Permit me to begin with the non-controversial, and I would say outright, the topic of the election of the President. As he pointed out in his statement, his election was a great honour paid to himself and to his country. But it was also a great honour to the United Nations in its hour of trial. It seems as though this critical session has provided a rendezvous with his exemplary ability, unimpeachable impartiality and profound devotion. He brings to the Chair the enlightened traditions of Tunisia, the languishing aspirations of Africa and the skilful arts of the gentleman, Mongi Slim. Our congratulations therefore go to him, to his country and to the United Nations.
63. In the calendar of the United Nations, ours is the sixteenth regular session. True as it is in accordance with our established practice, yet such a nomenclature is a dull expression very far behind the march of events. Just to name it the sixteenth regular session and to act frigidly or timidly is not only to ignore the anguish under which the world is groaning, but also to escape our primary responsibility for world peace, order and security.
64. With its heavy impact, even history has restricted this routine, seriatim procedure. On more than one occasion, the United Nations sessions were named after the events of the day. Hence we had the Congo emergency session, the Middle East session, the special Bizerta session, the Palestine sessions and the Korean session. Now, with anxiety as universal as it is, it becomes incumbent that this session should follow suit. It should go into history with a lively name, a name that echoes the fears of mankind all over the world, a name that should whip the United Nations, and indeed this General Assembly, to decisive action supported by effective sanctions.
65. And what name could this session be awarded if we are to consult our profound apprehensions—the apprehensions of all, of father and son, of man and woman, of infant and old, from every creed and from every race? No great labour is required and no genius need be invoked. Ours is the most dreadful of all sessions. Never has the United Nations, since its establishment, faced such a dreadful gloom. Never has the dome of this Assembly been so heavily loaded with heavy clouds of tension, mistrust, intimidation and, what is more, the threat of a nuclear war, a war that would leave this planet a melting heap of debris With no human life.
66. This session, therefore, must be the session of the brink, for we are just at the sharp edge between war and peace, on the blade of the precipice between survival and extinction and, in plain words, between existence and non-existence.
67. I am not here at the rostrum to terrorize the Assembly, nor is it my intention to make capital of the panic now prevailing in the minds of all peoples, both the haves of nuclear weapons and the have-nots. The world community is already plagued by panic to the point of saturation. My intention is simply to warn this august body of the peril of all perils that faces all in all and saves none at all. For it is no hallucination that we may be meeting here for the last time, and it is no stretch of the imagination that ours may be the last of the sessions. It may be the end of the United Nations, should there survive any of these nations, or a feeble, degenerated and debilitated fragment of a nation, in a scorched, devastated, desolate island on this earth.
68. With this smell of war, there is also going on a war of argumentation and justification. A heap of protests, memoranda and ultimata are being exchanged by the great Powers in an endeavour to uphold a position or justify an action. But all this is vain—rooted in vanity. In the prelude of disaster,, it is fruitless to support any claim, it is meaningless to uphold any contention, and, lastly, it is pointless to justify any action. Should a nuclear war take place, no incrimination or historic attribution shall avail. Who started the war, who fired the first bomb, who was on the offensive and who was on the defensive—all these questions are irrelevant and inadmissible, they are out of the question. At the end, there shall be the dreaded vacuum, a state of nothingness. There shall be no United Nations to resolve any dispute, there shall be no Nuremberg trials to determine the guilt, pronounce the condemnation or order the execution. There shall survive no judge to judge, no prosecutor to prosecute, no witness to testify and no audience to attend. Not even history shall exist to relate history. For no historian shall remain to record history, and no readers shall survive to read history. Should nuclear war take place, God forbid, the dreadful holocaust shall destroy anything and everything and reduce this world to nothing.
69. In tracking the course of events, two menacing factors rush to our minds—the resumption of nuclear test explosions and the deterioration of the situation in Berlin. The first is a perennial question on the agenda of the United Nations, as the representative of Canada rightly observed in his able statement a while ago, and the latter, the question of Germany, is a chronic topic of, or, I would say, a chronic headache to, the four major Powers.
70. The question of nuclear test explosions is too well known to the Assembly to call for elaboration. I do not wish to place before the Assembly the great volume of scientific evidence on the hazards of fall-out and the daggers of atmospheric contamination resulting from nuclear and thermo-nuclear explosions. The records of the United Nations are conclusive evidence in support of placing an everlasting moratorium on testing— never, never under any circumstances, to be resumed.
71. It was therefore quite understandable that the world at large was stirred by the resumption of nuclear explosions first by the Soviet Union and later by the United States. We are not here to define the responsibility for the failure of the Geneva Conference on the question: that would be too long and tedious a story to relate at this moment. We are against nuclear testing whether it be by the Soviet Union or by the United States, whether it be in Siberia or in Nevada. Resumption of nuclear tests is a double-edged danger. It leads to the contamination of the world atmosphere and it intensifies the armaments race. A race for what? Simply to make arms more effective and more destructive, causing the highest toll, at the lowest and cheapest cost.
