Every year since this Organization came into existence, the confidence in it of the peoples of the world has been put to a very severe test. Lofty principles have been proclaimed, solemn resolutions adopted, but every meeting of the representatives of the nations has brought new disappointments and disillusionment to the world. Mankind’s hopes, expressed at San Francisco, for a better world governed by the precepts of international morality and the principles of justice, are growing fainter day by day and at each session. What is more, the threat of war is looming on the horizon and the nations live in fear; in an atmosphere of extreme tension. The instrument devised for the defence of peace seems to be powerless before the mortal danger of a new conflict.
25. This threat hanging over the world is paralysing its economic and social development. A large part of man’s every-day labour is being devoted to military preparations and the financing of defence. The armaments race between the great Powers is bringing with it an additional outlay in capital and manpower which might otherwise have been devoted to the economic life and to general welfare, The great Powers are not the only ones that feel the consequences of this outlay of energy. All countries particularly those known as the under-developed countries, are suffering very badly from the shortage of raw materials and the rise in prices.
26. It is said that the United Nations has done a great deal in the economic and social fields, but we are now in a position where the uncertainty of life in many countries, and political anxiety, have dealt a heavy blow to the plans of our Organization.
27. Must we believe, in the face of this failure in the political as well as the economic field, that our Organization, which came to life at the end of one of the most horrible wars and was set up to prevent any repetition of such events, had in it the seeds of its own destruction; or should we not rather admit that we ourselves have warped an Organization which was perfectly designed to fulfil our aims?
28. This question comes before us in the midst of the tragic Korean war, which may spread dangerously if it is not speedily ended. If, in the light of these events, we were collectively to examine our consciences as sincerely as possible, should we not realize that we are to a large extent responsible? Those who drew up the Charter at San Francisco clearly saw the aims we had to pursue. They laid down the principles and provided for the various institutions and organs designed to achieve these aims. But have these principles always been respected without reservation, have these organs and institutions all been established and have they functioned in accordance with the constitutional provisions of the Charter?
29. That is what it all comes down to, and I think that we must hesitate about the answer. The General Assembly has given serious attention to this question since 1949. At its fourth session, it adopted a resolution [290 (IV)] entitled “Essentials of peace”, in which it stated that disregard of the principles of the Charter was primarily responsible for the continuance of international tension. The Assembly realized the necessity of repeating that serious statement at its fifth session, in the resolution [377 (V)] entitled “Uniting for peace”, of 3 November 1950. We have, therefore, all admitted in these two resolutions adopted in two successive years that the fundamental principles of our Charter have not been universally observed, and we have twice emphasized that the non-observance of these principles is the primary reason for the continuance of international tension.
30. This, as I said, is a serious conclusion, but the Assembly added to it another, no less serious, in its resolution “Uniting for peace”, namely, that the decisions of the United Nations were not being implemented. It stated its conviction that “enduring peace will not be secured solely by collective security arrangements against breaches of international peace and acts of aggression, but that a genuine and lasting peace depends also upon the observance of all the Principles and Purposes established in the Charter of the United Nations, upon the implementation of the resolutions of the Security Council, the General Assembly and other principal organs of the United Nations intended to achieve the maintenance of international peace and security”.
31. In these circumstances, are we not entitled, each time that one or several Members of the United Nations fail to observe the principles that govern us or the resolutions I have just mentioned, to confront them with their responsibilities and urge them to reconsider their attitude? It is our earnest wish that the States to which we must point out the need to observe a certain principle or to implement a certain resolution could convince themselves that the United Nations is acting solely in the higher interests of peace, the brotherhood of peoples and the happiness of mankind. These States must in fact be convinced of this since they gave their full and complete support to the two basic resolutions — “Essentials of peace” and “Uniting for peace” — and thereby emphasized the great importance, the absolute and vital necessity, of observing the principles and decisions of the United Nations in order to ensure the peace.
32. The principle which dominates the whole of our international life is undoubtedly the principle of equality. This basic principle goes to the very roots of our Organization. It is the basis on which the United Nations was built: the equality of races, the equality of peoples, the equality of individuals. For the United Nations cannot be anything but a society of equals in a universal democracy, as we are and should be in each of our individual countries equal citizens in a national democracy. This equality which the Charter has emphasized by repetition and which constitutes, so to speak, the very soul of our Organization, without which it could not live, this sovereign equality, applicable to all races, nations and individuals, carries with it the triple corollary of non-discrimination on grounds of race, respect for the rights of peoples and respect for the rights of individuals.
