In the name of my delegation, permit me to associate myself with the tribute which has been paid to the late Mayor La Guardia. It was my privilege to know him and to work under his chairmanship in UNRRA, and I must confess that his passing constitutes a loss for the world.
The peoples of the world, by whose will we are gathered here today, have serious apprehensions as to the success of this Organization, to say nothing of the future which awaits humanity itself.
Indeed, how far we are from the bright goal that seemed so near at hand when the organizational work of the United Nations was completed at San Francisco, when our labours were hailed as the dawn of victory for the democracies of the world!
The allied nations which had won the war through their cohesion and understanding, and had meanwhile proclaimed new sound principles for the peace of the world, started to bicker among themselves. The resulting discord among the big nations mounted in intensity. The antagonism between former allies reached a degree that all but matched that existing towards former enemies. Consequently, the Council of Foreign Ministers was not able to reach agreement on peace treaties, and the important questions of world disarmament, reconstruction, and like problems, were laid upon the shelf. Along with the weakening of the spirit of peace came a consequent breakdown in the financial and economic life of the world with accompanying distress for many peoples in many lands.
Now, therefore, we look upon this disagreeable sight, while power politics among these antagonistic blocs are once more occupying the centre of the world stage. It seems that these giants of world politics somehow are incapable of adapting their mental processes to the problems of tomorrow.
If there is one single problem before this Assembly, it is to indicate to those men who hold the reins of world leadership that the world wants a change. This world wants a change from the blood, tears and suffering of the past, the blood, tears and suffering of war and, if you please, the blood, tears and suffering of peace.
However, we should not despair. We should, by all means, retain faith, renewing and confirming it with all the strength at our command. For with faith and free discussion such as this Assembly affords, we should be enabled to search out the remedies required to bring about constructive, sound and legal means for lasting peace.
I am sure it will seem fitting that I address myself first of all to the prospect for peace and co-operation in the Middle East. The importance of this part of the world in international affairs has been underscored by recent events, and the significance of the role to be played in the United Nations by the six Middle East States which are Members has been correspondingly increased. I think I can say that in no part of the world is greater interest taken in the United Nations, nowhere is a closer dependence upon our new Organization felt, and from no source does there stem a firmer loyalty to the principles and purposes enunciated in the Charter.
The Egyptian delegation looks forward confidently to the inclusion of all States of the Middle East in the membership of the United Nations. We are particularly happy to welcome here, on a footing of sovereign equality, our good neighbour, the Kingdom of Yemen, with its long tradition of peaceful life among the family of nations.
I think the six States of the Middle East can derive special satisfaction from the progress which has been made by the League of Arab States. Formed in 1945 shortly before the great Conference of San Francisco, the League of Arab States is precisely the type of regional organization envisaged in Article 52 of the Charter. Its purpose is to deal with such matters relating to the maintenance of international peace and security as are appropriate for regional action, and in realizing this purpose, its course will at all times be consistent with the principles and our, poses of the United Nations.
Among the Arab States themselves, no cloud exists to mar the harmony which now prevails. None of them covets the territory of another. Mutually satisfactory arrangements have been concluded for commercial and cultural intercourse. Ancient chapters of history are not resurrected to promote differences which might, interrupt the continuance of our friendly relations. Our situation is the more fortunate in that the Arab States are currently spending their substance in constructive and worthwhile peaceful projects, such as railroads and dams, projects unrelated to the continued strife of war.
If the prospect in the Middle East is not free from dark and lowering clouds, this fact is not due to difficulties inherent in the relations among Arab States. It is due to outsiders who have not yet ceased to regard our part of the world as a free field for adventure and intervention. So many cross-roads between East and West cut across these territories and so chequered has been the history of past attempts to control them, that it is not yet fully appreciated that we are determined to defend our right to sovereignty and equality.
Nowhere is this more evident than in my own country. The world opinion which tolerated the forceful invasion and occupation of Egypt sixty-five years ago has long ceased to prevail. Yet, out of the darkness of nineteenth century imperialism, vestiges still linger which place my country in a position unbecoming any sovereign, equal Member of the United Nations. In consequence, Egypt finds itself today fettered in its desire to live up to its obligations under the Charter, and not free to discharge its duty to put down aggression by any nation at any time.
As soon as the Charter was brought into force, Egypt sought a reorientation of its position which would be consistent with the principles and purposes of the Charter. It endeavoured to persuade the United Kingdom to withdraw the British armed forces stationed in the Nile Valley and to terminate the British administration in the Sudan established at a time when Egypt was powerless and encumbered.
What then could Egypt do? The dispute with the United Kingdom was evidently one “the continuance of which is likely to endanger the maintenance of international peace and security”.
We could not ignore the resentment among the Egyptian people created by the presence of foreign troops on our soil. We insisted on our natural right to be masters in our own home. We could not fail to see that, despite the peaceful intentions of the Egyptian Government, the situation might get out of hand. We could not sit supinely by and allow the dispute to fester. We took the course dictated by the Charter. We appealed to the Security Council of the United Nations, in taking this course, ‘We based ourselves on Articles 35 and 37 of the Charter. We also relied upon the resolution unanimously adopted by the General Assembly on 14 December 1946, calling for the withdrawal without delay of the forces stationed in the territories of Member States without their consent freely and publicly expressed in treaties or agreements consistent with the Charter and not contradicting international agreements.
I regret to report to the General Assembly that although it has given protracted consideration to the case brought by Egypt — a dozen meetings have been devoted to it — the Security Council has been unable to settle the dispute. Such is the struggle between power blocs, such is the unwillingness of some of the members of the Security Council to face manfully this danger to the peace of the Middle East, that the Council has dodged taking any action whatever.
