France

65. Mr. President, at the very beginning of its contribution to the general discussion, the French delegation wishes to express its satisfaction at seeing the General Assembly meet under your distinguished leadership. France has been on friendly terms with Afghanistan for too long not to be pleased that its representative has assumed so high an office. Moreover, your personality, your experience, and your objectivity are so well known to all — and to us in particular — that we cannot but be assured that you will exercise your mandate in the best possible way. 66. Thus, by a seemingly symbolic coincidence, Asia becomes the keynote of our Assembly, which is opening in circumstances very different — less complicated and, at the same time, more dramatic — from those in which it found itself last year. 67. At that time we were just emerging from an operational crisis, apparently due to the Organization's financial difficulties, but in fact due to differences of opinion among many Members, including the big Powers, on the interpretation or application of the basic provisions of the Charter dealing with the powers of the General Assembly and the Security Council. Matters came to such a pass that, in effect, there was no General Assembly in 1964. In 1965, however, we came together in an atmosphere of rediscovery, and, consequently, we made the issues which had given rise to the crisis the principal items for discussion. 68. The passage of time has enabled us to place these issues in their true perspective, and that is why the foreground is now dominated by different problems which are normally our primary concern. I refer to those which arise from the international situation. 69. Of course, we cannot claim that everything dealt with in the General Assembly's stopgap resolution of 1 September 1965 [1331st meeting] has now been finally settled. We know that the financing of peacekeeping operations is still highly controversial and that the recent attempts to reach a conclusion, if only provisional, in the Committee of Thirty-Three have been totally unsuccessful. We are aware also that the United Nations balance-sheet still shows a deficit, although the present figures are considerably lower than those submitted not too long ago. But while we all attach importance to these two questions, while we realize that certain friendly delegations — I am thinking mainly of Canada and Ireland — are set on resolving the first of them, we are fully aware that no one wishes to augment the number of peacekeeping operations and that, in reality, no new intervention is now being contemplated and will not be, I hope, for a long time to come. We expect, furthermore, that by holding a discussion as soon as possible, in a spirit of general goodwill, of the report of the Committee of Fourteen we shall be able to obtain new funds and to take the necessary decisions for the more efficient management, in future, of the administrative and financial affairs of the United Nations and its specialized agencies. France considers that the' two parts of the report are interdependent; with this reservation we are ready to discuss it and to participate, with all the other delegations, in the necessary measures. 70. May I add in this connexion that we French cannot fail to take very seriously everything which concerns the use of the French language in this great international forum. In view of the decisions taken on this subject from the very beginning, in view of the increase in the number of French-speaking nations, we regard the present situation as completely unsatisfactory. Even if some progress has recently been made, at the persistent urging of the delegations concerned, much remains to be done to restore the situation to normal. The necessary effort must be forthcoming. 71. As I said before, administrative and financial problems are not our main concern this year. A striking example of this is the dismay created within this Organization by the Secretary-General's announcement that he would not accept an extension of his term of office. It is obvious that such dismay springs not only from our esteem — shall I say our affection? — for Mr. Thant, but also from a painful awareness of his motives. His stand is a carefully reasoned one. If it is possible for him to charge it, no one would be happier than the French delegation. But, since it is a personal question and a matter of conscience, we can only respect his final decision, whatever it may be, 72. As I pointed out at the beginning, the fact that both our President and our Secretary-General come from Asia will be reflected in our feelings and reactions. Asia, even more so today than in the past, is the object of our gravest fears. It is in Asia, more precisely in South-East Asia, that the war, which, already last year, was expanding as more and more military equipment was brought in, has reached the point where, should it go on — and, unfortunately, all signs point to this frightening possibility — it could jeopardize much more than the peace of this illfated region of the globe. 73. Admittedly, the United Nations does not have the authority to intervene in this tragedy through the formal channels provided by the Charter. Only one of the parties to the conflict is represented here. Neither Viet-Nam nor China has yet been given a seat. Hence, resolutions or recommendations would lack both a legal basis and practical effectiveness. Moreover, legally speaking, the Geneva Agreements, though not actually in force, are still valid and therefore applicable. The problem is still everyone's concern, and that is why, during this general discussion, successive speakers have felt compelled to voice their fears, their distress, their suggestions, if not their hopes. The French delegation will certainly do likewise. Thus, perhaps, at the conclusion of this debate, there will emerge from the multitude of reactions one international public opinion which all of us represent; indeed, one of the greatest advantages of the General Assembly is that it permits such a universal opinion to emerge, openly and solemnly expressed. This, in our opinion, is the limit of our capabilities. But who would dare argue that such a sincere and unequivocal expression of our collective sentiments will not carry great weight? 