Syria

May I join with those who preceded me in extending to the President the congratulations of my delegation on his unanimous election to preside over our deliberations. His guidance to us is most valuable. He may be sure that it is deeply appreciated. 122. This session of the United Nations General Assembly meets at a time when the world community is beset with a series of problems. Some of these problems are difficult to solve, such as disarmament and the use of atomic energy. Other problems are grave and urgent, such as the problems relating to the Middle East situation and Algeria. Yet all these problems come to us as attendants to an evolution in world affairs, rapid and far-going. Indeed, no single year has seen such an evolution as the last one. 123. It befits us to look into that as a beginning. New States are emerging on the world scene. Five Arab States are attending for the first time a full session of the Assembly. The Assembly is becoming universal. Fourteen other new Members have joined our Organization. The “cold war” is shedding its paraphernalia; its camps of power, its tensions and dissensions, previously reflected in this Assembly, have diminished rapidly. The alliances of the “cold war” are tending to become obsolete. The systems and equilibriums of the “cold war” are tottering. The “cold war”, acting to suck into its vortex a number of vital human issues, such as self-determination and development in under-developed areas, has ceased to operate. 124. The United Nations itself has been able at this session to work with «a harmony unsurpassed since San Francisco, The United States and the Soviet Union have been able to vote together on very grave issues. Let us hope that they can continue to work together. Generally speaking, the “cold war” has diminished, thus ushering in a new season: the coming of peace. 125. The rapidity and nature of this evolution in world affairs has — not surprisingly — been met by resistance and reaction. We feel that resistance. We see it today active and spearheaded by a revival of colonial policy acting in conjunction with Zionism. It is by no means a coincidence that the United Kingdom, France and Zionism, which reveals itself here in the Assembly through Israel, have acted together at this historic juncture in world developments. It is not surprising that they precipitated their action before world developments made it too late for them to act in the way they did. 126. The gist of their action is to see that colonial Powers are again able to take the law into their hands, to by-pass the United Nations and substitute themselves for it, to bring about small wars in an attempt to impose their will on other peoples and face the United Nations with a fait accompli. Their intent is to make the world safe for their designs, instead of allowing the world to become safe for the Charter and its principles. 127. The Anglo-French-Zionist triumvirate appear to be only concerned about the Middle East. But they know full well that a conflict in the Middle East can hardly be localized. Their ultimate objective appears to be of a far wider scope. As a result of their action in the Middle East, they may bring intervention and activate tensions between the two major world Powers, the United States and the Soviet Union. Then the United Kingdom and France would develop a position where they can serve as a weight in a new balance of power and regain their diminishing international import. Neither of the two Powers is ready to be reconciled with the inevitable trends of history. Then Zionism can better fish in the waters it would have troubled. Then Mr. Ben-Gurion can go on to sing the praise of aggression in his own poetic language and repeat his words, which I would like to quote: “Ahead of us are campaigns and conquests, the splendour and portents to come.” 128. The Middle East situation, with its wide implications, can hardly be considered in the light of the Korean or Vietnamese situation, where violence broke out but was contained. The nature of the issues is different, the nature of the area is different. The three Allies were not acting lightly when they breached the peace in the Middle East and endangered world peace. They know better than anybody that small wars in the Middle East have consistently called for determined intervention, and that small wars, in that central area, can only lead to big wars. 129. Today, more than ever, the Middle East is the focus of world tensions. Its resources, its strategic importance, the liberating upsurge of its peoples, and the complexity of its issues, make it so. Tensions focused upon our area are reflected back into the United Nations with a hazy and tormented light of uncertainty. Indeed, the United Nations itself has been attacked by the Franco-Zionist-British blow. It has been thrown into a state of twilight, between orderly, instituted and sanctioned peace, on the one hand, and chaos, actual aggression inviting further aggression, on the other hand. The very mission of the United Nations, the very evolution towards a peaceful international order, have in reality become the issue. 