However, although the discussions revealed a vibrant world opinion in favour of Egypt’s desire to rid her territory of foreign military occupation, the Security Council could not loose the bonds that held it mute and inactive.
I would be remiss in my duties if I did not express thanks, with all the warmth of my heart, for the support we received from some of the members of the Security Council who saw and appreciated the justice and merits of our position.
Yet, if the hopes of the Egyptian people have been thus dashed, they have never lost faith in the principles of the United Nations. The Egyptian Government will continue to be guided by the Charter, and it will endeavour constantly to keep the peace.
It is now clear that the British forces inevitably will leave our territories. It must be. They know their days are numbered. Sixty-five years of an unwelcome stay are at an end.
Egypt has a long history, and it has taught its people many lessons of patience, but patience has limits. I feel confident that we shall have behind us in our future effort to free ourselves the overwhelming sympathy of the representatives in this Assembly.
In the light of two years of experience, let us recognize that our organ of action, the Security Council, is still no more than a front. It acts within the limits of the interests of its permanent members, chastened only by the fear which these all-powerful States have of world opinion. But selfish interests often stifle even the restraint which may be manifested. In each case brought before it, we see the Security Council searching not for a just and right solution, but for an escape. It gains time at the expense of losing, and causing to be lost, the very capital of the Organization. What then is to become of the confidence which the people of the world have so simply and so fully placed in our Assembly and in our Council?
Ï must now refer to another cloud on the horizon of the Middle East.
None of the Arab peoples can be indifferent to the situation which has come about in Palestine. Here is a territory which has been inhabited by Arabs for thousands of years. Yet powerful forces are at work to wrest this territory from its inhabitants, to turn over its control to a minority of immigrants, or to partition it between the permanent majority and one of the minorities imposed on the country.
The Egyptian people share with the Arab peoples of other countries a deep concern about the situation. They cannot believe that the United Nations will renounce the principle of self-determination embodied in the Charter in order to carve up a land so historically and indisputably Arab territory for the purpose of creating wholly artificial States.
Such a course would rock the very foundations of the Middle East and disturb relationships for generations to come. It would confer no permanent benefit upon anyone. It would sow a whirlwind for all the peoples concerned. Egypt is against it.
To the members of the committee entrusted with the solution of this problem, we express our appreciation for discharging the arduous task they undertook. However diligent and painstaking their work may have been, it is my belief that they started their task by entering a blind alley. They seem to have confused religion with nationality. They listened to appeals founded on a strictly religious basis, and permitted this erroneous approach to govern their subsequent thinking. The result was a report which violates in its terms and implications the primary concepts of majority rule and self-determination.
I wish to pass now to one item on the agenda of the General Assembly in which the Egyptian delegation takes a special interest. I refer to the report of the Committee on the Progressive Development of International Law and its Codification?
The Egyptian delegation is not unaware of the difficulties which may be encountered in any direct approach to the development of international law under conditions now prevailing. The world has not yet recovered from the terrible toll taken by the war, and after the tension of the last few years and the exaggerated allegiances which it developed, perhaps public opinion is not yet fully prepared to give enthusiastic support to the extension of legal processes. Moreover, we must appreciate that one cannot hope for swift progress to be made in an effort to place international law on new foundations.
Old conceptions die hard, in law as in other things. In the view of our delegation, some decided departures ought to be made from the past and real progress can be achieved only when public opinion generally is prepared for such departures.
On the other hand, it is the view of my delegation that faith must be placed in conscious effort; law does not just spring up by itself, nor is reliance to be placed merely on the slow evolution of customary law. A new law to meet present needs, a law to fit into twentieth-century living, can only be made by men who desire it. And the effort deserves all of the learning, all of the judgment, all of the experiences which can be mustered for it.
I think a serious question arises in this connexion as regards the extent to which Governments can muster these factors. If new law is to be made, or if old law is to be codified in the form of a binding convention, of course governments must act in the final stages of the process. Yet, one may doubt whether the earlier, stages should be entrusted to government representatives bound by instructions which reflect more or less hard and fast national views. I would refer in this connexion to the useful work done in the past by the non-governmental Institute of International Law. I think one may cite also the method followed in the preparation of draft conventions on maritime laws which, in all of the earlier stages, was entrusted to nongovernmental groups.
The Egyptian delegation shares the view expressed in the Committee report that in view of the provision in Article 13(1a) of the Charter, it is incumbent on the General Assembly to have a programme for “. . . encouraging the progressive development of international law and its codification”. We think that the chief emphasis in that programme should be on what is now known as international legislation.
Too little attention has been given in the past to the significance of great multipartite international instruments, to some of which fifty or more States are parties, and which now constitute such a great part of the corpus of present day international law.
It is true that we have not had in the past, that we do not now have, a world legislature. It is not true, as so many of the critics of the Charter are now saying, that we do not have a large body of world law.
The Egyptian delegation is under no illusions on these matters. It is extremely desirous to see the realm of international law recognized, to see the reach of law extended, to broaden its scope, to buttress its way. International law has been too much subordinated in the Charter. It must be rehabilitated and reshaped by us so that the organs of the United Nations will be guided and supported by its precepts. This Assembly must keep constantly before itself the ideal of a law- governed world. Let us make a good beginning this year.
As a law-abiding country, Egypt is only too happy to give assistance and counsel in these matters, so that law and justice may furnish continued guidance along the tortuous road to international peace and amity.
In conclusion, we cannot escape the feeling that one of the main assets of the United Nations is the faith placed in it by. the common people of the world. Our duty then is plain: to deserve that faith and to preserve it.