33. What attitude has been adopted towards these three related principles, which the Assembly certainly had in mind when it drafted the two resolutions I mentioned before ? We realize that the racial problem, with which we shall start, involves formidable difficulties in certain countries, that it is the result of the weighty heritage of centuries, that all peoples have not reached the same stage of culture and social progress. But is not that an added reason for increasing the efforts both on the national level and with the help of the United Nations, to promote that ideal of equality which is at the very basis of our modern civilization? For our Organization can help to apply this principle of non-discrimination on grounds of race, which is set forth in the Charter, in an atmosphere of tranquillity and serenity, by means of the friendly collaboration which should prevail among the peoples and which is one of the aims of the United Nations. Let us not then reject this possibility of collaboration, let the countries concerned generously accept this help which is offered to them.
34. In our view, the rights of peoples raise two problems which deserve very careful consideration: the right of peoples to become Members of our Organization, and the right to self-determination, to decide their own fate.
35. The right to membership in the United Nations is one of the rights that Jean-Jacques Rousseau or Locke, had they thought of it, would have called a natural right. But it is a right, a legal concept, which is of as much interest to the United Nations itself as it is to the country concerned, because its application would ensure universality of membership. This concept presided, as it were, over the birth of our Organization, and if it is applied in a spirit of broad understanding it should ensure the full development of the United Nations. It is, in fact, one of the essential conditions for the smooth functioning of the United Nations that the provisions of Article 4 of the Charter, regarding the admission of new Members, should be carried out in the light of this concept of universality.
36. Obviously, in invoking this principle, we are in no way suggesting that every applicant must be admitted. What we mean is that the criterion of admission should be universally applied, so that all those deserving admission should be admitted. In these circumstances, is it not strange to see the United Nations admit to membership a State which owes its origin to violence, the boundaries of which are uncertain and the territory undetermined, a State which has not yet proved its peaceful aims, whereas other nations are excluded, nations with glorious pasts, such as Italy and Spain, mentioned a short while ago, countries that gave birth to a legal system which, coming into its hill flower, in its own turn, gave birth to our Organization? By what, right do the Members of the United Nations exclude these other members of the international community? At a time when protests are being made against racial or religious discrimination, and the United Nations is being called upon to put an end to such discrimination, which still exists in most parts of the world, we have here the United Nations laying itself open to the charge of political discrimination.
37, My delegation does not wish to ignore the difficulties with which the question is fraught in the Security Council; neither does it for the moment wish to consider what would be the best, if not the most effective, way of ending the deadlock. However, it does wish to emphasize that the doors of the United Nations should be wide open to all peace-loving nations. It will be a great day in the United Nations when the countries which are waiting on the threshold are finally given a brotherly welcome.
38, We now come to the right of peoples to self-determination, a right which is mentioned in the request submitted to the General Assembly concerning Tunisia and Morocco by the group of delegations of which mine is one. This right, which was proclaimed more than a century ago in two great revolutions, the French Revolution for the subjugated nations of Europe and the American Revolution for the colonies of the new world, is today being extended to all nations of the world through the Charter. After Europe and America, and responding to their call, Asia and Africa are now awakening. At the call of new ideas, a new life is throbbing through these two vast continents.
39. The Charter, as I said, wishes to extend to all nations this right which was formerly limited to some of them. Two hundred million men await this happy ending. The law-makers of San Francisco were trying, as I said a moment ago, to create a universal society. All the peoples of the world are included in the great concept which led to the creation of the United Nations. Even though certain countries were not considered fit to belong to the United Nations as Members, because they were less advanced or under-developed, or for any other reason, they were not excluded from the universal society. They remain, at different levels, members of the great international family, whether they be bound by international treaties, placed under the Trusteeship System, or simply classified as colonies.
40. While awaiting their independence, these countries, these territories, are under the protection of the United Nations, of which they form an integral part. We cannot, therefore, countenance this plea of lack of competence which was put forward both with regard to the problem of racial discrimination and to the claims of Tunisia and Morocco. I take pleasure in recalling these words of the leader of the United States delegation [380th meeting], that no one “disputes the right of a dependent people to ultimate self-government”. “That right”, he said, “is enshrined in the Charter, and the obligation to help fulfil that right rests with each of us...”. And Mr. Acheson went on to say, in order to express with even greater clarity his concept of the competence of the United Nations: “What is the proper role of the United Nations in these matters? When specific disagreements arise as to the adequacy of the progress being made by a dependent people toward self-government, the responsibility for settling such matters lies in the first instance with those immediately concerned. This is not to say that the United Nations is without responsibility to assist in the achievement of peaceful solutions.”