130. The Middle East situation with its implications confronts the United Nations with a challenge: whether the norms of the Charter and the authority of the United Nations are to be respected, or whether the aggressive colonial Zionist policy is to be implemented. 131. What does the Anglo-French-Zionist stand reveal? It reveals three things, to say the least. 132. First, it reveals that the three allies were substantially unified in their goals, and that their actions were co-ordinated, synchronized and directed towards objectives common to all three of them. 133. Secondly, it reveals that their actions have started, but by no means have ended. They persist in their effort to attain their war aims and to utilize for this purpose either war itself or disregard for United Nations authority or an adulteration of the mission of the United Nations Emergency Force. They even seek to use this Force for their very war objectives. It is clear that as long as the allies persist in seeking to obtain the objectives of that policy, a resumption or a recurrence of hostilities in the Middle East remains inevitable, and wide international implications of the Middle East situation remain unavoidable. 134. Thirdly, this stand reveals that the United Kingdom and France continue even today to support their third ally, Israel, in its aggressive designs against the Gaza Strip and other areas. Indeed, official British and French statements support the Israel wish not to let Egypt go back to the Gaza Strip. Both the United Kingdom and France consider that this Israel design is to be entertained and sustained. 135. It is obvious, therefore, that the three allies have not as yet implemented the United Nations decisions. Their forces continue to be concentrated in the Middle East area and are readied. The developments of the Middle East situation have not as yet taken the form envisaged by the United Nations. The situation continues, therefore, to call for the vigilant care of the United Nations; it lays before us here the basic question of how to meet this grave challenge. 136. The state of mind of the United Nations continues to be of real import. Will the United Nations continue to face the challenge squarely and boldly and deal with the problem in the right way? Or will it resort to expediency and opportunism? 137. Only one acceptable answer can be given to these questions. We in the United Nations cannot fail to assert the authority of this body by a real and full implementation of its decisions. In the present crisis, we cannot fail to respond to the mounting summons of our peoples that the principles of the Charter should actually and effectively prevail. We refuse to fail, because peace is the issue and because that summons of our peoples is the voice of the decent opinion of man and of practical reasoning. 138. In view of the present stand of the colonial-Zionist allies, it may still be necessary to consider those international sanctions provided for by the Charter. Proper measures might be vetoed. One result can, however, be attained in the Security Council. The situation as it is now can be made clear of undue ambiguity and the ambiguous stands of some Member States. 139. When the Assembly and the Security Council are unable to find the effective remedy, then only one remedy is possible. That remedy is also in the Charter. It is the legitimate right of self-defence. 140. The right of self-defence is a duty which falls upon any nation that becomes a victim of aggression. In the actual circumstances in the Middle East, to prevent any nation like mine from exercising the full right of self-defence would be tantamount to waving the Charter with one hand, while extending indirect aid to aggression with the other. This is all the more true in view of the fact that the three colonial-Zionist allies possess both outside and within the Middle East itself military means and power far superior to the local forces which may be used to oppose aggression and defend liberty in an area that wants to be free. 141. We would therefore be well advised to regard eventualities with a clear vision. To meet them with the wishful thinking that “nothing will happen” is an error. To meet them with statements and declarations is of no real avail unless actions substantiate intentions. To meet such eventualities with mere propaganda and diplomatic pressures may allow the situation to slip from the brink to the depths of disaster itself. 142. While we centre our attention on the disquieting essentials of the Middle Eastern situation, it befits us also to turn our vision to significant, and some healthy, developments which surround it. Allow me to mention some of them. 143. Up till now, there has been among the Members of the United Nations a real disposition to act diligently, promptly and almost unanimously on this matter. That is very comforting because such a disposition, if strengthened to become effective, would not allow war to pay the aggressors..They would have to chart another course — that of real and due negotiations on the Suez issue, which could be freely undertaken when undue pressures are completely removed. 144. The acts of the United Kingdom and France have not met with the acceptance or acquiescence of the other big Powers, namely, the United States, the Soviet Union and China. 