72. It is a matter of record that the spark in this regard has been touched off by the resumption of nuclear explosions on the part of the Soviet Union. The event provoked a great deal of fear all over the world. At the Belgrade Conference, -2/ the leaders of the non-aligned countries expressed their serious apprehensions in unmistakable terms. Such a stand on the part of the non-aligned nations was quite understandable, for the Belgrade Conference was a congregation of peoples who speak their minds independently and who think freely.
73. But it was highly amazing—highly amazing, indeed —for the major Western Powers to protest the Soviet explosions. We do not hesitate for one single moment to join with the West, as the representative of Canada wanted us to do, in voicing the most unshakable opposition to the actions of the Soviet Union when they merit opposition. But we cannot be a party with the West at their convenience. We cannot play their chorus at their mere pleasure or share an orchestra of their own, started when they will and silenced when they will. If resumption of explosions is condemned by the West as dangerous to peace and detrimental to human safety, it must be condemned at all times, against all nations and under all circumstances. Principles are principles. They are not commodities of trade, to be hoarded at will and displayed in showrooms at pleasure. The West cannot at random invoke principles on one occasion and entirely disregard the very same principles on another occasion. What is wrong for the Soviet Union should be equally wrong for France, no matter how France may be fashionably enticing or seasonably luring to some of the Powers represented here in the Assembly.
74. We all remember how the United States and the United Kingdom resisted, from this forum of the General Assembly, the African-Asian request addressed to France to halt nuclear testing in the Sahara. The language of the resolution [1379 (XIV)] on the matter was very soft, very gentle, and, I would say, very clean—certainly cleaner than the bomb which the French exploded in the Sahara. But, in spite of the solicitations of the African-Asian peoples, the United States and the United Kingdom supported France in that ignoble adventure.
75. They have not heeded the angry protestations of the international community nor have they cared a snap of their fingers for the safety of mankind. For our part we, the non-aligned nations, are fully justified in having taken the position we have taken vis-à-vis the test explosions of the Soviet Union. This has been our consistent position from which we have not flinched one single iota. But what legitimate complaint can the Western Powers make in this matter? It should be recalled that in explaining their position on French testing in the Sahara, the representatives of the United States and it United Kingdom contended that test explosions are not harmful. It was an advocacy marked with
ability, we should admit, if it only commanded veracity, scientific and skilful veracity. We render thanks to the United States and the United Kingdom that they have not claimed these explosions to be useful, and for this benevolence we must all be thankful and, I would say, grateful. We cannot fail to remember that in those statements to the First Committee on the subject, the representatives of the United Kingdom and the United States cited their explosions in Maralings in Australia and in Nevada in the United States. For what? As evidence of the harmlessness of nuclear explosions. This is their advocacy, this is the theme by which they have resisted the African-Asian request to halt French explosions in the Sahara. To refresh the memories of those whose memories need to be refreshed, I would simply refer to the statement of the United Kingdom which was made on 5 November 1959, and to the statement of the United States which was made on 9 November 1959. Both of these statements should be brought to the memory of those who are forgetful—forgetful enough here either by chance or by intention—and to find mindfulness here from this rostrum to speak of the harmfulness and the dangers of fall-out resulting from test explosions.
76. The picture, however, is not entirely gloomy. On the whole, the Western nations, and this is a fact which we must admit, are fully conscious of the perils of nuclear experimentation. Men in all walks of life are alive to the dangers of radio-active fall-out. Such people deserve our greatest respect and admiration wherever they may be. We are particularly delighted to refer to those groups who are known as the marchers in the United States and those groups who are known as the sitters in the United Kingdom, who recently led the campaign in support of nuclear disarmament. Of special mention, high above all, is Bertrand Russell, the genius brain of the English-speaking world.
..Bertrand Russell is the giant hero of this holy crusade. He merits the respect and sympathy of the world in leading this campaign against nuclear armaments . Bertrand Russell was sentenced to jail and from his jail he has spoken, as though to this Assembly, in these solemn words:
"The populations of the East and West, misled by stubborn Governments, in search of prestige... tamely acquiesce in policies which are certain to end in nuclear war... Our ruined, lifeless planet will continue for countless ages to circle aimlessly around the sun, unredeemed by the joys... which have given value to human life.
Thus spoke Bertrand Russell from his jail to this Parliament of Man.
77. Bertrand Russell was convicted under the law of the United Kingdom—I would not say rightly, or wrongly. But under the law of nations, I can positively say that he stands acquitted. Nay, he stands honoured and esteemed with remarkable veneration. By taking the lead, Bertrand Russell has served the cause of peace more than all of the policy-makers of the Western world, including his distinguished jailer, the Foreign Minister of the United Kingdom. I am sorry that the distinguished jailer is not here with us in the Assembly hall.
