It is for me a great pleasure to bring you today, to this meeting which opens the second part of the first session of the General Assembly of the United Nations, the greetings of the people of the Nile Valley.
In the speeches which your Assembly has had occasion to hear in the. course of the present session, one cannot help detecting a mixture of scepticism and optimism concerning the future of our Organization. Peoples will not renounce the idealistic hopes which they have placed in our Organization, while Governments cannot close their eyes to the real obstacles which impede its progress.
As the Secretary-General has rightly pointed out in his report of June 1946, the United Nations can fulfill its mission only if a good understanding and concord prevail among the great nations. The United Nations, as the Secretary-General pointed out, is not in a position to act as arbiter between the great Powers. We, for our part, believe that it will be at least able to arbitrate between the great and the small nations, not only in the interest of peace but still more in the interest of international justice and morality, without which there can be no peace.
I speak here on behalf of a country which lies at the centre of an area possessing great natural resources and commanding land, sea and air communications of world-wide importance.
Speaking of this area and of the interest which. the United Nations should take in it, President Truman, in a speech at Chicago on 7 April 1946, on American Army Day, said:
“It is easy to see, therefore, how the Near and Middle East might become an arena of intense rivalry between outside Powers, and how such rivalry might suddenly erupt into a conflict.
“The United Nations have a right to insist that the sovereignty and integrity of the countries of the Near and Middle East must not be threatened by coercion or penetration.”
President Truman thereby expressed in a very concise and clear form the situation of the Near and Middle East, and stressed the vital importance which that area has for the United Nations.
Before the Charter came into being, it was the practice to stress the importance of a given area for the communications or for the strategic interests, or for the economic interests or even the cultural interests of this or that empire or republic, an importance which some considered as vital for themselves, and on which they would base their claim for special privileges.
The United Nations Charter, however, has inaugurated a new era. That Charter proclaims essentially that the United Nations is there to watch, above all and everywhere, over the legitimate interests of each and all, while maintaining the sovereignty and integrity of all nations, whether large, medium or small, in both hemispheres, and "that no nation should be entitled to special privileges outside its own territory, and that no pacific nations should suffer coercion or penetration.
One of the most authoritative spokesmen of the great democracies, Mr. Byrnes, Secretary of State of the United States of America, when speaking on behalf of the United States in a speech delivered on Saint Patrick’s Day in New York, emphasized these principles as follows:
“We do not propose to seek security in an alliance with the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics against Britain or in an alliance with Britain against the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics.
“We propose to stand with the United Nations in our efforts to secure equal justice
for all nations and special privileges for no nation.”
On behalf of Egypt, I propose that the General Assembly of the United Nations endorse these words, and remind all peoples that the United Nations, is, above all, an alliance of all the peaceful nations, and that its ultimate aim is to establish order and security throughout the world. Such an organization should render special alliances entirely purposeless and competitive armaments futile.
Negotiations for the conclusion or for the renewal of alliances frequently take place under pressure, overt or tacit, of armaments or of that corollary of armaments which is military occupation of the whole or of part of a foreign sovereign territory.
It was with such negotiations in mind that Mr. Bevin, replying in the House of Commons, on 14 March 1946, to a question put to him by Mr. Eden on the relations between the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics and Iran declared that:
“His Majesty’s Government would regret any settlement which appeared to be extracted from the Persian Government under duress, while the Soviet army was still in occupation of part of Persia.”
Mr. Bevin expounded these contemporary principles of justice between nations once again in a generalized form, in a memorable speech delivered at the Transport Workers Festival at Bristol in early April 1946. He said:
“It is improper to negotiate or attempt to negotiate or attempt to obtain concessions by a great Power out of a little Power by means of occupying that country with your forces.”
Such were the frank and forceful terms in which Mr. Bevin expressed this principle of international justice. Any pressure to which a peaceful nation is subjected impairs the validity of its consent to treaties it may be materially or morally forced to conclude, just as duress invalidates consent in relations between individuals.