145. The United States, all to its honour, has separated itself in the present situation from the colonial-Zionist policies. Under the guidance of its great President, the United States was able to overcome strong influences, such as those coming from the concept of the North Atlantic Treaty Organization and the Zionist concept. It proceeded to take an attitude befitting true American principles and legitimate United States interests. May I say that the United States in the present situation has commanded our Appreciation. It has enlivened the hope in my country that the United States is on its way to separating itself completely from the objectives of colonialist-Zionist policies in the Middle East. May I say further that cooperation between the American and the Arab nations to do what is right is highly valued in my country. 146. The Soviet Union boldly supported the cause of peace and liberty in the present crisis; It did not shirk its international responsibilities; it assumed them. 147. We were most gratified to see the United States and the Soviet Union vote together on this problem in the Assembly and in the Security Council. 148. Another very important development, one from which a lesson may be obtained from the present crisis, stems from the fact that almost all the Asian and African countries have been able to work together and to act together in an effort to influence the course of events. It is clear for these and many other nations that the issue at stake is not navigation in the Suez Canal. The real issue is clearly that of the resurgence of colonialism supported by Zionism and welded to it. 149. Public opinion, in Latin America and elsewhere and even a big section of the opinion in the United Kingdom and France, was shocked by the act of the three allies, aroused and moved against aggression and the breach of the peace. Responsible and official opinion, usually reticent, became very candid and explicit. 150. But most important of all is the fact that the resistance of the Egyptian people, supported by the rest of the Arab nations, was not broken in the face of overwhelming forces and a treacherous attack. This is very important, because it exerts an enormous effect directly on the scene of the problem. 151. Contrary to colonial-Zionist expectations, the aggression fortified that resistance. It did not break it, it helped to make it. The allies should realize by now that their precipitate actions have solidified, activated and set afoot resistance to their policies in all the Arab homeland from Morocco to Iraq, and including Iraq. It has activated, likewise, wide international support for the Arab peoples, in their fight for national liberty; a support for which we are most grateful. 152. The pretext that the United Kingdom and France intervened in the place of the United Nations, and without its knowledge, only for the purpose of separating the combatants — by shooting at the victim of aggression — has become a farce. The more this farce is perpetrated, the more ridiculous it is. This has some importance, because the United Kingdom and France now clearly face their responsibility before the international community. The collusion of the three allies was no surprise to us in Syria. 153. Our experience with Zionism has endured long enough for us to know something about it. I would like to tell you a little about Zionism now. 154. Zionism came to our shores, carried by a colonial, mandate; it was planted in our soil by British colonial bayonets. Since then, Zionism has been fathered and fostered in our area by the colonial influences that were preparing it to be used as a force against Arab-liberating nationalism, at the opportune moment. The very purpose of Zionism is colonial — that purpose is to colonize the Palestine area. It now thrives upon the remnants of colonial influence, subjugating the Arabs and hindering their national development. 155. The very philosophy of Zionism sets Israel in opposition to the basic principles of the United Nations Charter. That philosophy, indeed, is predicated upon a double thesis: that of racial and religious discrimination between Jews and Gentiles, and that of destroying the internal harmony within every nation by holding that the Jews comprise a nation within every nation and, as they say, are “exiles” away from their homeland. 156. A Zionist citizen in any one nation in acquiring allegiance to Zionism and to Israel, usually does so to the detriment of his allegiance to the country of which he is legally and technically a citizen. Such Zionist citizens form themselves into pressure groups, exerting influence on the government of the country to which they belong, in order to sway that government away; from its national interests to those of Israel. It is not, therefore, coincidental that Zionist congresses and responsible leaders have been proclaiming this theme. No less a person than Mr. Goldman, head of the Jewish Agency, spoke as follows : “Israel is a unique country in that there is no other State in the world where nearly 90 per cent of the people live outside of it.” Mr. Ben-Gurion, Prime Minister of Israel, repeating the same theme, said: “When a Jew in America or South Africa speaks of ‘our Government’ to his fellow Jews, he usually means the Government of Israel, while the Jewish public in various countries view the Israel ambassadors as their own representatives.” 