59. Once again, a Latin American statesman has been elected President to our Assembly. The Government of the French Republic is glad of his election, as I am happy to say publicly and sincerely. As his country’s Minister for Foreign Relations, our President has already demonstrated his competence and authority. Both his experience and his devotion to international co-operation have qualified him for the duties to which he has been called. I wish to extend to him my compliments and my good wishes, and I should also like to tell him that my country feels itself honoured to have as his country’s ambassador at Paris Mr. Miguel Angel Asturias, who this year received the Nobel Prize for Literature.
60. It would not be right, now that we have just elected a new President, not to remember his predecessor, Mr. Manescu, whose authority throughout some difficult months did honour both to his country and to the United Nations General Assembly. Our colleague, the Minister for Foreign Affairs of Romania, may rest assured of our cordial remembrance.
61. I should also like to express to our eminent Secretary-General the satisfaction I feel at speaking in his presence. For may years, I have been in a position to be informed of his labours. I have been happy to establish with him relations of trust which reflect the regard felt for him by my compatriots and my Government. We have watched sympathetically the efforts he has made to bring an atmosphere of calm into the world and, in particular, to help the developing countries in their struggle to improve their populations’ health, education and well-being. We often concur in his judgement of the world’s important affairs. We are following with attention his efforts to reorganize the Secretariat in the interests of greater efficiency and economy, and to establish equality among the working languages in conformity with the wishes expressed at recent sessions of the General Assembly. I wish to extend my compliments to him as well.
62. One would have to be either very cynical or very ingenuous, to come to this rostrum and deliver the speech on the state of the world that the General Assembly calls upon us to make each year, without being deeply disturbed by the distressing gap which exists between the goals that the community of nations seeks to set itself and the sad realities of the situation.
63. The United Nations was established, and it must exist, to ensure peace among States by enforcing respect for the sovereignty of the weak against the strong and, to that end, to inspire and compel respect for international law, which is the bulwark of the freedom of men and nations.
64. How far have we succeeded in that task? It would be a little unkind, in this year in which we have solemnly commemorated the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, to itemize all the conflicts, the extortions and the standing threats that are giving rise to injustice, humiliation, poverty and unhappiness, not to mention, as simply but sadly we must, loss of life running into the thousands. I am well aware that nowadays the press, radio and television magnify every incident to universal dimensions. But we need only pause for a moment to discern on every continent a situation contrary to the Charter, in other words, contrary to freedom and law and ultimately dangerous to peace.
65. Once again, we must note the distance between man’s admirable ability in our century to overcome technical difficulties, to work out through scientific research ways of prolonging life, of reducing work fatigue, of conquering space, and his subjection to the most ancient passions, passions which lead through breaches of the law and through violence to conflict. Of course, these are what we like to call local conflicts; but surely each of us should be constantly fearful that one or another of these local conflicts may directly or indirectly lead to war, a war in which every discovery of technology and science will inexorably serve to bring about the downfall, abasement and death of mankind.
66. Politics are not ethics, for ethics are a thing of the mind while politics mean action. Any action, however nobly inspired, must obey the law of success, which requires that reality must be known if it is to be understood, obeyed and mastered.
67. But the feeling that is prevalent today — shared unconsciously by people in all countries and consciously, I hope, by their leaders — is one of impotence; and that impotence leads to actions motivated by immediate concerns without thought of the future. And the result of all this is confusion.
68. In the face of that impotence and confusion, our first duty is to recall the principles whose repudiation or neglect is at the root of the tragedies that are steeping mankind in blood. That is what I am going to try to do on behalf of my country, France, which in recent years, after many difficult trials, has been committed to the strict implementation of those principles. I shall speak, I repeat, not as a moralist but as a politician. These principles, after all, must continue to be our goals — and by that I mean the goals of all the Governments represented here, for what is the use or our meeting together in the Assembly while acting outside it as though the United Nations did not exist, and thereby weakening it?
69. The first principle, still pertinent though the oldest, is as we all know the right of peoples to self-determination. That is a fundamental principle: while it is not in itself a sure guarantee of peace, we can be sure that to reject or ignore it must certainly lead to revolt and war. If it occupies a prominent place in our Charter, that is because it also embodies the prime safeguard of human rights. A society of recognized autonomy of which every man feels himself to be a part is in fact the basis of individual freedoms, from the right of elementary respect for the human person to the right of each man to social progress.
