Belgium

It is a generally accepted rule that a speaker in the general debate begins by extending his congratulations to the President on his election. This is a rule with which I most willingly comply. Mr. President, I have had the honour and privilege of knowing you for a very long time. You are certainly one of the most distinguished figures in the Organization. Everyone who knows you appreciates your dignity, loyalty and spirit of tolerance. The Assembly has undoubtedly done you a great honour in electing you its President. But by so doing, it has also demonstrated its wisdom. We are all happy to work under your guidance. 133. It has been a long time since I have taken part in the general debate. May I be permitted at the outset to make a comment that may seem somewhat bold and reckless? I wonder whether this general debate is really very useful, whether it truly serves the cause of our Organization and the cause of peace. This debate provides an opportunity to confound once again propaganda with diplomacy, the art of affirming with the art of convincing. Everyone comes to this rostrum to set forth the whole range of his concerns and his anxieties; in doing so before an audience which is naturally quite favourably disposed to publicity, he adopts the most intransigent position on almost every subject, thus cutting off any possibility, once we resume the more normal and discreet forms of diplomacy, of arriving at compromises and of trying to reach valid arrangements . 134. And yet, we must not make any mistakes or fall into error. If I had to sum up in a few words my feelings about the international situation, I would say that there has perhaps been a fundamental improvement, but that the immediate future still gives cause for great anxiety. There has been a fundamental improvement in the international situation because it seems to me that the two most important problems which have dominated the work of this Assembly for many years are being resolved — the first rather slowly, the second fortunately more rapidly and in a more satisfactory manner. 135. The problem the solution of which is progressing rather slowly is that of the fundamental relations between East and West. The question in which noteworthy and as it were definite progress has been made is that of decolonization. Nevertheless, as regards East-West relations, there are a few signs — a few glimmers of light, as yet still faint — which would seem to indicate that the situation is in the process of being settled. It seems to me that the two groups have indeed shown a greater desire for understanding, a greater desire for agreement. 136. I think that the communists no longer believe — if they ever did believe — in the aggressive desires of the West, in this monstrous and stupid idea that the West could think of settling its differences or disputes with the communist world through the use of force and resort to war. Each time that the communist world shows any sign of comprehension, each time that it adopts a more friendly language, the West seizes the opportunity and tries, through an increased understanding of what is happening in the communist world, to find a solution and bring their positions closer together. 137. I readily admit that, for its part, the communist world has in the past few years proposed at least two ideas to which the West has perhaps not attached sufficient importance. I believe that Mr. Khrushchev should be commended for having partly based his foreign policy on two ideas which he now considers to be essential: that war is no longer inevitable and that we must live in accordance with the principles of peaceful coexistence. 138. In stating that war is no longer inevitable, Mr. Khrushchev has rendered a great service and he should be praised for having clarified, in a rather daring and courageous way, a point of communist doctrine. I was raised on the principles of socialism, and I remember that when I was young my friends and I always repeated a sentence of Jaures in which we believed deeply: "Capitalism contains war just as a cloud contains rain." We thought and feared at that time that war was inevitable in the world in which we lived. 139. In correcting that position, in stating that war is no longer inevitable and in stating a point of doctrine and a point of controversy, even in the communist world, Mr. Khrushchev has, I repeat, rendered us a considerable service for he has put an end to the idea that a certain evolution of history was automatic and terrible. In stating that war can be avoided, he has, to a certain extent, made us more responsible for our actions. 140. Of course, it is not enough merely to make such statements. Having said them, we must endeavour to make our actions conform to this new principle. 141. I believe also that we in the West should not reject too hastily or too disdainfully the statement which the representatives of the communist world constantly repeat — that they wish to live in peaceful coexistence. I promised myself, I took an oath to myself — and I hope that I will keep my pledge — that I would not engage in polemics during my statement in the general debate. I must therefore say immediately that this expression of "peaceful coexistence" is the expression of an idea to which we cannot say "no". After all, if one of your potential adversaries were to come to you and say "I wish to live with you in peaceful coexistence", how could you say to him: "No, I wish to live on another basis — which can only be that of violence and war."? 142. Of course, we must try to understand what lies behind this proposal of peaceful coexistence, and, above all, we must ask ourselves whether the definition given today by the communist world is an adequate one and whether it can serve as a basis for the solutions which must be found to the problems confronting the world. I do not think I am being unfair to those who speak of peaceful coexistence when I say that the definition they have given of that expression seems to me to be singularly narrow and inadequate. They have frequently stated that: "Peaceful coexistence is something that replaces war by way of competition in all fields — ideological, political, social and economic." This kind of peaceful coexistence is certainly better than a hot war, and it is even better than the cold war. But in my view, it is by no means enough. 