157. The basic strategy of Zionism is, by its very nature, expansionist. Its strategy aims at making space in Palestine for the so-called “exiles”, Already, in order to make space in the Palestine area, there are 1 million Arab refugees. 158. So much for the past. How about the future? This expansionist strategy of Zionism is basic and is developing into an ever-increasing process. Indeed, Mr. Ben-Gurion said, “Israel has been established in only a part of the land of Israel.” In other Words, there are other parts to be added to Israel as it presently exists. 159. Realizing this, the Zionist instigation of aggression against Egypt met the ready hearing of France and the United Kingdom. All three could, of course, agree that once Egypt’s power was broken, the way would be open for expansion in Syria, Jordan and elsewhere. Now Syria seems to be on the time-table for aggression. France probably had in mind the continuation of its domination in another part of the Arab world, namely, Algeria. 160. The issue was certainly not that of Suez. The real issue to the three allies, obviously, was to suppress Arab liberty and to obstruct Arab development, using preventive war as a means to block off the current of history. 161. Just today [609th meeting] we have had occasion to hear the representative of Israel try to justify this stand by saying that Israel does not intend to leave the Gaza area, and then she went on to try to explain that situation ; the means, however, which are to be used should be unmasked without delay. 162. No matter how much confusion the Zionists would like to introduce into the Palestine situation, one central and fundamental fact remains, and that is that the Arabs were living peacefully and calmly in their Palestinian homeland when they were subjected to Zionist-Colonial intrusion and aggression from without. They are the victims of this problem and are the ones who suffer as the result of the Palestine situation. They did not create any trouble in this area, nor did they enlarge the problems which occurred, but they were driven out of Palestine as a result of slaughter and massacre. The representative of Israel told us that these Arabs, who in fact only wish to go to their homes, are marauders and gunmen and fedayeen who should be punished for having provoked Israel into war. These men are going back to their homes and their fields, which they are fully entitled to do, and when they are opposed, it is he who opposes them who is acting in sheer banditism. 163. The representative of Israel was able to speak about “our resources”. In fact, 94.6 per cent of the land which Israel calls “our resources” belongs to the Arab refugees who are now Called marauders and who have to look across the demarcation lines to see their homes used by another people. It is an act of aggression on the part of Israel. Israel itself is an act of aggression. That is a central fact that cannot be denied. 164. What are these fedayeen? So much has, been spoken of them of late, and the word fedayeen has been used out of context, or with a different meaning, so that it needs some explanation. The Arabic word fedayeen means this: “A man who believes in something and is ready to die for his belief in a God-given right.” He is not a criminal, he is a man of conviction. The fedayeen are not new in our history, we have seen them time and again in the various crises in our long history, and they are here today. They are people convinced of their rights and who want to do what is correct and are ready to sacrifice their lives in martyrdom, if necessary. 165. As I have said, they are not criminals, but men of conviction, to be honoured and respected. When people stand for justice and expose themselves in this way to attack, should they not be compared rather to such heroes as Simon Bolivar or Washington, who might as well have been called fedayeen, for they had the same nature and the same resolute will as those who are called marauders and gunmen by the representative of Israel. 166. It is a fact to be remembered that Palestine belonged to these people. The Israelis came and drove these people out of their land, and they would now like us to forget what has been done and to be free to develop and left alone to enjoy the natural resources which in fact belong to none else than the Arab refugees, made homeless, destitute but in readiness to sacrifice themselves in order to obtain their rights. 167 And after all, there comes with that theory of Zionism what Mrs. Meir this morning called the fulfilment of the historic mission of Zionism. Who gave them that mission? Who gave that mission to Zionism? They have assumed that mission for themselves, and that mission is to drive the people out of the country and to take their place. As long as Zionism continues, it renders the Palestine question a prolongation into the Middle East of the world Zionist movement. The expansion of Zionism, its very philosophy and strategy, unfortunately make peace a forlorn hope. What Zionism calls peace is to try to consolidate past aggression with a view to march from that aggression into further expansion, as they have done in the past few weeks. 