70. In recent years, there has been ground for satisfaction in the considerable advances which the development of world politics has enabled us to undertake and to carry to a successful conclusion. For example, the vast movement of decolonization, to which my country, with General de Gaulle at its head, has made such a great contribution, seems, despite some occasionally painful setbacks, to have marked a decisive step forward. The portions of territory where one can still find evidence of that dominion of one people over another, of one race over another, which international law has condemned and stigmatized, have been steadily shrinking. And there has been another great movement with which for France, indeed for Europe, the name of General de Gaulle is associated: the movement of détente, which has given even the most apprehensive some hope of the recognition of human freedoms on the basis of the right of nations to govern themselves without fear of outside interference.
71. But events bring back our old fears. The spirit of hegemony, as formidable as ever, is either appearing in new guises or reappearing in its old forms: the Viet-Nam war, the tragedy of Biafra, the Czechoslovak crisis - all seemingly very different, each on a different continent. But they have a common feature: they reveal our impotence in the face of violations of the principle fundamental to peace.
72. The war in Viet-Nam shows how difficult it is for a people to decide on its own régime free from outside interference. This year again, we have to record further devastation and loss of human life. The prolongation of the Viet-Nam war, whatever its origins may have been, is repugnant to common sense. So long as it continues, we will not cease repeating that.
73. France long ago staked out the path it regards as the only one to peace. The conditions for an over-all political solution do not seem to us to have changed. In 1954 agreements were signed at Geneva to put an end to an ordeal my country remembers only too well. The bases for a lasting settlement must be sought in the implementation of those agreements.
74. One step — the halting of the bombing raids ravaging North Viet-Nam — would at least prevent an extension of the conflict, and reason allows us still to hope that one of the greatest Powers of our era will take that step.
75. The two countries have chosen Paris for the seat of their meetings and negotiations. That choice today enjoins me to discretion, but it lends a special warmth to the wishes I now express for the earliest possible success of the talks and the re-establishment of peace on the Indo-Chinese peninsula. After that, it will be time to calculate the loss of life and the devastation, to bind up wounds, to rebuild and to restore harmony.
76. In Africa, refusal to recognize the right of peoples to self-determination has been evidenced up to now by the oppression and humiliation formerly experienced by some African populations. Not all the necessary progress has yet been made; I will return to that subject later on. However, how can we help but denounce the tragedy of Biafra, the martyrdom of the Ibo nation, that tragedy which the world community has watched and discussed — which, indeed, it is still watching and discussing — without trying to put an end to it?
77. Of course, it is imperative that food and medical supplies arrive as quickly as possible where they are urgently needed, and we must emphatically denounce the obstacles that still impede the dispatch of assistance. However, it is even more necessary and would be even more helpful to stop the arms shipments which are prolonging the fighting.
78. Beyond that, we must note that notwithstanding the inequality of the forces facing one another the will of the Biafrans has not faltered. Every day it becomes clearer that only a solution which takes into account that people’s indisputable personality and which is consistent with the principle of self-determination proclaimed in our Charter can solve this painful problem. The French Government hopes for such a solution.
79. Eloquent voices have very often been raised within these walls to condemn the actions taken by certain colonizing nations at the expense of populations demanding their right to self-government. The great movement of nationalism which changed the face of Europe, these speakers have asserted, should be extended throughout the world, and the freedom of a people to determine its own destinies should not be a monopoly of the white peoples. The time has come for us to ask our African friends what they themselves intend to make of that principle, and to remind them of what painful experience has taught us Europeans: that intolerance can exist among brothers too. Silence too long maintained, inactivity in the face of bloodshed and growing famine—those things are undermining Africa’s new prestige. I speak these words, from this rostrum, as a steadfast and faithful friend of the Africans, with concern, but also with confidence in their prompt response.
80. From Africa, let us turn to Europe, where the situation is, of course, quite different. Nevertheless, it is with similar feelings that I mention the event which this summer marked a tragic day in the post-war history of Europe. It must be said: the vast majority of Europeans, of whatever nation and in the East as in the West, were shocked beyond words when they heard the news of the military intervention in Czechoslovakia by the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics and four Warsaw Pact nations.
81. In defiance of its many solemn pledges and of resolutions that were adopted in this very place on its own initiative, a very great Power decided to interfere in the domestic affairs of another country, in the most blatant fashion, for purposes of coercion. And that country is one of those which in the recent past have paid the heaviest toll to the cause of freedom. Immediately, as was to be expected, the demons of the cold war were reawakened, and since the rights of one people cannot be flouted without making others fear for their own, there was fear, as there is still reason for fear of the rebirth of opposing coalitions, in other words, blocs which can give rise only to disputes and conflicts.