143. The fact of the matter is that East-West relations will in the last analysis be improved only when the idea of peaceful coexistence, as it is described and defined nowadays, is countered and replaced with the idea of indispensable co-operation. It is not enough in seeking to solve the great difficulties of the world to live in peaceful coexistence; sooner or later, we shall have to achieve a voluntary co-operation. It seems to me that in this respect a favourable trend is becoming apparent which will soon lead the communist world to expand the very narrow definition it has given of peaceful coexistence until it splits open. I should not reject without very careful consideration this desire to give peaceful coexistence a doctrinal form, nor would I reject the proposals which are made to us for meetings and world conferences in order to examine, for instance, problems of trade [see A/5219]. If we are able to make some progress in this field — and let no one be upset by this — then there will be not only peaceful coexistence, but also genuine co-operation. For these reasons, although we hear many rash statements made here, statements which shock and sadden us, my optimism enables me to see, on the whole, a ray of light. 144. Fortunately, the other matter which has caused such a great concern to this Assembly — that of decolonization — is almost concluded. I would ask those who, with good reason, are interested in this matter to have a little patience and understanding, I ask this with all the more objectivity since, so far as my country is concerned, the question seems today to be finally and definitively settled. Together with all of you, I am particularly gratified at the admission to this Assembly of the new countries Jamaica, Trinidad and Tobago, and, of course, Rwanda and Burundi. I am under the impression that the question of Rwanda-Burundi, which took up so much of our time and effort in the course of this year, has now been solved. I take this opportunity to thank once again those who have listened to me, and in particular those who have heard me and placed their trust in me. In coming to this rostrum today, I believe I can state that the confidence they showed in my country and my Government was not misplaced. 145. There remains of course, the question of the Congo which is distressing and most serious. But there again, in so far as Belgium is concerned, we note a great change. What a change when I think that it is hardly more than a year ago that I re-established contact with the Organization, took the floor in the Security Council and had arduous discussions with the Secretariat. It is a great satisfaction for me to be able to say today how much I value the action of the Secretary-General, to what extent I believe that he is pursuing the proper course; how right I think he is when he proposes his plan for reconciliation and when he acts with understanding and firmness at Leopoldville as well as at Elisabethville. I believe that in so doing, he is serving not only the interests of the Congo, but also those of the Organization and the cause of peace. What a satisfaction it is for my Government and for myself personally — a veteran of the Organization — to find myself today no longer in a violent and sterile opposition, but, on the contrary, resolved to collaborate with all my strength for the success of the reasonable ideas which the Secretary-General has undertaken to interpret. 146. You see therefore that we have reason to hope and reason to have confidence in the future. However, there are all the immediate difficulties which remain outstanding and weigh heavily upon us. There is disarmament, there is Cuba, there is Berlin. These are unquestionably important and essential questions. But I am convinced that they are not insoluble. What makes it so difficult to find a solution is not so much the importance of the questions themselves, but rather our manner of dealing with them which has been and is still the wrong one. 147. International politics continues to be dominated in all camps by the fear — I would even say, by the terror — of being made a dupe or of being deceived. What prevents things from getting better is the fact that there is a complete lack of confidence on all sides; it is, in actual fact, a certain fear. President Roosevelt certainly knew what he was saying when he stated in a famous speech that one of the most essential things was that of freeing the world from fear. If we have made so little progress, it is the cold war which bears the major share of responsibility. Ladies and gentlemen, have you not had enough of the cold war? Are you not weary of these continually repetitive speeches that we have been hearing year after year, in which the same arguments are presented in exactly the same manner, and in which the same accusations, although refuted twenty or a hundred times, are nevertheless presented with the same conviction? 148. And the pity of it is that it would need so little to transform this atmosphere. It would merely be necessary to agree to apply a few simple but fundamental principles. It would be necessary, when speaking from a rostrum such as this, when going into a committee, when trying to solve an international question, to be convinced that no one is ever completely right or completely wrong. It would be necessary to approach a discussion with the conviction that one's adversary was not necessarily a fool or a rogue. It would be necessary to agree to hear him in the hope that by listening to him one would come to understand him. And if we were to apply these few principles, which are principles of reason and wisdom, principles of common sense, just for a short time, for a few months, merely for the sake of experiment, many things which today seem to have no solution would suddenly appear almost simple and easy to solve. 