74. In considering this vital issue, the French delegation cannot help thinking and saying that, as this cruel war continues to escalate, the question we must ask is no longer: why are they fighting, what are the aims of each side? It is rather: are not the very survival of the Viet-Namese people and its future as a nation at stake? The destruction of property and the loss of human life are proceeding at such a pace that this question arises above all others in the minds of every objective observer. In the face of this material and human tragedy, what is the importance of ideology, political scheming, and the manoeuvrings of the great Powers? If, when the fighting is ended, Viet-Nam is nothing more than a land of ruin and death — and this is already true to a certain extent — what is the purpose of these battles and of these interventions, whatever their source? For us at the United Nations there is no idea more important than the idea that the destruction of a nation is inconceivable. 75. Viet-Nam has been racked by violence and war for a quarter of a century. Together with its neighbours, Laos and Cambodia, Viet-Nam might have believed twelve years ago that its sufferings had been ended by the Geneva Agreements, whose aim was to establish throughout former Indo-China a permanent cease-fire and an international control system which would ensure the independence of the four States, provided that they remained neutral and that outside Powers did not intervene in their internal affairs. In Cambodia an enlightened and courageous Government has wisely rejected all foreign interference; hence it has not been touched by the war and has preserved its national unity. Viet-Nam and Laos have not been so fortunate — or perhaps so meritorious. As a result, in Laos, there is a virtual state of war; in South Viet- Nam, for years, there has been a very real war which for the last eighteen months has been extended to North Viet-Nam. 76. For years France has been arguing that there, is only one way to break the present military deadlock, for one cannot conceive either that United States power will be defeated or that a people who desire their independence, regardless of their ordeals and suffering, will yield. Since only a political solution is conceivable — and that has been universally recognized — we must, by common consent, enter into negotiations aimed at reviving the Geneva Agreements. This means, agreeing to evacuate all foreign troops and to prohibit their return and forbidding any outside interference whatsoever in the affairs of Viet-Nam, which will undertake to maintain in future a policy of strict neutrality. These directives would be embodied in an international treaty which would be signed by — and hence would be binding upon — all the great Powers and other countries directly involved. It also means- provided that the above conditions are fulfilled—leaving the Viet-Namese, both North and South, the former to manage, the latter to continue to manage their own affairs in complete liberty and on their own responsibility, under whatever form of government they may choose. The question of reunification would be recognized as a purely Viet-Namese problem, to be settled, when the time comes, in full independence between the parties concerned. 77. Is the execution of such a programme, which presupposes the opening and successful conclusion of negotiations of the highest importance, conceivable in the face of continuing escalation and the irreconcilable character of the United States and Viet-Namese positions? This war is shrouded in a gloomy fatalism which constantly prevents the adversaries from declaring their readiness to negotiate. 78. This is not at all surprising if we observe that, from the moment a military solution is excluded and hence when weapons are no longer considered to be the deciding factor, the negotiation of a political solution is conceivable only if both sides realize and admit what such a solution must involve. And this solution, in our opinion, cannot be other than the one I have just outlined. 79. With the escalation continuing, how could such an overture conceivably come from anyone but the great Power directly involved, whose intervention, has been one of the basic contributing factors and which is, therefore, the only party in a position to make the move which will open up all possibilities and, first of all, that of peace? As was said in the General Assembly a few days ago, the greater the power and influence, the greater the responsibility. 