82. For our part, we shall not cease to maintain that there is no conceivable future for mankind — above all in Europe, a continent where peace is of prime importance for the entire world — without a relaxation of tension between the European nations of West and East; and there can be no relaxation of tension where occupation troops are stationed in a country against its will. Only the withdrawal of the occupation troops and the rejection of any measure inspired by the pernicious policy of blocks, by whatever name it may be called, can prevent, for Europe, first, and then the world, the aggravation of the tensions created by the events of this past August.
83. It has been suggested that the decision to intervene was due to the dangers resulting from a new surge of militarism in the Federal Republic of Germany.
84. France has never concealed its view that the leaders of the Federal Republic have to recognize certain facts arising from the war and the international decisions taken in its wake. Moreover, the fears to which memories of the Second World War give rise, and will for a long time to come give rise, in both Eastern and Western Europe, demand from their leaders a special prudence which we constantly urge.
85. But in placing its trust in the Federal Republic of Germany and the democratic policies of its leaders, in viewing with satisfaction that country’s economic prosperity and social progress, in co-operating with it and with four other States within the Common Market, in working in depth for mutual understanding between the two peoples, France, which is as alert as anyone to the needs of its security and of European security, is certain of having chosen the right path, the only path that can lead to conciliation and, ultimately, to peace. Attacks and threats only jeopardize that evolution of events.
86. Europe is in need of détente, of a deep and lasting détente which is the strait but necessary gate to co-operation and understanding. We hope that each European country that is aware of the responsibilities it shares will help to build our common future. I repeat. the task is not to alter social structures or principles of economic organization; those are matters for each nation to decide for itself. Nor is there any question of altering, in the absence of a freely contracted general agreement, the political balance set up after the war. What must be done is to establish the conditions necessary for that peace to which the men and women of the old world, in the East and in the West, thinking first of the tragedies their fathers and they themselves have experienced and then of the different future they want for their sons and daughters, believe they are fully entitled. France for one, has done a great deal in that direction in recent years, and is determined to continue along the same path.
87. The first principle is the right of peoples freely to determine their future.
88. The second principle complements the first, to such an extent as to be almost a part of it: I refer to the principle of respect for justly formulated and enacted international law. There can be no freedom for peoples without respect for just international law. There can be no just international law that is not based on the right of nations to existence
and the right of man to freedom.
89. The United Nations can have no higher ambition than that of elaborating and enforcing respect for that just law. That is a task that is never done for even the best decisions are constantly called in question by passions and interests.
90. Such is the case in that part of Africa in which the status imposed on the African is still repugnant to all mankind. With regard to Rhodesia, France has joined in the sanctions that were adopted to put an end to an illegal situation. France deplores the fact that South Africa is still evading the obligations resulting from the international status of South West Africa, and, in particular, is persisting in imposing apartheid on that Territory. For that reason France, as it showed clearly during the recent Security Council debates on the problems of that part of the world, is still prepared to join in the search for any solution calculated to restore to the peoples in question the rights and dignity of which they have been too long deprived.
91. There is one breach of international law which raises a very serious threat to another part of the world, if not to the world as a whole. No real progress has been made towards a solution to the problem of the Near East or the establishment of lasting peace in that region. That situation, if it continues, can lead to new conflicts. I say this with the seriousness the problem demands, and without blinding myself to the difficulties of the task.
92. Speaking from this rostrum last year [1571st meeting], my predecessor set forth the basic principles by which we are guided in regard to that bitter situation, and outlined France’s approach to all the problems calling for solution.
93. On the substance, the French Government takes it as a basic premise that each of the States in the Near East is entitled to live in security, and has already stated that it does not accept or consider acceptable any local fait accompli with regard to territorial boundaries or the status of inhabitants. The results of the unilateral action taken in 1967, in other words, gains won by force of arms, cannot be recognized, since to recognize them would be a negation of international law. What was said last year I now repeat, if
possible with increased emphasis, for no progress can be made if we do not begin at what is the necessary beginning.
94. That principle stated, we made it clear that in our Opinion the essential problems, aside from the question of navigation, were the status of the Palestine refugees and the conditions for neighbourly relations among the States concerned. Direct negotiations between the Israeli Government and each of the Arab Governments, we felt, stood not the slightest chance. The violence of the antagonisms, exacerbated by the war and by the events following in the wake of the occupation—everything goes to make such a procedure most difficult. For that reason, the French Government was already stressing last year that it was the duty of the United Nations to work out the bases for a reasonable solution. Nothing could be done in that direction, we made clear, without agreement between the great Powers; if such agreement had existed in May 1967 it would have prevented the outbreak of the conflict. That was — and that remains — the essential condition for the return to stability.