168. There is a problem of grave importance that is already on the agenda of the United Nations. It is the question of Algeria. But that question is closely related with the question of Tunisia and Morocco. 169. The North African situation continues to call for the special attention of the Assembly. My delegation will try to devote to it its utmost care. Since we shall be dealing with it at length in committee, it may be sufficient today to make some general and brief observations. 170. First, the attributes of sovereignty of Tunisia and Morocco have not all been transferred by France to the Tunisian and Moroccan Governments to be exercised by the two Governments respectively. The negotiations for such a transfer have been cut on account of the recalcitrant attitude of France. It seems that France continues to believe wrongly that theoretical sovereignly is enough to satisfy the serious minds of the Tunisian and Moroccan peoples, set upon the full exercise of the attributes of sovereignty and independence. I have in view the necessity of dealing in particular with the financial and economic problems, as well as with the problem of evacuating French troops in accordance with the sovereign rights of Morocco and Tunisia respectively. 171. Second, the right of the Algerian people to self- determination and independence has not been recognized as yet by France. It is true that some negotiations have been started between Algeria and France, but they were nipped in the bud by the kidnapping of the five Algerian leaders by France. 172. It would be well to recall on this occasion that France also at one time seized the Sultan of Morocco and exiled him. The moderating influence of the Sultan was then withheld, as in the present case of the five Algerian leaders who were disposed to negotiate. The effect and the consequences on the local people of the seizure by France of the Sultan tell the effect and consequences of the seizure by France of the five Algerian leaders. The only result is an increase in resistance. 173. Third, already half a million French troops are now in Algeria, attempting to suppress the Algerian liberation. They call their action “pacification” by France in Algeria. France has pacified nothing. It has only activated the mounting force of liberating nationalism. Indeed, the Algerian movement proved to be a mass movement of a people conscious of their national existence, determined and organized to institute for themselves an independent Algerian State. 174. Fourthly, the Algerian question is already established as an international question for all practical purposes. It is before the United Nations. It is more than that: Algeria is not alone. Almost all Asian and African countries support Algeria to the extent that the issue is not any more limited to Algeria and France, but is also an issue which causes wide international frictions. The Algerian question was a question which was discussed with concern at various international conferences, such as the Bandung Conference and the Brioni meeting. The rights of the Algerian people are substantially endorsed by many other peoples, and the liberation of Algeria is receiving the support of many States and the overwhelming opinion of mankind. 175. The questions related to Tunisia, Morocco, Algeria or Egypt are not for Syria, my country, international questions only. They are also for us Arab national questions brought oh to the international scene. 176. It is a fact that there exist at present several Arab States. The situation, in respect of the dismemberment of the Arab nation, is mainly a direct result of the colonial era. The fundamental and everlasting fact, however, is this: that it is one and the same Arab nation continuing across the glories and vicissitudes of its long history. For centuries, these Arab lands were institutionally one, as they were continually and nationally one. 177. The policy of Syria, therefore, is a national Arab policy. It consists of an effort to ensure the liberation of all parts of the Arab homeland and the full exercise by its members of their right to self-determination. Our attitude is the same towards any other nation. We are convinced that such a policy is internationally the one that befits the Charter. We hold that the foreign domination of Arab lands should be replaced by freedom and international co-operation. 178. It is self-evident that the Arab nation, at the present juncture of its history, is in a position similar to the position of the Italian and German nations, before Italian and German unity. 