This principle has been embodied in the Civil Code of all our countries because it is obviously a matter of ethics and equity; pending the time when this principle finds its way into the proposed code of international law, Egypt asks your General Assembly to include in its creed the idea that no negotiation can be validly undertaken and no concession agreed upon between sovereign nations, so long as the one exerts pressure on the other by the overt or latent threat of its forces.
In this connexion, the Egyptian delegation reiterates the statement made during a meeting of the Security Council in London, namely, that the occupation by foreign troops of the territory of a State Member of the Organization constitutes a grave infringement of the sovereignty of the Member concerned and is incompatible with the essential principles of the Charter.
It also reiterates the statement made at the Security Council in New York that this matter should continue to be kept in mind, and that no foreign, troops should be allowed to remain within a territory without the express and unqualified approval of the sovereign people of the country concerned. Such troops have, I am afraid, been used more than once to bring pressure to bear on my Government at times when political or economic negotiations were proceeding.
This principle should, in our opinion, occupy a place of honour in the codification of the moral standards of international law, a codification which Egypt requested should be undertaken without delay at the San Francisco Conference, and which is now, I am glad to say, reappearing on the agenda in the form of the proposal of the United States of America.
We are not unaware that such codification is difficult. There can be no doubt, however, that the United Nations represents a great advance towards the realization of an idea which was formerly regarded as utopian but is now beginning to take shape: the idea of a world government which will take the place of the Security Council; of a world parliament which will take the place of our General Assembly; of an International Court of Justice having compulsory jurisdiction and of a world police which will constitute our executory force.
This universal super-State should obviously have its organic law and its codes of justice and of ethics.
Every nation, great or small, is strictly entitled to know in advance what is right and what is wrong in relations between peoples and between States. So long as we have not codified these essential principles, we shall not be able to say that law prevails in the world, for there is no true law without declared standards.
We are not unaware that the codification to be undertaken is a gigantic enterprise, but I feel that today we are sufficiently “grown up” to undertake it.
The necessary consequence of this codification would be that no nation, however large, could set itself above the law, either by the right of veto or by any other similar means.
In order that we may prepare ourselves for the future system of equality of nations before the law, it is essential that we should make a beginning here and now in the gradual restriction of the right of veto, which has evoked strong criticism from the start.
Nations must accordingly have their written law.
There is no written law without sanction and no sanction without executory force. Why should we not have that executory force immediately?
The main reproach levelled at the League of Nations was that it was disarmed. The fundamental principle underlying the Charter is therefore — to use an expression which has gained general currency — that the United Nations should have teeth, that is to say, its own military forces. Our Organization would be meaningless and purposeless, if it were not required, as its first, and in due course its exclusive responsibility, to maintain a just peace and, by the fear of its visible power, to guarantee total security to nations of good will.
We must constantly remember that it is the duty of all of us to ensure, by means of our joint forces, that nowhere in the world shall international justice and ethics be placed in jeopardy.
This is one direct consequence of the creation of this international army, on which our Assembly will also have to pronounce sooner or later.
i
Here I will let Mr. Paul-Boncour speak. This great specialist of the League of Nations, addressing the Assembly for the winding up of the League at Geneva on 10 April 1946, said that “The international force, which represented the most gain for the nations will remain a snare and a delusion if we do not, sooner or later, proceed to a general reduction and to the control of armaments.”
The inconsistency between the creation of an all-powerful international force and the maintenance on a war footing of the armies of the great Powers, is too obvious to require any emphasis, I will merely refer you to point 8 of the Atlantic Charter and to Article 11 of the Charter of the United Nations.
The fact that, as a result of competitive armament, a third world war is already a hypothesis, is in itself a tragedy.