41. As far as competence is concerned, it has been said that Article 2, paragraph 7, of the Charter prohibits the United Nations from intervening in matters which are essentially within the domestic jurisdiction of a State. But we know that the competence of the United Nations is the result of a partial abdication of sovereignty by Member States in favour of the Organization. I do not think that anyone will contest this view, which was already accepted at the time of the League of Nations. Consequently, while it is laid down, in Article 2, paragraph 7, that the United Nations is not authorized to intervene in matters which are essentially within the domestic jurisdiction of a State, intervention is provided for in certain cases. These cases are in the first place governed by the provisions of Article 73, on Non-Self-Governing Territories. No one has contested the explicit right of the United Nations to supervise the action of the Powers which assume the administration of these territories. But reference should also be made to the text of Articles 10, 11 and 13, which provide that “the General Assembly may discuss any questions or any matters within the scope of the present Charter”, namely, “any questions relating to the maintenance of international peace and security” or those which contribute to “the realization of human rights and fundamental freedoms”. These articles, after all, merely promote the ideal of a society in which all nations will collaborate in a spirit of solidarity for the common welfare.
42. It is true that by proclaiming the rights of the less advanced peoples and placing them under its protection, the United Nations has also shown them how to progress towards independence and the stages that they must traverse along the sometimes lengthy road that leads them to it. The freeing of Europe, shaken by revolutions, did not take place in one day, And the Charter, in its provisions which are applicable to the whole world, has indicated the conditions which must be fulfilled by Non-Self-Governing Territories in order to accede to complete sovereignty. Unfortunately, the criterion of independence, implying as it does various concessions and basic reforms, still remains to be decided. That is why our discussions are sometimes tinged with bitterness when we discuss this subject with the administering Powers.
43. The more advanced States, which have been granted the noble privilege of guiding the less developed countries towards the achievement of their legitimate aspirations, have sacred obligations to the international community, to history and to their own conscience. It is to this national conscience of the great peoples, to whom civilization owes so much, that we address our plea for an era of collaboration between them and the United Nations, in a work which is both political and profoundly human.
44. After equality of races and peoples, come the equality of individuals and their fundamental rights. No one can deny the importance of the work of drafting and the publicity which the United Nations is carrying on in that connexion. As I pay tribute to that assiduous and fruitful labour, I should like to express the hope that all States will do their best to grant the earliest possible enjoyment of these rights both to their own nationals and to the populations whom they administer.
45. So far as we are concerned, in Lebanon, we have extended human rights to their utmost limit by granting women the right to vote.
46. I shall not further prolong this review of the principles based on the equality of races, peoples and individuals, the non-observance of which has been recognized as dangerous to the peace of the world.
47. But we have been told that the failure to carry out United Nations resolutions similarly weakens the foundations of international security. That is title in the case of more than one resolution. I do not want to return here to the resolutions on Palestine refugees, a question which has been discussed, at length in the Ad Hoc Political Committee and which will be taken up again when the report of the Conciliation Commission for Palestine is examined,
48. Need we, however, recall, session after session, the famous resolution on Jerusalem [303 (IV)], or should we henceforth be silent on the matter? Even had we wished to remain silent, Israel's action would have broken the silence. On the eve of this session, it decided to transfer its Ministry of Foreign Affairs from Tel Aviv to Jerusalem. For once, the Powers reacted energetically, and the half-executed decision was revoked. Nevertheless, the failure to carry out this decision endowing Jerusalem and its territory with an international régime is not only a challenge to the United Nations, it is also a constant threat to peace and a dangerous example which already perhaps has had unfortunate consequences. The example and the consequences concern us most in our present discussion. For the occupation of the territory of Jerusalem by armed forces constitutes an act of aggression, in the legal meaning of the word, which has so far gone unpunished. My delegation had occasion to stress that in the discussions on the Korean problem. Indeed, if the system of collective security had been employed to repel aggression in the case of Jerusalem as it was employed two years later in the defence of South Korea, the aggression against the latter might never have taken place. Let us limit ourselves to that reflection and analyse the last question we raised.