78. The second horn of the dilemma is the question of Berlin. To be fair and precise, it is the dilemma itself. Although it may shatter the peace of the world and dynamite the United Nations, strangely enough this question has never been examined by the United Nations. It was left to the monopoly of the big Powers. The forensic argumentation for this paradox we all know, but the overriding aspect of international peace should not escape our attention. Berlin has become the trigger that may touch off a world conflagration at any moment. We are fully aware of the positions of the major Powers with regard to Berlin. We are cognizant of their apprehensions. But this is the more valid reason for the United Nations to step into the arena before the contesting parties stand ready on their pads—and what pads—launching pads, nuclear launching pads. If there is any international problem which calls for an immediate solution within the framework of the United Nations, it is the question of Berlin— and the question of Berlin first and foremost,
79. But what sort of a settlement could be worked out by the United Nations? We do not advocate any particular solution, but one thing should be clear and definite: the solution must be based on the principles of the Charter and not on the convenience of this major Power or that major Power. We must set aside the claims of all the major Powers to Berlin and more so to Germany as a whole. In the United Nations age no conquest, no military occupation should give rise to any right whatsoever. As the Second World War is over, so its legacies are over. Germany was conquered, it is true, but no conquest can deny a nation its nationhood, its sovereignty and its inherent right to its homeland. This should be the basic ground for any settlement of the question of Germany. Let us not make a mistake about it, lest the question of Germany again become the battleground of a third world war.
80. Germany reminds us of many things which we should always remember. Behind the First World War, let us remember, there had been German grievances that were met with a bad settlement. Behind the Second World War, let us also remember, there was the German question suffering again from a bad settlement. I am not here to justify war, but we should not fail to remember the causes, the roots and the reasons „ for war.
81. The driving forces behind the two world wars are to be found in the post-war settlement of the German problems. The grains of war have been ingrained, so to speak, by the policies of the allied Powers.
82. History, however, did not seem to be instructive enough to those who should, abide by the lessons of history After the Second World War, Germany was partitioned, Berlin was divided and the German people were humiliated. They were humiliated in every respect. And what humiliation is most degrading to Germany—the great Germany of industry—than to find itself compelled to buy small weapons for self-defence. And to buy from whom? From Israel. And we. all know what Israel is to Germany.
83. What is more degrading to the German people than this illustration of humiliation, to compel Germany to buy weapons of self-defence. And from whom? From Israel.
84. And here we hear the Western Powers lamenting the destiny of Germany. It cannot be denied that military operations,, by their nature, have necessitated
that Germany be occupied, administered under different zones. That was quite understandable; but what is not understandable, and indeed unthinkable, is that Germany should be partitioned, its capital divided. It was claimed that such an arrangement was designed to keep the peace of Europe. Succeeding events have shown how fallacious was this fallacy. We find now it is not the peace of Europe which is at stake. What is at stake at present is the peace of the whole world. You need only hear—and I ask you to lend your ears, gentlemen, to this—the breathing of the rockets on both sides of Berlin.
85. Germany is a great country. The contributions of Germany in all fields of science are of the highest order. It would be waging war against nature to humiliate such a people, to divide their capital, and partition their land. And here lies the biggest blunder, which is bound to breed the greatest danger.
86. At the present moment the nucleus of danger lies in Berlin simply because Berlin is divided between East and West. We will recall what great devastation has taken place in that great city. In the last two years of the war the city suffered no less than 1,000 bomber raids by the United States and the United Kingdom. It has been estimated that Berlin was blasted with 76,652 tons of explosives and incendiary bombs delivered by the United Kingdom and the United States Air Forces. Within the span of a few days the Soviet artillery concentrated about 40,000 tons of shells on the city. Yet, I would say that the division of Berlin is more devastating than the raids of the Soviet Union, the United States and the United Kingdom, not only to Berlin or to Germany, but to the peoples of the whole world. Failing to reach a just and equitable solution to the question of Berlin, we are afraid the bombs of the Second World War, compared to modern weapons, would prove to be as primitive as the bows and arrows of primitive man in the primitive age. So let us ponder before it is too late to ponder.
87. The remedy, therefore, should be related to the cause and not the symptom. If the division of Germany is the cause, if the partition of Berlin is the cause, then unity is the remedy—the unity of Berlin and the unity of Germany.
88. This is the only solution, and we see no other solution. Berlin should belong to Germany and Germany should belong to its people. This is what the Charter offers to all peoples, large and small, and Germany is no exception and should not be made an exception.
89. Yet, we cannot be blind to the fact that as a legacy of the war there are now two Germanies and two Berlins. We cannot ignore the existence of an existing situation, particularly when it refers to a people and their homeland. The people in Germany, East and West, are Germans and not aliens; and the people in Berlin, in the East or the West, are not aliens, they are Germans.
90. The two Germanies cannot be eliminated by our moving appeals, and the two Berlins cannot be ignored by our pious prayers. But we can create the necessary atmosphere for the two Germanies and the two Berlins
to be united under one system or another.
91. Germany, we must recall has given the world the classical examples of confederate, federate and unitary systems of government; The German people, whether in the East or the West, know how to do it, can do it and must do it. The German people have
done it in the past. They can do it at present. In fact Berlin itself is the union of two cities that existed in the mediaeval age. Thus, unity in theory and practice is not a novelty to Germany, nor is Germany a freshman in the field of unity. Let us take the existence of West and East Germany—of West and East Berlin—as a starting point, and unity-shall be the end, for this is the beginning to that end.