149. Of course, the Berlin situation is important. It is a fundamental matter for the Western world, and I presume for the communist world also. But when one looks at the things on which there is now agreement and at what still remains to be done, it is sometimes astounding and disturbing to see what a short distance there is between a happy outcome and a possible catastrophe. In dealing with such serious matters, we should not be obdurate, we should not consider questions of prestige, we should distinguish what is primary from the secondary, set about solving the real issues and have the courage, from time to time, to expose false problems for what they are. I believe, however, that all that is still possible, and I hope, or rather, I believe, that if we could — all of us, I do not discriminate — apply the principles which I have just stated we could find the required solutions. 150. I apologize; all that was merely introductory. It is not the substance of my speech. I have come to this rostrum mainly to speak to you about the European Common Market and about Europe. And I shall try not to do so in any polemical spirit. What I should like to do is to give you an explanation, for it seems to me that those who have given their views on the Common Market here have expressed many fears and made many mistakes. I want to try and give you an explanation because I am profoundly convinced that what is happening in Europe is of exceptional importance. If we succeed in establishing, not just the Common Market, but a united Europe, we shall have witnessed the birth of a historical phenomenon of world importance, a phenomenon which is, I believe, as important as the communist revolution, as important as the liberation of the peoples of Africa and Asia. The Common Market and a new united Europe, this is an event of a nature to modify, nay to change, the policy of the entire world. 151. I should like, if I may, to make one preliminary remark. I am rather surprised, I admit, but quite satisfied all the same, that not only references and allusions have been made to the Common Market in so many statements, but that the Common Market has been taken as one of the fundamental topics in the present debate. I am rather surprised because the Common Market has been in existence for five years. When we began to set it up in 1954, when we signed the Treaty of Rome in 1957, it did not seem to me that the world attached so much importance to our venture. I do not recall having received as Belgian Minister for Foreign Affairs, any warnings from those who now seem so apprehensive. They left us to it, they left us to go ahead, and I believe I know the reason. They left us to it, they left us to go ahead, because nobody thought that we were going to succeed. The whole undertaking seemed so extraordinary, so daring: to succeed, a few years after a European war, a world war which had left us profoundly divided, shattered and hostile toward each other, in overcoming our differences and working together to find a solution to our problems — that seemed to almost everyone an unrealizable dream. And the world remained, you will admit, fairly indifferent to our venture. It was mistaken. But today it is again making a mistake, believe me, in attaching too much importance to us. 152. It seems to me that there is one idea which must be refuted at once, and that is that there is now no chance of a country solving its economic problems unless it is a member or associate member of the Common Market. This is doing us much too much honour, all at once, and I am going to give you an explanation in a minute. All your fears and criticisms can be summed up under three main headings: The Common Market is an economic bloc established in order to support NATO, which, in the language of the cold war — still often used — is an aggressive bloc, and thus the Common Market is merely a means of furthering an aggressive policy. The Common Market is a gathering together of rich countries, which are also selfish, have no interest in the rest of the world and are going to base their prosperity on the ruin of others. Finally, the Common Market is the latest, the most subtle and probably the most treacherous form of neo-colonialism. 153. I shall now analyse these three arguments, these three main charges. I shall try to answer these arguments. But first, I must, if you will forgive me, remind you of a little history, because if you do not understand something properly, you may draw completely wrong conclusions about the Common Market. 154. The Common Market is not an end in itself. The Common Market is merely a stage that we wanted to reach in order to arrive one day at a new political organization of Europe. The Common Market is intimately linked, intimately bound up with the idea of a united Europe. It was in 1948, long before there was any talk of NATO, that the European idea was revived in Europe. I say "revived" because it was an idea that existed already in the period after the First World War. Even then, a certain number of persons, probably the shrewdest and most alert, realized that an attempt must be made to reconcile France and Germany, that politically and economically Europe must be given a new face. Aristide Briand was certainly the most famous and most wholehearted supporter of this idea. 155. We failed between the two world wars. We failed because there were too many sceptics. We failed because memories of past history still weighed too heavily on a torn and divided Europe. We failed, also, because of the abominable new political theories which arose to oppress Europe. We failed, and the Second World War was our punishment. 