The Lebanese delegation joins in the expressions of sorrow which have been voiced in the course of this meeting in connexion with the passing of Mr. La Guardia, former Mayor of the City of New York.
The present session of the General Assembly has opened under the shadow of a grave crisis that has arisen in the relations between the principal Member States of the United Nations. In the opinion of several of the previous speakers, the outcome of the crisis — if we are not careful — may be an even more terrible and more destructive struggle than the one just ended. It may also — if we can live up to the principles which we publicly proclaim — prove definitely salutary and help to establish a happy and constructive peace.
The United Nations was born not only of the last war and because of that war, but it was formed primarily to replace the old League of Nations, to make good its shortcomings and remedy Its errors. The reasons for the failure of the League of Nations are too well known to necessitate recapitulation. I shall merely recall the following facts. Power politics, which were condemned by President Wilson, emerged again in the Treaty of Versailles and divided the League of Nations into several opposing camps instead of linking the countries in one common international ideology. Despite public protestations of their belief in peace, the Powers of that day in reality subordinated peace to their selfish interests or ambitions. Confidence and candour were lacking in the mutual relations between mast of those Powers, and hence, in practice, they deliberately departed from the texts which they themselves had set before the world as the principles governing modem society.
The same shortcomings are present today and constitute a most serious threat to the survival of our Organization and to peace. As a matter of fact, we are faced not so much with a crisis in the relations between certain Powers as with a crisis in international morality.
The policy of the Government, which I have the honour to represent in this Assembly, is that of every small or medium-sized State which considers the United Nations Charter and the principles it embodies as the only safeguard of the rights of individuals and of the international community. It is a policy of unswerving respect for the letter and spirit of the Charter, because we consider that to depart from the San Francisco texts in order to achieve solutions, based on expediency, or in order to satisfy particular tendencies which bear no relation to die aims of the United Nations, would be the most dangerous threat to the cause of peace, which we aim to see triumphant.
Therefore, the Lebanese delegation will uphold its view, and take its stand on all matters submitted to the General Assembly or to its various bodies, actuated by the fundamental principles of our Organization, as well as by the desire to ensure to the best of our ability the triumph of peace with justice.
Not long ago the supreme spiritual authority of the world appealed to the nations urging them to strive for justice; a justice that would be as total as it was inflexible. When this appeal is heeded, and only then, shall we be able to ensure peace and prosperity for all. For we must not deceive ourselves; the world will inevitably be governed either by force or by justice. Between these two extremes there is no middle way, there is no compromise. If certain nations choose force, we may expect to witness bloody conflicts on a world-wide scale, which will eventually lead to the destruction of human civilization. If, on the other hand, they choose justice, then law will have triumphed in peace over all tendencies and for the benefit of all.
And now, in the light of this general statement, may I be permitted, Mr. President, to examine in rather greater detail some of the principal problems broached so far in the course of this session of the General Assembly.
The representative of the United States has told us that the General Assembly will have to discuss the matter of Greece and that of Korea. Actuated by the principles of our Organization, the United States Secretary of State, Mr. Marshall, proposed that the Assembly adopt a resolution pledging itself definitively to maintain the political independence and territorial integrity of these two countries.
Both in fact, and from a legal viewpoint, we favour the independence and territorial integrity of every State, whether or not it be a Member of the United Nations, and I hope we shall never abandon this principle. While taking a dear stand on these questions, I should, however, like to ask the representative of the United States, who based himself on the fundamental principles of the Charter when defending the political independence and territorial integrity of Greece and of Korea, on what principles he was baring himself in the same statement when he endorsed what amounts purely and simply to the mutilation of another State — Palestine?
Did he base himself on the rules of justice which forbid any action against a defenceless people, such as the Arabs in Palestine, whose only desire is to live peacefully in their territory and to develop their liberties and rights under the protection of the great international institutions?
Did he base himself on Article 22 of the League of Nations Covenant, which defined the principle of the mandate system and recognized the territorial integrity and independence of mandated countries while those countries were preparing themselves, with the assistance of a mandatory Power, for the effective exercise of such independence?
Did he base himself on Article 6 of the Mandate, which provides that the establishment of a Jewish national home in Palestine must not prejudice either the rights or the position of the Arab population of that country?
Did he base himself on Article 1, paragraph 2 of the San Francisco Charter, which defines in the dearest possible terms the purposes of the United Nations, and which reads as follows: “To develop friendly relations among nations based on respect for the principle of equal rights and self-determination of peoples...”? Finally, did he base himself on the fact that the text of Charter does not permit the United Nations to decide on the partition or dismemberment of a State against the will of its inhabitants, especially when such measures — which are contrary to the fundamental principles of the Charter — are calculated not to develop friendly relations between nations but rather to promote an atmosphere of tension which may threaten future peace?
The United Stales representative, in his statement, denounced certain neighbours of Greece for supplying arms and facades for fostering revolt in that country. If such acts are feeing perpetrated, we denounce them equally strongly, but we should also like to see the representative of the United States denounce with equal warmth the activities of the nationals of certain other Powers who are encouraging illegal immigration on a large scale, directed against the Arab population of Palestine and against the integrity of their territory.
It has been said that peace is indivisible, justice is even more indivisible, and in this connexion I must reluctantly, mention the well- known French dictum: “Truth this ride the Pyrenees, error the other”.
As regards the veto, the position, of the Lebanese delegation was made dear, during the session which started in October 1946, In approving a motion introduced by the representative of Cuba for the creation of a permanent committee to study various modifications to be made in the United Nations Charter, we said that this Charter, like everything human, was far from perfect, but that, given time and experience, it could certainly be perfected, and that any modification to be made in the Charter should be the outcome of the evolution of our Organization, which I hope will be rapid and, above all, in conformity with the purposes set out in Article 1 of our Charter.