93. In outlining this approach to the question of Berlin, we have not taken cognisance of the so-called rights of the East and the West in Germany. I respectfully submit that neither the East nor the West has a legitimate right in one single inch in Germany, either East or West. This ado about the right of the West in Berlin and its approaches in the sky is groundless. Berlin does not belong to the East or the West. Berlin, with its land, its water and its skies, is the sovereign possession of Germany and Germany alone.
93. I have also refrained from dealing with the hardships now experienced by the people of Berlin as a result of the recent restrictions imposed by East Germany. This position of ours is not because of indifference or lack of sympathy. On the contrary, as victims of affliction, the people of East Berlin do command our sympathies. But because this question has become a subject matter of exploitation by Western circles, we refuse to be a party to such an exploitation of human sufferings.
94. In the last few weeks Western circles have unleashed a campaign of lamentation over Berlin—and I would say a literal lamentation over Berlin. It seemed as though the walls set up in Berlin have become the wailing walls of Jerusalem where the Western Powers bewail the destinies of Berlin and the miseries of the people of Berlin. The wall in Berlin, it was claimed- and these are Western words—stood as a monstrous guillotine that slashed the arteries and nerves of Berlin, that it cut through sewers, subways, bridges and thoroughfares, that it divides a cemetery—what a catastrophe, that it divides a cemetery—shears of churches and dwellings, that it has separated sons from mother and wives from husbands, friends from friends, and that Berliners on both sides of the wall exchange greetings, newspapers and foodstuffs, and even wave handkerchiefs.
95. This is the grim picture of the division of Berlin as portrayed by the Western Powers. Recently there was a moving story, which has been publicized, of a young East German who was riddled with machine pistol fire when he leaped into the water in an attempt to cross to West Berlin.
96. This, as well as similar tragic incidents, is most alarming and moving. They provoke our resentment and indignation. But these tears of the Western circles cannot impress the non-aligned nations, or indeed any justice-loving peoples anywhere. How on earth could we be impressed by the tears of some Western Powers which have become the crocodiles of the Western nations? The Berlin hardships can be found multiplied a thousand times in Palestine, while the Western Powers remain silent, indifferent and adamant. For Palestine, no tears are shed, not even eyebrows are. raised, simply because, on the question of Palestine, the eyes of the Western Powers are covered by the fingers of Israel.
97. In Palestine, as a result of the barbed wire set up by Israel, the inhabitants of no less than 120 Arab towns and villages have been separated from their
lands, from their orange groves, vineyards, olive fields, pasture lands, and even from the wells to water their animals. Still the Western Powers have not been moved. It was only Mr. Adlai Stevenson—I wonder whether we are honoured by his presence at the moment—then without any official capacity, who, after his visit to the Middle East in August 1953, wrote the following about the barbed wire in Palestine:
"... you find villages chopped in two"—what an eloquent term was this used by the eloquent Mr. Stevenson—"Arab farmers with their land in Israel and their homes in Jordan—even houses and outhouses separated—and Jerusalem itself divided... I stood with the peasants and looked across the barbed wire to their neglected fields and orchards on the other side; I stood on a balcony in old Jerusalem with an Arab lawyer pointing to his house in Israel—which he had not been able to visit in five years.
This hair-raising situation, as described by Mr. Stevenson, a great and able man—I do not know whether he is in a position now to restate these words and views from this rostrum—has not raised one single hair of those who are now bemoaning the situation in Berlin. If you are to cry, and to cry genuinely, this is a case where you should really cry and shed your tears before this august body.
98. For the last thirteen years the holiest city, held in veneration by the three religions of the world, Jerusalem, has been breathing day and night in an atmosphere of hardship a thousand times more monstrous than the hardships created in divided Berlin. Ye;, to the Western Powers, divided Berlin is everything, and Jerusalem, the holy, is nothing. The hundreds of Arabs who are machine-gunned yearly by Israel forces have found no sympathy in the hearts of the Western Powers. Just when this session of the Assembly had started, Israel forces shot down a number of Arabs on their way to Gaza. The incident led to bitter Arab demonstrations in Haifa, Nazareth and Acre in protest against these brutalities of Israel. Day after day, Arabs are shot down by Israel soldiers only because they attempt to cross to their homes or their fields on the other side; of the barbed wire. Barbed wire is wire—it could not be wire in Berlin and diamonds in Jerusalem.
99. The Foreign Minister of the United Kingdom spoke with passion and emotion—and this is the first time I had heard a United Kingdom representative speak with passion and emotion, but passion was there—on the hardships with regard to the labourers and university students of East Berlin. Let me remind the Foreign Minister of the United Kingdom that barbed wire has separated thousands upon thousands of Arab farmers from their farms, Arab labourers from their factories, Arab owners from their properties, and Arab students from their schools. The barbed wire in Jerusalem has partitioned a hospital, one part on the Jordan side, the other part on the Israel side. This is. a humanitarian cause for those who shed their tears on humanitarian questions with regard to students and labourers who are groaning under their hardships in East Berlin. In the same area, barbed wire has separated students from their school buildings- students on the side of Jordan go to their school on, the side of Israel. Students have been experiencing this hardship for thirteen years—for 4,745 school days.