95. That is the course our Organization has decided to follow. On 22 November 1967 the Security Council unanimously adopted a resolution [242(1967)] which still in our view provides the basis for a realistic settlement leading to a just and lasting peace.
96. For several months Mr. Jarring, the Secretary-General’s Special Representative, has been engaged in a patient effort which deserves to be continued since it still, we believe, offers the best chance, first, bringing to an end the duress being exercised by the victor, and next, for creating the conditions for that coexistence between the Arab States and the State of Israel which is needed. That mission must now succeed, for it would be dangerous to allow the present situation to persist.
97. I have heard the arguments on both sides. I note, as everyone can note, that terrorist activities and reprisals are escalating and arms supplies are being expanded. To impede the conciliation effort which must be made would be fraught with heavy consequences for whichever of the States involved was responsible. For one of the interested great Powers to refuse to take its part in the necessary international safeguards would be equally serious. France, need I repeat, has already stated that it is ready to assume its commitment in a system of guarantees based on a general agreement designed to apply just international law in this part of the world, where it is so much needed.
98. In addition to the two principles, essential to peace, which are defined in legal terms as the right of peoples to self-determination and respect for justly formulated international law, there is a third principle, one of equal importance but more readily stated in economic terms. I refer to the assistance which the industrial countries owe to the developing countries — the form of international co-operation of the greatest value to peace. May it not be redundant to speak here of that assistance, that co-operation; has not everything already been said?
99. Of course, everything — or almost everything — has been said. Suffice it to impress upon ourselves that without this solidarity the widening gap must become a source of bitterness and rebellion. The solidarity which should be a bond of union between developed and developing peoples is not solely a humanitarian policy; it is also a rational policy. However, the action that is being taken, along lines that have been described in so many speeches, is still inadequate.
100. It is inadequate because in the industrial countries public opinion has not been made sufficiently conscious of the fact that the task of assistance which is indispensable if dangerous imbalances are to be avoided requires not only political but economic understanding. For assistance implies an annual levy on each nation’s income growth; it does not consist of loans or paper currency alone, but is a sharing of what is produced and earned. The price of generosity must be made clear; it will then be better understood.
101. It is inadequate because, in the developing countries as well, it has not been sufficiently stressed that the assistance called for is dependent on a two-fold discipline: economic discipline, which means in particular work and effort to put the assistance provided to full use; and social discipline, in particular a policy of more effective income distribution designed to prevent the coexistence of great wealth and great poverty. Those are the shortcomings which explain why little progress has been achieved.
102. Indeed, can we regard as progress the agreement reached on our target of 1 per cent, even if now calculated on the basis of the gross national product? How many countries are honouring that agreement? France, despite its own financial difficulties, is adhering to that figure, just as it accepted the principle of a supplementary contribution to the International Development Association. A new effort is called for in Europe and also in America, or a rude awakening will be not long coming.
103. A further prerequisite for progress — and here the active participation of the developing countries is necessary — is an understood scale of priorities among needs. Some countries are hungry; in others, all that is needed is land improvement; others need industries. What co-operation asks of the developed countries is a careful study of needs, which are not everywhere identical, and not blind general demands.
104. It is the duty of United Nations to review that great problem with a view to better defining the basic rules and disciplines which its solution must impose upon all of us.
105. Nevertheless, it has been clearly demonstrated that direct assistance, necessary as it may be, can only be of a supplementary nature. The basic element in the progress of the Third World countries must be their export earnings. To help their exports to increase at a rate corresponding to needs, a preferential system facilitating the importation into the richer countries of the industrial products exported by the Third World would no doubt be useful. For the Third World, however, industrialization is not a matter for the present or the near future. Accordingly, French spokesmen will continue to stress that the significant advances in this field, which can immediately bring the under-developed countries a considerable increase in currency earnings, will be those that can be created by organizing the markets for the principal primary products in the form in which they are extracted from or cultivated in the soil. Speaking last year at Rio de Janeiro before the
assembly of the International Bank and the Fund, and early this year at New Delhi before the United Nations Conference on Trade and Development, I had the honour to draw attention to those basic points and to certain measures which those international organs — especially the financial institutions could take to assist in the effort to regulate trade and to stabilize prices.
106. May I venture to say that I see scant evidence of any progress in this area. May I venture to voice my disappointment at certain obstructionist manoeuvres which have prevented any serious response from being given to proposals that are both reasonable and fundamental. May I lastly, express my surprise at the exception being taken in some quarters to regional associations which are being formed among States at various stages of development, an excellent example of which is the association of the Six with certain African States. If we are to abandon our efforts at the “regional” level, in the sense in which we understand the term here, the efforts being made at the world level will have to prove more effective than they have been up to now.