80. Less than a month ago at Pnom Penh, General de Gaulle stated: "The possibility and, a fortiori, the actual opening of such extensive and difficult negotiations would obviously depend on the decision and the commitment which the United States would first have to make to withdraw its forces by a suitable and predetermined date." The President of the French Republic added: "France says this on the basis of its experience and disinterestedness. It says this by reason of the task it has performed in that part of Asia, the ties it has maintained there and the interest which it still has in the peoples living there—an interest which it knows to be reciprocated. It speaks in the name of its unique and 200-year-old friendship for the United States and the idea it has so far had of that country, seeing it — as the United States sees itself — as a country which upholds the view that peoples must be allowed to determine their own destiny in their own way." 81. May I recall that, not so long ago, France itself was involved, although for quite different reasons and in a quite different situation, in a war that likewise could only continue fruitlessly so long as a political solution was not forthcoming? Although the French forces unquestionably had the upper hand, France opened the doors to negotiation by declaring, of its own accord, Algeria's right to self-determination and thus putting independence within its reach. That initiative made it possible to open negotiations, while at the same time defining the basic objective of the agreements to be concluded. Who, at that time, sincerely thought that by so doing France was compromising its interests, weakening its position or jeopardizing its prestige? On the contrary, what an impact that memorable decision had! What an audience we gained in the world as a result of the ensuing agreements and the ending of the cruel fighting that could no longer lead to anything! 82. The United. States needs neither support nor advice, even though it told us, through its eminent representative, who knows the friendly esteem in which the French delegation holds him, that it wanted discussions. We know its power and its determination; and we know too how generous are its sentiments and how firm its belief in its ideals, I think I need say no more. 83. Pending the new developments which the world anxiously awaits, each month that passes can only increase the tension and the risks of a widening of the conflict. Should we be surprised, then, if the Viet-Nam issue gradually draws us back into an era which we thought belonged to the past, provoking a new flare-up of the cold war which we thought, not so long ago, was about to become a part of history? That is the scene we are witnessing right here in the General Assembly, as we hear, day after day, all these divergent speeches and proposals. Could we really have expected otherwise? 84. I would Like to think that nothing is irrevocably jeopardized; but there is a total blockage or hold-up on the path which would lead to a relaxation of tension, to co-operation and, finally, to understanding. 85. It will not be today or tomorrow that the United Nations will be in a position to settle the problem of China and to give that vast country, whatever its attitudes, its rightful say in the discussion of major problems, and above all those of Asia, to bring into this Organization an element of realism that is sorely lacking and, in short, to pave the way towards what must one day — saving a world conflict beyond the bounds of human imagination — be the new concert of nations. 86. It will not be today or tomorrow that any progress will become possible in the field of disarmament and, primarily, of course, nuclear disarmament. Non-dissemination itself is meeting unexpected obstacles, even though there seems to be nothing opposing it when one Looks at the well-defined policy of the nuclear Powers and the general goodwill of the non-nuclear Powers. 87. It will not be today nor tomorrow that we shall be able to expect a meeting of Western and socialist Powers to plan a concerted and effective policy towards the less developed countries, whether in the matter of financial aid, increased sales of primary commodities at fair prices, or simply technical assistance. 88. In this dark picture, I should like, however, to point out a few bright spots which offer some hope for the future. I am thinking especially of Europe. There too no lasting solutions have been found, in particular with regard to the future of Germany. We know full well that there will be no lasting and truly peaceful settlement in our part of the world so long as this major problem remains without a solution achieved in peace, that is, with the agreement of all concerned and, in the first place, the Germans themselves. Doubtless, as in the case of the other European questions, this solution will be found only at the end of a long and difficult process. But it is perhaps not out of the question to think that this process is, in a way, already mapped out, For some years now Europe has been free of the crises which, so long after the war was over, continued to divide it in the rigid and inhuman way that we remember only too well. The iron curtain and the ideological and military bloc are beginning to give way before the general desire to normalize relations and affirm national identities. France is happy, for its part, to contribute to the full extent of its powers to a movement which is healthy because it marks the return to normality and to old ties broken by the cold war and because it paves the way towards the future. France is happy to see that in Western Europe, as in Eastern Europe, it is meeting with approval and encouragement. It has good reason to hope that, if no outside catacLysm occurs — a cataclysm which would inevitably affect our old continent once it became world-wide — the movement thus started will be continued and extended. Thus, the conditions would gradually be created for a general opening up of Europe from the inside, for a broad development of political, economic, human and cultural exchanges, and for a constructive discussion of all the major problems facing the European Powers, foremost among them as always being that of Germany. If no outside