, in many ways, a remarkable piece of work. The recommendations made in this document will be examined in detail by another special committee which will be set up here for that purpose. We all consider that it is the duty of free peoples to understand fully and humanely the terrible sufferings of the decimated Jews. Let me merely voice my regret that the two groups concerned in Palestine, both of which can count on our full understanding and sympathy, have hitherto been unable to reach the direct agreement which is so highly desirable from every point of view. It is unfortunate that the Committee has been unable to reach conclusions acceptable to both parties. No effort should be spared to avoid an equivocal solution. I am sure that all the Members of the United Nations realize the serious difficulties which would result from the establishment of a new regime in Palestine under their auspices which, without the consent? of the people, would fail to bring them the blessings of order and peace which they need so much. In accordance with the mandate that has been such a grief to the United Kingdom, has not the time come for the Jews and the Arabs forthwith to essay a new effort in this direction? I very much hope that such an agreement will he reached. In any case, it is essential to find an early solution which would take into account the interests involved and the work of the Committee, and afford the full and free development of the human — and more than human — values of a land which, for hundreds and hundreds of millions of people, is the Holy land. The questions to which I have referred do not exhaust the list of these which constitute the main preoccupations of the statesmen convened at this meeting. We must not only maintain peace; first, we must establish it; we must not merely improve the United Nations; we must organize the world so as to eradicate the seeds of conflict and eliminate the sources of human misery. I maintain unreservedly that in all respects the crux of these problems is to be found in that old European continent of which France, now perhaps more than at any. time in its history, has the redoubtable privilege of being the symbol and the interpreter. Europe is the principal victim of the war. Its territory has been ravaged and its population decimated, as it was twenty-five years ago in very similar but less terrible conditions. The unremitting work of a generation will be needed to restore these ruins. The lands which adventurous men left to set up so many flourishing communities are now devastated. That is the fate of a large part of the world, but not of the whole world. For this reason, I feel it my duty to speak on behalf of those older peoples which are considered our ancestors, and yet, despite misery and want have remained so youthful. This duty is the more imperative because many European countries which are not represented here, remembering the recent and distant past, will not be surprised to hear France pleading their cause. I think I can say that the European countries, which realize the responsibilities inherent in their traditional obligations, would not complain of their fate if they were certain that a just victory would be followed by the establishment of a real and stable peace. But it is precisely in Europe that the great forces of the world confront each other most directly, and that continent, whose historical greatness has been tested since time immemorial, feds that, after having served throughout the ages as a battlefield for its own quarrels, it is now becoming a battlefield for quarrels beyond its scope. If the world is to break in two — as we have already been told here — the break would cut across Europe. Such are the circumstances which are dangerously delaying the fundamental peace settlement France welcomed with great satisfaction the recent coming into force of the peace treaties with Germany’s former allies. Treaties are always imperfect, but at least they constitute a first step toward peace and reconciliation, that is to ray, a step in the right direction. The United Nations should now be able to welcome to its ranks nations which have long been tragically misled; we fervently hope they will enter resolutely on the path of democracy. France would be especially glad if the new Italy were to regain the place among the nations represented here which it had to give up for a tune because of one man’s madness against its wishes and traditions and against its fundamental interests. It is not normal for a world peace organization to keep waiting on its threshold the country of Dante, Michelangelo and Garibaldi. That is the view of France, for France knows how to remember, but also knows how to forget. It is impossible to speak of Europe without speaking of Germany. That is where the heart of European peace really lies, whether we consider the German problem per se or as one of the many problems of the present-day world. France, for its part, has always sought to consider this problem per se, for we know that until security with regard to Germany is guaranteed, no European settlement will alleviate anxiety and settle fundamental difficulties; hence, no settlement would be likely to last. This attitude is well known, but I think I should recall it before this Assembly, which is the highest tribunal for peoples and Governments. Since the defeat of Germany, France has always taken the same stand on the German problem. Its only wish is that Germany, in the future, should never again be in a position to threaten world peace. This does not in the least mean that we favour a peace of oppression or vengeance. The German people must be enabled to live decently, to engage in normal, that is to say, peaceful activities, and to contribute to the economy of the world and of Europe in particular. At the same time, however, definite and effective measures must be taken to establish security once and for all. In the first place, the German people must learn democracy. It would be a dangerous illusion to think that, merely because nazism has collapsed, Germany has suddenly become a democratic nation or that it can speedily become such at the wave of a magic wand, even if it is called denazification. This will be a lengthy business and much water will have to pass under the bridge. And until the course of events allows new human relationships to be formed, steps must be taken to ensure that the recovery of Germany does not lead to a revival of its military power. The French people know instinctively and from experience what these measures should be. They will necessarily involve a long-term occupation by the Allied armies, strict control of disarmament and demilitarization and international supervision, in the widest sense of the term, of the centre of German economy which is called the Ruhr. Finally, it will mean setting up the political and administrative organisation of Germany on such a basis that, while