France

Before I speak of anything else I would like first of all to associate the French delegation with the tribute which so many have already paid here to the respected memory of that great statesman, and leader of peoples, the deeply lamented President Roosevelt. I would also like to thank President Truman for having inaugurated our present session with the very valuable speech which so happily opened our deliberations. From sheer force of circumstances all speeches made from this platform must, so to speak, follow a certain plan. I, in my turn, would like to tell you how I view the balance sheet of the first few working months of the organs which constitute the United Nations, and what, as I see it, are the lessons to be learned from them. When the first part of the session of the Assembly was held in London in January last, none of the organs of the United Nations was really yet in existence. Now we may look back and measure the distance already covered. The Security Council has been set up. It began work immediately. It has already held a large number of meetings and may be said to have been, in accordance with the Charter, practically in continuous session. It has examined difficult problems and, I think I may say, studied them carefully and with an open mind. It cannot, of course, be said that the Council has solved all the problems submitted to it, nor that the solutions reached by it have always been as complete and satisfactory as we might have wished. But let us admit that, even where the Security Council has not succeeded in reaching a solution, it has at least indicated the directions in which it might be sought. Moreover, we must understand dearly, that it is from the actual working of the Security Council that we must expect, gradually, to learn how, in due course, a procedure for the settlement of disputes may gradually be established, for after all the Charter has only given a general outline and really could do no more. The Security Council has not confined itself to day-to-day solutions, so to speak, of the problems submitted to it. It has worked, either alone or through the bodies working under its auspices, at the effective preparation and organization of security in the future. The Military Staff Committee, which works under the Council’s direction, is at present engaged in studying what might be called the technical conditions of such security. It is endeavouring to determine the conditions under which may be made available to the Security Council the practical means which must be at its disposal if it is to be in fact, as required by the Charter, the guardian of public international order. Admittedly, the work done by the Military Staff Committee to date may also appear modest. Perhaps this is due not only to the difficulties inherent in the problems with which it is concerned, but also to a lack of instructions from the Security Council both as regards the political and juridical conditions in which international forces may be employed, and as regards the definition of the aggressor. The Economic and Social Council has held three sessions with exceptionally heavy agendas. It has tackled problems arising out of the war, such as the refugee question and the reconstruction of devastated areas. By progressing beyond the stage of repairing the havoc of the past, it has already made a considerable contribution to the establishment of a more equitable economic order in the world and better social conditions for the workers of all countries. It has taken to granting generous scope to the discussion of the various proposals based on such conceptions, and the free debates which have ensued have often proved very fruitful. The Economic and Social Council has furthermore set up important permanent Commissions as an extension of its. own activity. At the same time, it has begun and continued the work of developing the specialized agencies. The French delegation is gratified by the increasing part played by these agencies. It even feels that the future of the United Nations will partly depend on the results of their work, and on the nature of their relations with the United Nations. We hope there will be a full discussion to determine the general principles on which agreements between the United Nations and the specialized agencies should be based. I feel bound to state that France is particularly proud that it has received the honour of welcoming to its territory the headquarters of the United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization. We shall give that organization our fullest material and moral support to assist it in the furtherance of its great and noble task. In the field of trusteeship, we are now reaching the time when the conditions on which depended the organization of the Trusteeship Council are about to be fulfilled. My country has given practical proof of its desire to co-operate by submitting to the United Nations — we were perhaps the first — the terms of the trusteeship agreement applicable to the territories under French mandate. This draft trusteeship agreement is based on the principles of the Charter and, in drawing it up, the French Government was constantly concerned to secure the benefits of these principles for the peoples entrusted to its care. It will therefore help these peoples, as it has done in the past, to achieve further progress and a higher standard of living. It fully intends not to fail in its sacred mission in this sphere. During the last few months the United Nations has had to examine one of the most tormenting