Yet the Foreign Minister of the United Kingdom has never referred to these matters from this rostrum. Never has he shed his tears over these hardships.
100. To portray the tragic situation in Palestine, we can do no better than to borrow the masterly words of a great leader of a great people. In describing the situation in Berlin, President Kennedy recalled the order of the Czar in Pushkin's Boris Godunov: "Take steps at this very hour that our frontiers be fenced in by barriers... that not a single soul pass over the border, that not a hare be able to run o7? a crow to fly" [1013th plenary meeting].
101. The world is deeply indebted to President Kennedy for this moving simile. But if there is any place, where this simile of President Kennedy's is applicable, Palestine, no doubt, ranks first and foremost. It is on the soil of Palestine where the orders of the Czar are put in force—except that in Tel Aviv it is a "petit" Czar, and not the Czar of President Kennedy.
102. It was in order to find a way out of this disastrous crisis that the non-aligned nations meeting in their historic conference in Belgrade dedicated a great deal of their deliberations to this matter. Like the Bandung Conference, the Belgrade Conference ushered in a new epoch in international life. The non- aligned leaders who met in Belgrade have not only represented their peoples, but have in fact represented the mind and the conscience of the whole world. Like Bandung, Belgrade will go down in history as a; seat— a great seat—of peace-making effort on behalf of mankind and for the survival of mankind.
103. It is regrettable, however, and rather deplorable that the efforts of the Belgrade Conference have been blemished. In the United Kingdom the Belgrade Conference was portrayed as a failure. Knowing what the United Kingdom wanted the Conference to do, or not to do, we are glad the Conference has met with failure, A failure to meet the desires of the United Kingdom's
no doubt a glorious success.
104. Here in the United States the Belgrade Conference was received with discourtesy. Former President Truman, in a statement to the Press, has asked the neutrals to take sides with the free world. "They are free now," he said, "because we made them free." This statement, or to be more accurate, this misstatement, we flatly reject. The neutrals have not been made free by the free world. Precisely, they have been freed from the free world. This so-called free world was their captor and exploiter. It was through tears, sweat and blood in liberation wars that the neutrals achieved their freedom. One nation after another had to battle for liberty against the United Kingdom and France, the two giant architects of imperialism in this world. Contrary to what was Said by the United Kingdom Foreign Minister, it was not a peaceful evolution but a bloody revolution. The non-aligned nations have made their freedom, but it is the West which has made something else. The West Ms made their neutrality.
105. It is an historic fact that most of the neutrals were parts of the French or United Kingdom empires. To the West they were allies, and they have fought its battles. But Western policies have alienated their sentiments. From allies these nations were converted to friends, and from friends they were made neutrals. That explains the present relations between the Arab nations and the Western Powers. Most recently Tunisia has been made a neutral nation by the militancy of France and the arrogance of the West. Should sue1 policies of the West continue the time may not be far off when the neutrals are turned into enemies. This is not a far-fetched possibility. The West is a genius indeed in the art of making enemies of friends and of throwing allies into the lap of enemies.
106. Furthermore, instead of behaving decently, the West has unleashed a campaign of slander against the peoples of the Belgrade Conference. The question of Western financial assistance to the neutrals was raised, but in no honourable context. It was raised in a slanderous context, a libellous context. In a well- prepared table it was shown that between the Second World War and March 1961 the United States had given and loaned some $6 billion to 24 non-aligned nations. In spite of this assistance, it was contended, the nations of the Belgrade Conference had not supported the policies of the United States.
107. Such a devaluation of our Conference we totally reject. I am sure that I am speaking the mind of all the nations of the Belgrade Conference in expressing deep regret over such discourteous references. The non-aligned nations are satellites to none, and no amount of financial, assistance could make them "stooges" to this bloc or that. Our freedom of thinking and action is our dearest possession which we are not prepared to sell for all the treasures of the earth.
108. But let us ponder this figure of $6 billion for a moment of comparison. These $6 billion, as stated by Western circles, go to more than half the population of the globe. In a conservative compilation of figures for the same period it has been shown that Israel alone was granted and loaned by the United States no less than $3 billion. Just imagine the contrast or the comparison—whichever you like. If half the population of the world is allotted $6 billion then this tiny Israel deserves no more than $600. But that is the logic of the West which lacks .all the dictates of logic—and lacks also the authenticity of a mathematician, if you please.