paying all due respect to the rights of the individual, it will never be possible to rebuild the centralized, mitilaristic, and imperialistic state of which Prussia was the soul. The discussion of all these problems has been entrusted to the Council of Foreign Ministers, and the session it will hold in London after the close of the present session of the General Assembly will be of decisive importance in this connexion. I merely wish to express the hope that the solutions finally reached will avoid divisions even more serious than those which exist today. The German problem has been shelved for too long. It must be speedily settled. The peace settlement is the first and most urgent stop, but it will not settle everything. It will not be enough to solve the problems of Europe. As long as a shattered Europe still suffers from poverty and even starvation, how can we believe that it will be really at peace, truly able to develop its democratic institutions freely and fulfil its specific mission in the world? We all feel this and we also feel that, in order to establish in Europe the fundamental freedom which the Atlantic Charter called freedom from want, we must have the co-operation of all European peoples and the friendly assistance of those who can help them. It is in this spirit that the French Government has always contemplated the economic rehabilitation of its own country and of all the countries of the European continent. We know that in the world of today solidarity is not merely an ideal; it is also a necessity and, in any case, a duty. We know that isolation is an anachronism — the autarchies created by Fascism and Hitlerian have shown how ineffective and dangerous they were. We know that modem economy connotes extensive markets and division of labour. In a word, we know that in the economic field, at any rate, the European countries must unite or perish. That is why we immediately welcomed with keen satisfaction the proposals made three months ago by the United States Secretary of State in a memorable speech. We found in this speech both an echo of our grievous anxiety and an eminently sound expression of a generous and wise intention on this side of the Atlantic to assist the European peoples in their effort. The French people, therefore, eagerly accepted the offer made them, and, since then, we have been working with all the countries which have agreed to accept this offer to establish the foundations of friendly and constructive cooperation, based on the efforts of all, for the help we anticipate from the United States has served to overcome apathy and to organize our common effort. That is the spirit in which the French Government is participating in what it now called the Sixteen-Power Conference. We are deeply convinced that the task we have undertaken furnishes an example of international solidarity which may be proudly submitted to the judgment of the United Nations. It was not die fault of any of the sixteen Powers, and especially of the United Kingdom or of France, that this association of European countries has been reduced to its present dimensions. It was not our fault that the great work which is beginning and which all forward-looking Europeans had awaited and clamoured for was not undertaken under the auspices of the three main continental Powers. The Soviet Union felt it must decline the offer made by the United Kingdom and France. As a result, other Eastern European States declined to attend the Conference — but, this time, it was not Titus who sent away Berenice. The French Government greatly regrets this situation, which it made every attempt to avoid and which arose despite its continual but unavailing efforts. It also regrets that the reasons given for their non-attendance, which has since become hostility, were repeated with an obstinacy which cannot serve as a de jure or de facto justification. The representative of the Soviet Union has alleged that the French Government, in agreement with the United Kingdom Government, only wished to help out the United States Government — which was anxious to meet the threat of an economic depression — with the intention of alienating the political and economic independence of European countries. It is not for me to make any predictions with regard to an American slump, the first symptoms of which do not seem to have made much impression on many representatives at this Conference. So far as an attempt to enslave Europe, to divide it and to infringe on the independence and sovereignty of States is concerned, however, I am afraid I must say, for about the tenth time, that this criticism is contrary to the truth. The French Government proclaims its faith in the future of European co-operation and in the favourable consequences which it will have, both intrinsically and extrinsically. We have chosen this path and we will not turn back. We continue to hope that wisdom and reflection will bring us companions on this path towards a better future which we are deliberately following, regardless of all difficulties. Many of the speakers who preceded me on this rostrum spoke of the division of the world into two hostile blocs, a division which has unfortunately become a basic fact today. Because of its geographical situation, because of its moral and political traditions and because of its interests in and outside Europe, France is certainly one of the countries of the world for which the establishment of such a system presents most serious disadvantages, and likewise creates a situation most contradictory to its aspirations as well as to its traditions. I want to repeat that we shall always welcome all those who refuse to abandon hope, and are prepared to act with us in the cause of one world. The loud clamour that prevails may one day subside, but I am bound to say that it will not subside of itself. There must be a change of heart and an acceptance of the views of others which has been lacking heretofore. It is never too late, but it is high time. We are all accountable, now and perhaps for many a year to come, for the outcome of this regular session of the General Assembly of the United Nations. Each of us is responsible to our own country and to all the countries for what will happen. Of course, the difficulties would be diminished if we were to give more heed to the men whose work and sacrifices brought us peace. They think that peace, which is their most precious treasure, their sincerest hope, is something simple and easy. They cannot understand why it is so difficult to achieve it. They are right, for many things which are revealed to the humble are hidden from the mighty. They are right, for they long for real freedom, permanent security, mutual co-operation, love and not hatred, brotherly effort and not violence, union and not division. Amid the clamour and disturbance of our times, may we hear the voices of those men of goodwill to whom peace has been promised!