problems of our times, that of atomic energy. If public opinion, in its anxiety to see some progress, is inclined to consider the pace of the work of the Atomic Energy Commission slow, it should be understood that this is due both to the complexity and difficulties of the problem and to the Commission’s procedure, which is perhaps a novelty in the annals of diplomacy. Indeed, it became apparent that the bare resources of conventional diplomacy were inadequate to exorcise the danger with which all mankind is now faced. If purely political solutions had been studied, we should undoubtedly have reached a deadlock. Scientists, diplomats and political advisers are now working in close association and on scientific lines, in their endeavour to find a solution in conformity with the terms of reference laid down by the General Assembly of the United Nations on 26 January last. The guarantees required at each stage of the production and use of atomic energy are being studied. Both the progress achieved in the past few weeks and the conciliatory atmosphere in which our work is carried on, are encouraging signs. France has a special responsibility in that Commission by virtue of the part played by her scientists in the research which led to the liberation of nuclear energy. I wish to repeat that she is prepared to endorse, within the framework of a general agreement, any solution which will ensure world security, however daring or novel that solution may be. I should also mention, in this rapid survey, that the Secretariat is gradually becoming organized. We know the great efforts it made to prepare this Assembly successfully, and ought to express our gratitude to it. In these last ten months the United Nations has thus passed from the planning to the executive stage. The new international agencies are being organized and have started to develop. Although our efforts may not yet have produced tangible results, they are at any rate, fully deployed. Yet when we look back and when we look around (it is always better to face the facts squarely), we are bound, I think, to admit that our achievement and the general atmosphere of our work seem a little disappointing. We are obliged to observe that world opinion reflects the same disappointment and that the United Nations is not carried along and sustained by that great wave of hope and enthusiasm that was a feature of the early days of the League of Nations. I do not wish to deny the weaknesses of our Organization. A certain number have become evident during the last few months. In the Security Council we have had excessively long debates for very meagre results. Too frequently we have approached questions of substance via discussions of procedure, and this has to some extent impaired their authority and — I think I am entitled to say — their frankness. In the Economic and Social Council we have perhaps had too many political discussions. All this is true, but it is equally true that these defects can be remedied. We must not forget that the United Nations has been in existence scarcely ten months; that is a short time for setting up an institution responsible, as ours is, for the maintenance of peace, and an even shorter time for gauging its efficiency. We must also bear in mind the general conditions in which the United Nations has been working hitherto. Our Organization’s task is to maintain peace. It has not to make it. But we know only too well that peace has not yet been made. If proof of this were needed, we have only to recall the long discussions which went on in Paris for weeks. In a world of uncertain frontiers where so many disputes arising out of the last war are still unresolved, how are institutions like ours, which aim at maintaining justice and international order, to be made to work? Ever since we began work, it has been our duty to organize peace in a world in which, in so many respects, the rules of peace are not yet fixed. What is perhaps more serious is the fact that behind all the disagreements we see around us everywhere, closely linked with conflicts of interest, lies a mighty clash of ideologies, which is not confined — I think we must admit — to any one country or group of countries but is prevalent, in a more or less acute form, almost universally. History may perhaps decide that this was the outstanding problem of our times, a problem which may take decades to solve, an international problem as regards its repercussions but, at the same time, a domestic problem for each country and also frequently a problem for the individual conscience. The problem in question is that of reconciling political liberty with economic organization and social justice. That is why, throughout the world, the various forms of democracy, the underlying principles of every democracy to which each of us in this Assembly is profoundly attached — justice and liberty — are sometimes in conflict. More specifically, that is the origin of these new forms of discord which are so difficult to settle because they are at the same time international disputes and domestic political disputes within a specified country. If this analysis is correct, and perhaps you will agree that it is, the results so far achieved by the United Nations will no longer appear so disappointing. We are living in a difficult world and it would be surprising if the institution which, by its very nature, is set at the hub of the world’s difficulties, could have developed and acted with that perfect efficiency which we should all like it to possess. I do not think that the difficulties surrounding