49. Have all the agencies and organizations intended to achieve the aims of the United Nations been set up, and have they all functioned in accordance with the provisions of the Charter? On the whole, we should say that they have not. And the resolution of which we have already spoken more than once, entitled “Uniting for peace”, also concerned itself with that question by deciding to replace the Security Council by the General Assembly for the implementation of collective security. Clearly, the General Assembly was not satisfied with the working of the security system set up by the Charter. Nor can the Powers have placed their trust in it, since they fell back, to ensure their defence, on regional pacts. Yet that resolution emphasized that to ensure a lasting peace it was not enough to conclude collective security agreements against breaches of international peace and acts of aggression, It should be remembered, too, that it was the poor functioning or the lack of a system of collective security under the League of Nations which led to the Second World War. It is somewhat disturbing to compare the two crops of regional pacts, one today, the other on the eve of the last war, concluded to compensate for the weaknesses and failures of collective defence. That concept of collective security, the result of centuries of experience, which aims at re-establishing peace in this world tom by dissension and grievous conflicts, is thus subjected to a new test, following that of the League of Nations, on the result of which the future of our Organization and that of humanity for many generations will depend,
50. If it is to be strong and respected, this institution, which is in spite of everything the best weapon of defence we have against aggression, must function whenever peace is threatened or broken. It has been in Korea. But, as we have pointed out, it is not in Korea alone that peace has been endangered. If the United Nations is to be strong in Korea or in any other place in which it may have to exercise its authority, it must not give the impression, true or false, that its action is based on any considerations other than those of reason and law.
51. This institution should also have been supplemented by an organ envisaged in the provisions of the Charter, namely, a strong standing army in the service of the United Nations and its objectives of peace. It is true, as I have already pointed out, that the setting up of an international army, which would be a symbol and organ of United Nations authority, is dependent on the military and moral disarmament of the Powers. Conversely, disarmament appears to be acceptable to certain Powers only if that army, the guarantee of their security, has first been set up. In this vicious circle in which the United Nations finds itself, the provisions of Article 43 et seq. of the Charter, remain a dead letter. Are we to assume that these provisions have never been, and in the present state of the world can never be, more than a Utopia, an impossible dream of the legislators of San Francisco?
52. It would appear to be due rather to the disappearance of the spirit of San Francisco, or even more of that of the atmosphere of Yalta. Why should that be, if not because the principles embodied in the Preamble to our Charter are not observed, or are not universally applicable? Although valid in one case, they appear not to be in another. That leads to the emergence of areas of strife and insecurity, to conflicts almost everywhere in the world: in Asia, in Africa and in Europe. For, whatever we may think of it, the world is everywhere divided, and I do hot refer only to the great ideological division which separates it into two groups, but to divisions within these two groups.
53. Among the causes of the world's unrest, should we not include the economic cause? The Belgian representative, Mr. Van Zeeland, spoke [392 meeting] with great authority of the economic problems facing Europe. We should have liked economists of his standing to deal with the problems of other parts of the world.
54. Speaking of the division of the world into two great financial areas ; the dollar area and the non-dollar area, he emphasized that the position of a creditor implies duties and obligations as well as rights. For Europe, one consequence of that division was the Marshall plan. But that was for Europe alone. Nevertheless, it has been continually repeated that the countries of the world are all definitely interdependent from an economic point of view. It is in the interests of all to ponder that.
55. Allow me also to bring to the Assembly’s attention another problem of world scope, which we may calf economic justice. For there is an economic justice, which prescribes that free access for all peoples to the resources of the world should be facilitated and that all countries should be given an equal share in the production of the world to which they contribute.
56. There are countries, however, in particular the undeveloped countries, in respect of which a balance has not yet been achieved between the contribution they make and the profits they receive. Praiseworthy efforts have certainly been made on their behalf. The technical assistance given them by the Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations, by the United Nations and by certain countries, led by the United States, with its generous contribution, deserves due recognition.
57. But there is a great difference between these different countries. The statistics of per capita national income are most informative in this regard. Thus, in the United States, the per capita national income is nearly $1,500; in Europe, it varies between $235 and $850; and in Asia it is nowhere higher than $125, except in Lebanon where, at $140; it is slightly higher than in Brazil.
58. These figures speak for themselves. We have been told here that more than half the peoples of the world are under-nourished and many others on the verge of famine. Is not the vast difference in national productivity largely due to the fact that the natural resources of the under-developed countries and the raw materials they produce have not been sufficiently utilized for their profit? Most of these countries make a great contribution to the production of raw materials. Are they all equitably remunerated for it? That is the crux of the problem, the problem of the better distribution of wealth, which the United Nations must consider in order to find a solution which will safeguard the rights of all.
59. The clouds that are now darkening the horizon cannot hide from us this other aspect of the life of the international community. Economic problems, just as much as power politics, have been at the origin of the two great wars which have endangered civilization. Along with the safeguarding of peace, it is the promotion of well-being and economic justice which must, for the common good, remain the highest objective of the United Nations.
60. If, for the common good, we fervently dedicate ourselves to this objective, no one may apply Bergson’s words to us and our Organization, whose benefits we wish to extend to the whole world: “In our overgrown bodies, the soul has remained too small”.