156. After the Second World War, some people thought that the task should be taken up again, that the effort should be resumed, and this time, thank God, it seems that we may succeed. You see, for us Europeans — and I hope you will try and understand this — the two European wars seem more and more to have been two civil wars. There was no conqueror in the European wars: there were only the conquered. And after these two defeats, it was not difficult for us to visualize the decline of a Europe torn, convulsed by the birth of communism, the decline of a Europe torn and convulsed by the profound and violent anti-colonialist movement, and finally, the decline of a Europe impoverished by the two wars. 157. You will, I hope, excuse me, you will allow me not to, you will not insist that I give you a picture of the political and economic decline of Europe. It is a subject which I find far from agreeable and one that does not necessarily have to be discussed very often. 158. But despite that political and economic decline, we could not believe that this was the end, that there was nothing to be done, that we must give way to this movement, this current of history. And we had two main ideas. First, in order to build a new Europe, we must reconcile France and Germany. Three times disputes between France and Germany had shattered Europe, at the end of the nineteenth century and in the first half of the twentieth, and we were all aware that if this reconciliation could not be achieved on a deep and solid foundation, we might one day again experience the tragedies we had lived through. Today the reconciliation of France and Germany has been achieved. 159. But seeing what was going on in the world, we also felt — and for me this feeling is becoming a more profound conviction with every day that passes — that it was not possible nowadays to give one's people the standard of living to which they aspire and which they deserve without belonging to a very large community. It is not for nothing that the principal Powers in the world today are the United States and the USSR. It is not for nothing that those who look ahead can already gauge the position to be occupied one day by India or China. This is no longer the time, this is not the century for countries with 9 or 10 million inhabitants. Nor is it any longer the time, I believe, for countries with 40 or 50 million inhabitants. In order to give what one can, in order to succeed as one would wish, it is necessary to be part of a large community. And it is on the basis of these simple ideas that we have tried, that we are still trying to build Europe. 160. We have tried to do it politically by setting up the Council of Europe. We have tried to do it economically by establishing the European Coal and Steel Community, and now, above all, by setting up the European Common Market. 161. It was in 1955, at Messina, that the Ministers for Foreign Affairs of the six countries of Little Europe, of the Community, decided, with the utmost audacity, that one of the fundamental aims of their European policy was to set up a common market. At that time, I think, those who believed that we would have any success were rare and we began our work in an atmosphere of general indifference. I cannot tell you why, I cannot tell you in detail how things happened. No matter, it is the result that counts, and today the Common Market exists. What is the reality that we and others find before us today? It is that in establishing the Common Market, we have, already, created the strongest trading unit in the world- stronger that the United States, stronger than the USSR. If the United Kingdom joins us in the near future, as I hope and believe it will, and if we succeed in developing our customs community into an economic community, we shall not only be the strongest trading unit, we shall also be a unit perfectly comparable from the standpoint of production with the United States and Soviet Russia. This event now taking place is indeed of world importance. 162. I now turn to the objections, fears and accusations voiced in certain quarters. It is being said, for instance, that the Common Market has been established in order to provide NATO with an economic infrastructure for its aggressive policy. That is a typical assertion in the cold war style, which would be of little importance were it not for the fact that it might lead those who sincerely believe such an explanation into the most serious errors of political judgement. It is, however, the easiest of all arguments to demolish. If the Six can be accused of anything, it is certainly not of wishing to provide NATO with an economic infrastructure, but rather of having taken a step which might have disrupted NATO and created conflicts and stresses within the Atlantic alliance. For, after all, what is the Common Market? It consists of six countries — France, the Federal Republic of Germany, Italy and the three Benelux countries — which are assuming special commitments with respect to one another and accepting a much fuller and closer integration than has ever been carried out or contemplated by the countries of the Atlantic alliance. So in Europe I have been hearing frequent and sometimes quite forceful complaints, for instance, from our Scandinavian friends, who have been drawing our attention to the danger of the emergence of separate economic blocs within the Atlantic alliance. If this united and integrated Europe one day comes into being and becomes a historical and geographical reality, the position of the United States and Canada in NATO might be altered and these two countries might feel isolated. 