In the eyes of Egypt and of most of the medium and smaller nations, the absence of an international force as part of the United Nations is all the more regrettable in that it enables certain great Powers to argue that there is a “vacuum” to be filled either by alliances or by military occupations which are essentially contrary to the spirit of the United Nations Charter. This “vacuum” gives the old-time imperialism a chance to revive; it is a convenient excuse for maintaining armed forces on the territory of certain sovereign nations, against the will of those nations.
I ask your Assembly to proclaim that it disapproves of the presence of the forces of one of the United Nations on the territory of another sovereign and peaceful nation, against the freely, expressed wish of its people.
There has recently been an instance of the application of these principles which the whole East has welcomed with joy: the occupying troops have, during this year, evacuated Syria and Lebanon. Here we can only commend the attitude taken up in the matter by France and Great Britain.
It is with particular pleasure that Egypt takes note that certain States Members responsible for administering territories under mandate have submitted special agreements to bring these territories under trusteeship. The Trusteeship Council could now be set up, and the organs of the United Nations would thus be complete.
Egypt is confident that the General Assembly and, under its authority, the Trusteeship Council. will ensure the attainment of the aims of trusteeship and will lay chief emphasis on the promotion of the political, economic and social advancement of the populations of Trust Territories.
When we consider some of the economic problems which stand in the way of the full achievement of peace after the war, we cannot help noticing the economic barriers which some nations raise against others; one of these is the blocking of currencies, high customs tariffs, and various preferential agreements among nations. Egypt pledges herself to co-operate unreservedly in the removal of these barriers, and I would add here that all new agreements concluded among States on any question, whether political or other, should in all circumstances be drawn up in the spirit of the United Nations and of its Charter.
One of the most important matters for consideration by the Assembly is the international refugee problem.
I hasten to express the hope of the Egyptian Government that this task will be carried through to a successful conclusion, and its conviction that the United Nations will, each within the limits of its resources, co-operate to bring about the prompt repatriation of the unfortunate victims of the war and of racial, religious and ideological persecution. We must emphasize, however, that this great humanitarian task can be successfully carried through only if provision is made for the return of the refugees to the countries in which they originally lived. The idea of resettling them elsewhere should be entertained only as a last resort, in those cases where repatriation would give rise to grave difficulties or encounter serious obstacles. On no account must resettlement of the refugees be imposed on a sovereign nation, or run counter to the aspirations or freely expressed wishes of the populations of any given area.
It should not be forgotten that the success of this great enterprise depends especially upon the kind of reception accorded to the refugees in their new homes. This factor is of outstanding importance, for it will greatly influence the lives of the refugees in their country of adoption.
Subject to this reservation, Egypt expresses its firm desire to co-operate with the new Refugee Organization, and its hope that the latter will be invested with the most extensive powers so that it may discharge its important duties.
We believe that, in order to secure more effective co-operation, the new Organization should centralize within itself all governmental and private activities which bear upon the problem of refugees.
If for our United Nations the Charter is the letter, it is world public opinion which is the spirit. Of this world public opinion General Eisenhower recently declared:
“I believe fervently in mass public opinion, and, if only it were mobilized in favour of the, peace we all want, there would never be an other war.”
I venture to invite the pacifists, which all of us are, to take the advice of this great soldier and put our faith in the power of the opinion of the masses, of whom we are here the spokesmen.
It is for us, by goodwill, good faith and perseverance, to fulfill the hopes which the masses have placed in the United Nations, the supreme monument of human brotherhood; but we have still to complete this monument and that without delay. Has not the time come for the Assembly to invite the Security Council to give the Military Staff Committee a time limit for the submission of its concrete proposals for the immediate creation of the armed forces of the United Nations?
It is with sincere hopes of success that Egypt is attending this opening of the session of the community of nations. It is by mutual understanding and concessions and by a true appraisal of the essential rights of each that we, a group of United Nations matured by experience, must participate, in the name of humanity, in the most glorious of all enterprises: a lasting peace.