109. However, this is an occasion for me to put matters right. Economic assistance has been generally misunderstood and misconceived. "Economic assistance" is a misleading term. It is wrong to speak of "economic assistance". It is economic restoration- economic indemnification. The people 6f Asia and Africa, and for that matter the people of Latin America, have been robbed of their wealth all through the ages. They were the victims of Western exploitation and Western imperialism. Their lands were markets, their peoples were labourers and their raw materials were a prize. The history of Western imperialism was nothing more than the dispossession of the wealth of the East—its pearls, its gold, its diamonds, its ivory, its rufc' dr, its oil, its cotton, its minerals and all the sources o! wealth, including paintings, pottery, statues and the corpses of slumbering kings and queens. It is the wealth of the East which made the West what it is now. Any payments by the West to the East are, therefore, a repayment in part, a refund in part—indeed, only a fraction of the great fund of the East.
110. It is true, in fairness to history, that the United States has no record of imperialism, as was brilliantly observed by President, Kennedy and brilliantly protested by the Foreign Minister of the United Kingdom, but the United States, I submit, is paying now on behalf of its imperialist partners —and this is the rule of the game.
111. It is true also, as President Kennedy has rightly remarked, that about forty-two nations have achieved their independence since the Second World War, but the tragic fact is that colonialism still remains. Colonialism is still reigning in Africa and Asia, and freedom-loving peoples are still fighting for their freedom. The battlefields are far apart, but it is one single front in the war for human dignity and human liberty. Whether in Algeria or Angola, whether in Palestine or Oman, whether in South Africa or West Irian, the battle is one and the same. It is a fight right at the approaches of the United Nations to force its doors open to all the peoples of the world—and our doors shall be wide open to every race and to every creed.
112. In Africa, the people of Algeria are still fighting for their independence. That war now enters its eighth year. This year, France has started negotiations with the Government of Algeria. We are glad France at last ha/s brushed aside this myth of French Algeria. As for the people of Algeria, their Government has always expressed its readiness to negotiate an honourable settlement. Regrettably, however, negotiations between the parties have failed. In as much as we have hailed France's starting the negotiations, we have deplored France's ending of the negotiations. France has bogged down on the question of the Sahara and the unity of Algeria. As a national hero whose record is associated with North Africa, President de Gaulle should know better—better history and better geography. The unity of Algeria is as final as destiny, and the territorial integrity of Algeria, its coasts, its mountains and its Sahara is as decisive as fate. These questions the Algerian Government shall never negotiate, even should the Algerian war become the Hundred Years War. In a national cause, there are many things which stand intact—negotiable, so it is with Algeria. The unity of its people and the integrity of its land are not negotiable—now or for ever. We wonder whether in any given negotiation, President de Gaulle would be ready to negotiate the unity of France and the territorial integrity of France. In fact, let us recall that General de Gaulle's liberation movement started against French quislings who accepted the negotiating of the liberty and the unity of France. Let us remind President de Gaulle of the glories of General de Gaulle. •
113. The role of the Assembly on the question of Algeria at this session therefore stands abundantly clear. The pressure of the United Nations has been a great help to the cause of Algeria. Material help and various forms of assistance have been extended to the Algerian people in their struggle for freedom. Recently, in the Belgrade Conference, a number of States declared their recognition of the Algerian Government —and they deserve our admiration.
114. But the Algerian cause, the cause of a gallant people, calls for more and more. If we want negotiations to succeed between France and Algeria, if we are eager to have peace reign in North Africa, if we wish liberty to triumph, we should do more and move. France does not seem to be very much impressed by the Charter as a code of international law, or indeed by the United Nations as an Organization. In the words of President de Gaulle, this is a "United Nations disorganization." These are his words. In a sense, we entirely agree with President de Gaulle that this Organization has become a disorganization. It is France that has made this Organization a disorganization. France has flouted the wishes of the General Assembly on more than one occasion, and France is still occupying its seat in the Assembly. France had defied the resolution of the Security Council, and France is still seated in the Security Council as a permanent member. If President de Gaulle should heed his own logic, France should unseat itself from the Security Council and from the General Assembly. France would do better to quit this Organization right at this session. Maybe, this Organization would then become a respectable Organization, not a disreputable disorganization.
,115. That is why, to support the cause of freedom in Algeria, we should extend more support, we should exercise more pressure, we should cast more votes, and let me say, we should supply more arms and more ammunition—for in the long run, France, it seems, will abide only by the force of arms, rather than by the force of the Charter or the pressure of this high and august body of the Assembly.
Although geographically at quite a distance from Algeria, there are two related problems: colonialism in Angola and racial discrimination in South Africa. The history of Africa consists of one chapter, and one chapter only—European imperialism. Europe has imported from Africa the best of its wealth and treasure, and Europe has exported to Africa the most obnoxious of its products: colonialism and racial discrimination. The question of Angola is a classical example of imperialism—and the problem of South Africa is racial discrimination and segregation in its most ugly form. Our duty, therefore, is to make every effort to extend liberty to Angola, and equality to the people of South Africa. The people of Angola are fighting for their liberty, and the people of South Africa are fighting for their equality. This fight we must recognize as a United Nations fight; and as a United Nations
• fight it calls for our support. The principles at stake are the principles of the United Nations.