163. These are problems of which we are, of course, aware and dangers which we appreciate. We are firmly convinced that we shall be able to solve all these problems and avoid all these dangers. I beg of you, however, to discard the absurd and utterly false idea that the Common Market has been conceived and established to serve as an economic basis for an aggressive Atlantic alliance, 164. The second argument, though no more valid, is much more readily understandable. It seems to me that many of you are disturbed by the idea that the Common Market in its present form, and doubtless a fortiori in the event of its expansion, might become a closed, self-sufficient and egoistical community whose development might impoverish the rest of the world. 165. I can appreciate this fear and cannot assure you that there would be no danger should we be so foolish as not to realize that it is absolutely essential for us in Europe to avoid such a development. In an attempt to convince you I might read out the articles of the Treaty of Rome. You would see that they provide a reply, in words it is true, to the fears you have expressed, and that nothing smacks less of self-sufficiency and egoism than the text of the Treaty of Rome. Words, however, have only a relative value and perhaps it might be better for me to make an attempt — for which I apologize — to give you a few figures to show that your fears are unfounded and in any case exaggerated. 166. The implementation of the Treaty of Rome, far from harming world trade, has, on the contrary, created greater opportunities. I should, for instance, like you to note that, between 1957 and 1961, the index of trade of all Third countries — the name we give to countries which do not belong to the European Economic Community — rose from 100 to 107, whereas the index of trade between countries in the Community and Third countries reached 117. This goes to prove that while the trade among us has, of course, shown a considerable and totally unexpected increase, our trade with the rest of the world, far from diminishing, has grown more than the trade of countries which do not belong to the Common Market. The truth of the matter is that when a community of men in a particular part of the world — and, believe me, what is true of Europe today will one day be true of Africa and Asia, I am firmly convinced of that — experiences a rising standard of living, that does not mean poverty for others but the opening up of avenues to new prosperity. 167. More specifically, it has been said that, in any event, the Common Market is directed against the countries of eastern Europe, against the communist world. What is the truth of the matter? It is that trade with the east European countries increased by 67 per cent between 1958 and 1961 and, in particular, trade between the Common Market countries and the Soviet Union increased by 84 per cent during that period. You may retort by saying that this expanded trade was attributable to our exports, but that we have become self-sufficient and opposed to imports from those countries. I shall quote one last figure to disprove this assertion: the Community's imports from the east European countries have risen by 59 per cent since 1958. These are not words but facts; this is the truth, a truth which serves to belie the charges made and to allay the fears expressed in this hall. 168. The last argument which is, perhaps, the most important of all, is that the Common Market is the latest form of neo-colonialism. I should like to devote a few moments to this subject and to the term "neocolonialism" itself. 169. I fear that references to neo-colonialism may produce new misunderstandings and new sources of difficulty in this assembly of Governments and peoples. It seems to me essential that we should if possible reach complete agreement on what constitutes this neo-colonialism which is wanted neither by the newly liberated peoples nor by the peoples of Europe. In addition to agreeing on definitions, however, we must, of course, also be certain that our likes or dislikes relate to the same things. Until now — and I apologize if my information is inadequate — I have never come across a clear and positive statement or definition of what constitutes neo-colonialism. Would I be mistaken, however, if I was to say that neo-colonialism does not exist if the relations between, say, a European people and an African or Asian people rest on a footing of complete equality and if, in negotiating with this African or Asian country, the European country is resolved that any economic agreement which may be concluded should contain no conditions relating to internal or external political matters? Is a country which negotiates on such a footing of complete equality and is resolved to lay down no political conditions of any kind acquitted of the sin of neo-colonialism? If my negative definition of neo-colonialism is correct, I can assure you that in the relations between the Common Market — the European Economic Community — and the African countries which trust us, there is not a shadow or trace of neo-colonialism. 170. What we are discussing is, of course, a vital and, I would add, an inspiring matter. It is a great event that the six countries of the Community can now negotiate with eighteen African countries which have attained independence on the future relations between the African and the European countries. It is a splendid and inspiring thing that the resentments, disappointments and disillusionments of colonialism and anti-colonialism should be disappearing so rapidly and that we should be trying, equally rapidly, to build a new together for the common good. 171. The agreement we are discussing has not been completed; it must be completed and concluded before the end of the year and, let me tell you, this will be done. What will its foundations be? Agreement has already been reached on the principles, aims and objectives of the association. The first requirement is that the discussions should take place between sovereign States negotiating on a footing of equality. The purposes and objectives of the Treaty of Rome are restated and amplified; strengthening of the economic independence of the associated States, since such economic independence is the soundest foundation for their political independence; diversification of the economy and industrialization of the associated States; expansion of co-operation and trade between the associated States and the Community as well as of inter-African cooperation and trade, for we believe that the principles which are valid for ourselves are equally valid for Africa and Asia; agreement in principle on the rules to be applied to trade; introduction of reduced preferential tariffs as from 1 January 1963; the maintenance of prices within the Community; concerted action by the Six and the African States to stabilize the world market prices of the principal tropical commodities. 