and confronting us could be swept away just by modifying certain of our institutions as if at the touch of a magic wand. I shall conform to the tradition already established by previous speakers and make a statement on the question of the veto, in the hope that our forthcoming discussions may be made easier and that the explanations given in this general debate may perhaps simplify the discussions due to take place later in accordance with our agenda. In the first place, I would like to remind you that at the time the Charter of the United Nations was drafted, France was never enthusiastic about the veto right. That is still our position and I should take up that position again today if we had to discuss the principles of our institution afresh. On the other hand, I see that improvements could be made in the veto system as laid down by the Charter. The simplest (and I apologize for using an expression which at first sight will surprise you) would be to establish a genuine veto system — that is to say, a veto dependent on the will of the member exercising it. As it stands at present, the Charter requires affirmative unanimity of the five permanent members ; the representatives of these five members in the Security Council have no power, when in a minority, to prevent their vote from resulting in a veto. I mention this consequence of Article 27 of the Charter in passing, in the hope that my observation may perhaps some day be of use. But although we may now start to reflect and to think of possible improvements to the voting system, in my opinion the time is not yet ripe for any modification of the principles of our institution. These principles are embodied in a text which we call the Charter, a term which accurately describes the voluntary agreement accepted by the various States of the world. It is difficult to overhaul an agreement of such wide scope without very weighty reasons; and I find some difficulty in believing that ten months’ experience of the working of an institution like ours is long enough to provide such reasons. I have already made it clear, by implication, that in my opinion too much importance is attached to the veto question. International mistrust would not vanish if we just amended Article 27 of the Charter. Conversely, if, as I sincerely hope, this mistrust and this antagonism gradually disappear, it is probable that most of the criticisms of Article 27, and most of the objections raised, albeit justly, in regard to its application, would in the end, lose most of their justification. Since there is to be a debate here on this question, I would like to express the wish that it may take place without imperilling that spirit of collaboration of which, in the past few days, we have witnessed one or two valuable instances and which is the essential condition of success. Rather than plunge directly into a modification of the text of the Charter, we should perhaps neglect no opportunities offered by the existing text to try to organize and maintain security in the world. Let me mention one example — I do not claim it is the only one, but it is one to which I would like to draw attention — namely, the organization of a permanent international armed force. As early as 1917 this idea was invoked by President Wilson. In 1944 Generalissimo Stalin stated that “the body whose duty it is to prevent war could have at its disposal adequate forces capable of being brought into action immediately.” The realization of such a task pre-supposes an immense amount of work in which all of us must and can immediately assist. It is our duty, within the framework of our existing institutions, to build up an international force adapted to the definitions of the Charter, to make a beginning with the regulation of armaments, and to establish effective control over the new weapons which threaten to imperil the very existence of the human race. Several speakers before me mentioned the Spanish question. The attitude of the French delegation is well known, for the discussions in the Security Council have given us ample opportunity for stating it very clearly, so that I need not spend much time on if today. But I should like, in this Assembly of the nations of the world, to salute the gallant Spanish people who have carried on such a long and arduous struggle for liberty, and certainly do not despair of attaining it. I do not know whether my reflections on the lessons to be learnt from these ten months of work have conveyed the impression that I am discouraged. That was certainly not my intention. The provisions of the Charter have placed a very heavy responsibility on the shoulders of our respective countries. We cannot help, I think, being a little alarmed by the immensity of the obstacles confronting us. But we do know that there is no other organization in the whole world which can take the place of the United Nations, and that the latter must succeed because this is essential. My country, which has been the first victim of so many recent wars, is, I think, more conscious than any other of these obstacles and of the need to overcome them. If it is an asset for any institution to make an easy start in an atmosphere of enthusiasm, it must be admitted that we do not enjoy the benefit of that asset. But the great achievements of mankind, works that will withstand the onslaught of time, are not accomplished easily. From the very adversities besetting our task we shall find the strength we need to face them, patient perseverance in stormy times and the unshakeable will to build a better world.