117. In Asia, colonialism is still holding a few strongholds—mainly in Oman, in West Irian and in Palestine. In Oman; on the eastern fringes of the Arabian Peninsula, a liberation war is being waged by the people of Oman against the United Kingdom forces. Although seized by the Security Council in 1957, the war for liberty in Oman is as old as British imperialism in Eastern Arabia. In fact, the war in Oman is only a part of a whole liberation movement to free the Arabian Peninsula from British domination. I say British domination in spite of the pious words of the Foreign Minister of the United Kingdom. His statement on self-determination and on freedom was precisely
, a sermon from the pulpit. How holy, how saintly, and how angelic are the words of the Foreign Minister of the United Kingdom. Lord Home really deserves to be ordained as His Beatitude, the Archbishop of the United Nations.
118. Then we come to the question of West Man, another vestige of European colonialism in Asia. West Irian, we all know, is part and parcel of Indonesia— a great country with a great people led by a great President. It is high time that West Irian be reunited with the mother country. The proposal of the Netherlands to hand over West Irian to the United Nations
simply avoids the issue. A child abducted, and for so many years, should be restored to its mother and not to a nursery. We cannot accept the argument that this land of Asia belongs to Europe. Imperialism is finished. Europe stays within Europe and Asia stays within Asia, not in isolation, but on the basis of free and mutual co-operation.
119. I come last to the most dangerous stronghold of imperialism in Asia, and without much guessing, it is Israel. The Palestine question is as old as colonialism in the Middle East, and the emergence of Israel in 1948 is only on© chapter of the tragedy of imperialism.
120. It is not my desire at this stage to trace the history of the Palestine question, or to track the various efforts of imperialism that led to the partition of Palestine, the creation of Israel, and the expulsion of the people from their homeland. Nor is it my intention to place before you the picture of the present plight of the refugees, now living in exile for thirteen years, away from their homeland and deprived of their property. The records of ,the United Nations are loaded with an avalanche of material on this tragedy—and what a human tragedy indeed.
121. Yet, because at this session the United Nations Conciliation Commission for Palestine is scheduled to report on the question, we deem it necessary that the fundamentals of the Arab position on the Palestine problem, of which the refugee question is only one part, should be set out before the Assembly.
122. At the outset, I must say in the most solemn terms, addressing myself particularly to the newly independent nations of Africa and Asia, that the establishment of Israel in Palestine was not the legitimate emergence of a people in their legitimate homeland. Palestine has been part and parcel of the Arab homeland since time immemorial. It is the ancestral home of its people, its legitimate citizens: the Moslems, the Christians and the Jews—just as any country represented in this august body is the ancestral home of its people.
123. The crux of the problem is that Palestine has fallen victim to imperialism, just as did many countries in Asia and Africa. Like all the peoples represented in this Organization, the people of Palestine have national aspirations of their own. They are entitled to the right of self-determination. Like many of your peoples, the people of Palestine have struggled for their liberty. They fought against United Kingdom imperialism for no less than thirty years, leaving on the battlefields thousands of martyrs whose bravery was second to none. And lastly, just as many of you have suffered imprisonment or deportation at the hands of imperialism, so have the leading figures of the Palestine people been put in prisons, detained in concentration camps or deported to distance lands in the heart of Africa. In a word, the people of Palestine— now a refugee nation—breathe the very same hopes you breathe, enjoy the very same aspirations you enjoy, love their homeland as you do, live and die for their country as you live and die for yours.
124. But the creation of Israel has made these people homeless. They have been deprived of the sovereignty you exercise. They have been deprived of the liberty in which you glory. And lastly, they have been deprived of what is dearest in human life—of the dear homes you enjoy and the homeland you adore.
125. Thus, the emergence of Israel is not the legitimate established of a legitimate State. All of you have come to the United Nations as a people lawfully rooted in your ancestral homes. Unlike Israel, you have displaced n? one, and no one have you robbed; unlike Israel, none have you expelled and none have you dispossessed. Your statehood was a triumph against imperialism. But Israel's emergence was the reverse; although only for a time, it was a triumph of imperialism.
126. When I relate Israel to imperialism, I do so not out of malice or bias. It is a solid fact. Israel is the embodiment of imperialism, the symbol of colonialism, the fruition of capitalism, the founder of racialism and, finally, the author—and do not be surprised when I say this—of anti-Semitism. And this is not an indictment without evidence.
127. Israel is the embodiment of imperialism, for it was the United Kingdom—in its not so great days of imperialism—that conceived the establishment of a Jewish State in Palestine to serve as a military base to defend the route to India and the Suez Canal.
128. Israel is a symbol of colonialism, for Israel is neither Asian nor African. It is a foreign ingathering of alien people from all parts of the world, bent on the domination and exploitation and the displacement of the native people.
129. Israel is the fruition of capitalism, for Israel's very existence is a capitalist adventure aimed at dominating the economies of Asia and Africa. It was Lord Rothschild, the great financier of British imperialism, who in 1917 received the written pledge of the United Kingdom Government, known as the Balfour Declaration,^ to support the establishment of a Jewish national home. Ever since, all economic help to Israel, as well as all fund-raising campaigns led by the Zionist organization constitute nothing more than capitalist enterprises. At present, the penetration of Israel into Asia and Africa is backed by imperialist financiers from France, the United Kingdom, Belgium and other States.