179. To qualify the urge in my country to bring the Arab countries together institutionally, into one collectivity, as being an urge smacking of imperialism, is simply ridiculous. The Arabs seek no other peoples’ land. They seek their union by their own consent as an dement of their right to self-determination. There is no imperialism in any such tendency. On the contrary, the union of the Arabs erases colonial and imperialistic influences. It creates the basic conditions for stability and peace in the Middle East. It renders the Arab nation apt and ready to contribute of its own genius and to contribute abundantly to human culture and civilization, as it has been able to do for century upon century. Civilization can best be enriched by contributions which nations can bring to it each out of its own characteristics and to serve thus as a tributary to swell the nourishing current of culture. 180. In respect of Syria, we would like to state that, in accordance with our constitution and the will of the Syrian people, Syrian territory is an integral part of the Arab homeland and the Syrian people are an integral part of one and the same nation. 181. So much has been said and repeated about some foreign influences in the Middle East, and particularly with regard to Syria, that we need to call attention to the fact, and to say bluntly, that there is no red, white, blue or brown colour or any other colouring. Our people accept their own. We have our own Arab way of life. 182. The foreign policy of Syria is not predicated on the whimsical basis which propaganda likes maliciously to set before people’s eyes. Our policy has and continues to be the policy of non-commitment to either of the two camps of the “cold war” or to either of its two poles of power. It is not disinterestedness in general peace and war, but it is a policy of positive neutrality, seeking earnestly to deal with international matters objectively and trying hard to do the little part that we can for human good. 183. The five principles emphasized at Bandung were a basis of our policy. Since Bandung, these principles have served us as basic formulae for our international dealings. It is dear that we do not base Our good international relations on differences of ideology. We try to base our foreign relations upon fact and upon our vital needs, in accordance with the United Nations Charter. 184. A far more important fact than the “cold war” is that of national liberation in previously dependent areas. Already 700 million people in Asia and Africa have moved out of foreign domination to national liberty. Their vast potentialities are rapidly turning into actual capabilities. They are becoming more and more able to discharge their international responsibilities. The tide of liberation, now mounting upon the Arab shores of Africa and elsewhere, is indeed an irreversible tide. It is the sign of our time for all eyes to see. This, more than the “cold war”, is of great and enduring importance. 185. Just a few years ago, the voice of Asia and Africa was hardly heard in world affairs. It was a whisper at best. From Bandung that voice was recently heard, clear and emphatic. It did not come to call for a new power bloc. It came out with principles. 186. The liberation in Asia and Africa was thought by some Western countries to be the liberation of an explosive force shaking world equilibrium, almost the liberation of a destructive force or energy. It turned out to be, however, what it really is, the energy of creative liberty calling for wide international co-operation. It did not destroy any equilibrium. What it is doing is to widen the basis of the world equilibrium and establish for it more solid foundations. 187. The horizons of the world, which during the last year have been turning towards peace, are now befogged by warlike colonial-Zionist actions, and propaganda concerning the Middle East. The United Nations, at its birth, emerged from the shadows of war to come forth to us, a Charter embodying the common resolve of our people, and an organization to harmonize international action. That United Nations is the one for us to keep and cherish. 188. The shadow of war has surrounded the United Nations again recently. May it be given to this eleventh session to rejuvenate its mission and set us on the way to complete a task begun. We appeal to all, including the United Kingdom and France, to help the United Nations. The only thing that we are seeking is peace with justice. I would like to thank the President for giving me the opportunity to clarify a passage in the speech which I made yesterday [610th meeting]. 71. With respect to Tunisia and Morocco, it is quite clear that the independence of the two States is not in doubt. What is envisaged is merely the transfer of all those attributes of sovereignty which have not, as yet, been transferred. This should be done, and particularly, matters of a financial and economic nature should be settled in accordance with the sovereign rights of these two States. The most important factor is that the presence of French troops on Tunisian and Moroccan soil, while it continues to take place against the will of the two sovereign Governments, each in their respective territories, mars the independence of the two countries. This is a very serious matter. The evacuation of foreign troops could proceed in accordance with the free understanding and agreement of the two Governments concerned, namely, the Governments of Tunisia and Morocco. 72. This clarification is made only to avoid any misinterpretation, since some misunderstanding has apparently crept into the minds of some of those present.