factor interrupts the incipient course of this development, we have reason to feel reasonably optimistic, and I am sure that the General Assembly welcomes the fact as much as we do. 89. This year again, Africa is a major preoccupation. Some of the important issues there are already or doubtless soon will be included in our agenda. They are all rooted in the same cause, namely, the fact that there are still some parts of that vast continent which are still untouched by the great movement of liberation, or decolonization if you prefer, which has entirely reshaped that continent over the past fifteen-years and brought into our Organization so many new sovereign independent States. The basic principle of this emancipation has been the recognition of the right of peoples — of all peoples — to self-determination, In a certain number of cases, this right has not been recognized, or else, if recognized, confined to a minority by virtue of a racial discrimination which is contrary to all our convictions and to the very principles of the United Nations Charter. 90. These anomalies or anachronisms, which are in such flagrant contradiction, with the general current of events and of mankind, have created local situations which are or which are liable to become tragic and have given rise throughout Africa to understandable feelings of distress which time will not assuage. France Is too firmly committed everywhere, and especially where its responsibilities are concerned, to respect for man's right to self-determination, not to share those feelings. It is in this spirit that we shall take part in the forthcoming discussions, aware of the need to make our positions clear beyond any possibility of doubt and aware too that, above and beyond those positions, we must strive to determine what will be useful, practical and effective, within the framework of our principles and in accordance with the rules of our Charter. 91. With these words on the African problems, which are by no means of secondary importance, I have completed the survey of the major international issues facing us at this time. There are, I know, for many, still other sources of concern. At least three quarters of the Organization's members are faced, each in its own way, by the major problem of their own development. This is, moreover, their primary responsibility, not only with respect to themselves, but also with respect to the international community, if they want to be in a position to play In It their rightful role. Just now 1 was somewhat pessimistic about the prospects for co-operation in this field between the major Powers in the present circumstances. But that does not mean that the duty of those Powers is any the less Imperative. To help their less fortunate comrades to the full extent of their capacity and in every possible form still remains an essential obligation. The results of the United Nations Conference on Trade and Development held in Geneva in 1964 have been far from satisfactory. No one regrets that more than France. None is more firmly resolved to continue studies and discussions in a desire for progress and success. Evidence of this may be found in my country's achievements in its own co-operation with the developing countries, starting with those for which it was formerly responsible, and in the volume of resources which it has devoted, is devoting and will continue to devote to such work. However, as always in this field, the way of doing a thing is almost as important as the thing itself. I said from this very rostrum last year, with regard to the policy of co-operation: "We also believe that such a policy must be subordinated to the express condition that we refrain from linking aid, whatever form it may take, to any political condition whatever, and that we refrain from any intervention, in that connexion, in the affairs of our partners."[1341st meeting,para, 109.] It is clear that strict respect for such a rule of conduct is closely dependent on the international situation. If the cold war rages, it is bound to make its effect felt everywhere,' even in relations between the major Powers and the developing countries. The latter cannot conceivably avoid being regarded by the major Powers as a stake in their rivalries, rather than as the object of their generous and unselfish concern. 92. All things in our universe are inevitably interdependent and this interdependence has increased with our technical progress and our growing feeling of solidarity evidenced, among other things, by the development of international institutions such as this. For that reason, beyond all legitimately national concerns, beyond individual views or interests, beyond regional and continental viewpoints, beyond our preoccupations as individuals or groups of individuals, there is a good common to all, which belongs to no one in particular because it is universal, which imposes a standard of behaviour and certain obligations on each of us, a common good which must, in the nature of things, find its primary expression in an assembly such as ours and which is called the peace and progress of mankind. 93. For France, peace and progress are the supreme objective of its international policy. It is with a view to peace and progress that France makes its judgements on major issues and endeavours to direct its action. These principles are its sole concern when it speaks of Europe, Africa or development assistance, And similarly when it speaks of Viet-Nam it has no other aim. It is world peace that is at stake wherever fighting is going on; it is world peace that is at stake wherever there is poverty and hunger. Let us all strive together to make that peace a universal reality.