130. Israel is the founder of racialism, for Israel has created a race of no race, disrupted their loyalty to their mother country, making of Israel a ghetto open only to the Jews, to no one but the Jews.
131. Lastly, Israel is the author of anti-Semitism, for it was the misunderstood philosophy of the "chosen people" which led to self-segregation, self-seclusion and non-assimilation, which, in turn, have led to the reaction of anti-Semitism—the most heinous crime against mankind;.
132. That is Israel —its genesis and its evolution. Its existence in Palestine is no more than the existence of the relics of imperialism in Asia or the vestiges of colonialism in Africa. The problem of Palestine, viewed by Africa, should be regarded as the problem of Algeria, Angola and South Africa multiplied a hundred times. For in Algeria, Angola and South Africa, the people are there—they are at home. But in Palestine the people have been overpowered by imperialism —a million refugees have now been living in exile for the last thirteen years.
133. That is why Palestine is, for the Arabs, the problem of all problems. The problem is neither racial, religious nor political. It is the problem of a homeland which has been usurped, invaded, and literally robbed. The United Nations itself has furnished the figure
that Israel up to the present moment owns only 5 per cent of Israel—and that is all; this, I repeat, is a United Nations statistic.
134. It is therefore absolutely necessary that the Arab position on the question of Palestine should be fully understood by all, once and for all, Palestine is an Arab homeland, and we are not prepared to surrender one inch of our sacred land. Israel is in Palestine by a military occupation, by the sheer force of arms. And, just as many countries in Asia and Africa have been freed from imperialism, so, in the same manner, Palestine shall be freed from Israel.
135. At the present moment we ask nothing of the United Nations. Torn by power politics, the United Nations is too feeble to redeem a country for its people or to repatriate a people. Thus far, the General Assembly has adopted fifteen resolutions urging t repatriation of the refugees, but not a single refugee has been repatriated.
136. What we urge—and this a legitimate demand- is that a policy of dissociation be followed on the question of Palestine. Let Israel alone. If justice for the people of Palestine cannot be supported, let no one support this flagrant injustice called Israel.
137. For four consecutive days the United States identified itself with Israel four times—a per diem exercise. On 6 August 1961, the Legislature of California passed a resolution in support of Israel. On 7 August 1961, the Foreign Relations Committee of the United States Senate passed a resolution in support of Israel. On 8 August 1961, Governor Rockefeller issued a statement in support of Israel. On 9 August 1961, Secretary of State Rusk wrote a letter at the end of which he expressed support for Israel.
138. We should like to ask on behalf of the people of Palestine, and indeed on behalf of all decent citizens of the world, is Israel the sole business of the United States? Is there no other business—useful business- for the United States to do? Is Israel the fiftieth state of the United States across the Mediterranean? Is Israel more vital to the United States than the questions of Germany, Berlin or Soviet test explosions?
139. The United States, through economic and military assistance, has made the existence of Israel possible. Even the very creation of Israel was manipulated by the United States through every form of pressure. Is there no end to this policy on the part of the United States? Is there no end? Should the Arabs wash their hands entirely of the United States? Should they lose all hope of any sense of justice in the United States? I hope the United States will answer these questions in deeds rather than in words. Let the United States answer these questions—before the Arab peoples make the answer—although many of them have already made the answer themselves.
140. The Arab peoples have patiently waited for so long, hoping to see a basic change in the policy of the United States on the question of Palestine. A change not to favour the Arabs, but to be just, to be equitable to be impartial, to be neutral, to start a policy of dissociation, and| in plain words, to leave Israel on its own. If we are to stockpile all the resolutions passed by the United States in support of Israel's if we are to add up the grand total of United States economic and military assistance extended to Israel, the conclusion is dreadful—and is dreadfully dreadful. One would
then be led to believe that this country is not the United States, it has become a Greater Israel. It is a source of pride—I repeat, it is a source of pride— and satisfaction for the Arab peoples to have the best relations with this great nation of the United States, well known for glorious traditions and values. But the Arab nations would not want to have relations with the United States if the United States identifies herself as Greater Israel.
141. I have set out the Arab position on the Palestine question, because particularly at this session of the brink, this rostrum of the United Nations should be employed for what it is intended: to examine the problems that endanger peace and security in. the world. The problem of Palestine is relatively dormant now, but it may explode at any moment. As long as
Israel is there, divided. Jerusalem may prove to be more dangerous to world peace and security than divided Berlin.
142. For our part, we shall do everything in our power to help Palestine regain its unity, Jerusalem redeem its integrity and the people rebuild their national entity. We shall do everything in our power to make peace reign again in the land of peace.
143. Peace based on justice is our ultimate goal in Palestine, so that the Holy Land can again become holy for its people and for all the millions of believers all over the world.
144. May God the Almighty extend peace to the land that gave the world the greatest Messenger of Peace.