107. I should be remiss if I were to overlook the decisive part that can be played in the struggle against under-development by the human factor, the main example of this being technical assistance for manpower training. This is a remarkable type of co-operation; under which technicians at all levels and in all fields are sent abroad for periods of one or more years; men whose dedication and ability are contributing to the technological evolution of the Third World and who at the same time are weaving bonds of effective solidarity between the industrialized and the developing countries to the mutual benefit of both. The French experience is conclusive, and I would like to mention it once again. Each year thousands of our young people are sent out on technical training assignments. Many of them are young men performing their military service, from which they are then automatically exempted. That is, as it were, an example, a symbol of the forces that would be released for humanitarian tasks and for the struggle against hunger, ignorance and poverty once the threat of war were removed and nations freed from the burden of armaments.
108. That, indeed, is the fourth principle and the fourth goal: disarmament. Must we return to that subject? It seems illogical to do so at a time when disregard of fundamental principles, particularly those I have just mentioned, by creating insecurity is impelling all countries to arm. Nevertheless, when we speak of peace we are compelled to speak of the goal of disarmament, it being understood that we are speaking of genuine disarmament.
109. To disarm is not to limit, for financial reasons, the armaments of the already over-armed Powers. To disarm is not merely to prohibit weapons of mass destruction to States which do not possess them. To disarm is to resolve to do away with existing weapons and to prohibit all countries from manufacturing new ones.
110. Of course, to limit the arms build-up of the super-Powers through mutual agreement between themselves is a political gesture which may help to promote détente. Of course, to prevent the dissemination of nuclear weapons is a useful goal. But the real problem lies elsewhere, as in the last analysis each of us well knows. To perpetuate the privilege of the Powers which possess large numbers of weapons and their many types of delivery vehicles, is to resign ourselves, by setting up a monopoly at the expense of the independence of the other nations, to a precarious balance which can be upset at any moment.
111. Although France is, to the extent of its capacities, a nuclear Power, it would be the first to join in the negotiations of a genuine form of disarmament which would redound to the security of all and not as hitherto solely of a few. Such disarmament would first of all have to be brought to bear on existing nuclear arsenals; it would therefore be up to the Powers possessing such arsenals to agree on the matter between themselves. At the same time, it would have to be accompanied by radical disarmament in the field of conventional weapons, so that the resulting order ruled out any new imbalance of forces. In addition, as the French Government has stated on many occasions, these measures would have to be accompanied by the establishment of precise and effective control machinery.
112. Those are the conditions for genuine disarmament which should in addition be extended by the application, with due control, of the 1925 Geneva Protocol prohibiting the use of chemical and bacteriological weapons, and by sound agreements on the peaceful use of space and the ocean floor.
113. In the outside world, if not within these walls, remarks such as those I have made on disarmament are greeted with scepticism. How could it be otherwise? The clatter of weapons is heard on all sides, and no business nowadays has more customers. If there is one area in which the responsible Powers, on the one hand, and the United Nations, on the other, should wish to get to the root of the problem, this is surely the one. On the day when a majority emerges to confront the problem head on and without any lingering thought of monopoly or hegemony, France will be the first to lend its co-operation.
114. Right of peoples, respect for international law, aid to disadvantaged countries, genuine disarmament: may this useful recapitulation serve as the occasion for a real assessment of the world today! We have entered into a period in which, once again, there is a profit in violence, one in which once again private preserves are being constituted within which freedom is threatened by intolerance.
115. Once again, violence is profitable; but in the end violence is answered by revolt, and revolt leads to war. It is wrong to think that wars can long be limited to the local scale. The effect of the nuclear terror is to localize conflicts, to swell the ranks of neutral States. But these are only palliatives whose days are numbered, and we can see in Europe, in America, in the East and in the Far East, conflagrations which could set off another great war.
116. Private preserves are maintained or set up, it is held, to protect certain continents, or certain parts of continents. But those two great ideas, the independence of peoples and the universality of international law, languish and die when they cross the frontiers of zones of influence or the
threshold of private preserves.
117. Let us hope that next year our discussions take place in a less threatening atmosphere. It is not only the prestige of the United Nations that is at stake, but also, and above all, the great cause of suffering mankind. Setting the hopes which inspired the young soldiers who fell twenty-five years ago for the freedom of their homes, and for the freedom of all peoples, against the failures we are witnessing today, we must all find the strength to take action.
118. On the true and noble road of peace, peace in freedom and in solidarity, you will always find France.