172. I digress briefly — to tell you and to give you proof — that we Europeans have nevertheless learned something. The old kind of aid to the under-developed countries, the kind that has been given for all too long, is a thing of the past. The practice of buying basic commodities at low prices and then, conscience- stricken, of making grants or loans to those not treated entirely fairly is a thing of the past. We have come to see that this is not the way to gain the friendship and co-operation of the erstwhile colonized peoples. And when I say today that the European Economic Community will be among the first to tackle the real and fundamental problem, that of stabilizing the prices of the basic commodities produced in the African countries, I do so with a sense of pride and satisfaction. 173. To continue, the agreement confirms that the associated States will be able to fix customs duties in keeping with the requirements of their development and the needs of their industrialization. It is said that, although we are ready to buy their tropical and agricultural products, we will seek to prevent their industrial development. The utter falsity of this accusation is demonstrated by the fact that, under the treaty we are discussing, our own frontiers are thrown wide open to their goods, and we then go on to tell them that if they must protect their young industries, they are entitled to do so. Is it possible to show a greater understanding of their interests and their future? Lastly, a large fund is to be established, larger than the one that has existed during the last five years, which nevertheless amounted to as much as $580 million or — this is more impressive — to Belgian Fr. 29,000 million. There will be more than that in the next five years. We shall allocate these funds in the most rational and reasonable manner; we shall continue technical assistance and, lastly, we shall establish a set of institutions linking these countries and ourselves: a council of the association which will have the right to take certain measures affecting the association, a parliamentary conference comprising the members of the European parliament at Strasbourg and an equal number of parliamentarians from the associated countries, and a court of arbitration. The conference will be advisory and its main function will be to make recommendations. The three institutions will be established on a basis of equality between the Community and the associated countries. 174. I ask you objectively, honestly and sincerely: is this colonialism or neo-colonialism? It is not. New relations are being established between sovereign countries for their common good, but these agreements are modern agreements which go beyond the now inadequate concept of bilateralism. 175. This is what we are offering to the African countries which may want it. We extend a warm welcome to such countries. If, for political or economic reasons, others feel that they must seek a different basis for their relations with us, we do not hold it against them; we understand them and are ready to help them and to follow their progress along the path of their own choice. 176. This is what the Common Market means; this is the only true explanation of the Common Market, which I was anxious to give you. I admit, however, that in addition to giving you this explanation, I also wished to show what the new Europe may be like. You are uneasy; you find us too rich and you fear that we are selfish, but you are wrong. The new Europe cannot stand before the world as an association of rich and selfish countries. If we fall into that error, we shall never regain our rightful place in the world; we would be detested and hated. Not only would we be detested and hated but, let me tell you, we would also be fools. Our countries are exporting countries which live, prosper and progress solely through our relations with the rest of the world. You may rest assured that we have understood this and that we know that bankruptcy for our customers would mean bankruptcy for ourselves. An attempt to unite Europe is an attempt to break through the too narrow frontiers of today's world. Uniting Europe does not mean retreating into a theory of self-sufficiency but, on the contrary, it means traversing a stage, perhaps an essential stage, towards universality. A united Europe is a new Europe; it is no longer nineteenth century Europe. "The stupid nineteenth century" a French writer has called it. I do not know whether it was stupid or not but perhaps it was unjust and cruel. In any event, Europe finds it hard to bear the legacy of the nineteenth century, and we are working patiently and quietly for its elimination. Social injustice is beginning to disappear in our countries. In our countries the crudest excesses of the capitalist regime, colonialism, imperialism and narrow aggressive nationalism are things of the past. We have a new outlook; we are finding an outlook better suited to our traditions, to the message of love which was brought to us 2,000 years ago, and to our long struggle for democracy, freedom, tolerance and respect for man. 177. Welcome us without fear but, on the contrary, with confidence and joy because we extend our fraternal hand to everybody, everybody without exception.