1. Permit me to offer the President our most sincere felicitations on her election to the high office of President of the General Assembly. We would wish also to congratulate the Assembly on having made that choice. In so doing the Assembly has secured a president who in her person combines not only the charm and the grace that go with her sex, but also great dignity and high intellect.
2. We also wish sincerely to congratulate the new Secretary-General on the assumption of his high office. We would assure him that we shall give him our fullest co-operation in the discharge of his heavy and high responsibility.
3. Two main evils continue to poison human relations and largely to nullify all effort directed toward the advancement of human well-being, physical, moral and spiritual, which is the ultimate object of all beneficent effort here below. These evils are political domination and economic exploitation of man by man. Until these are completely eliminated and replaced everywhere by complete political freedom and free and beneficent economic co-operation, all hope of peace and well-being is in vain.
4. The United Nations Charter makes provision for the progressive elimination of these ills. The preamble to the Charter recites the determination of the peoples of the United Nations “to promote social progress and better standards of life in larger freedom”, and to that end "to employ international machinery for the promotion of the economic and social advancement of all peoples”. Among the purposes of the United Nations is the development of "friendly relations among nations based on respect for the principle of equal rights and self-determination of peoples”. Considerable progress has indeed been made in both these spheres since these objectives were proclaimed in the Charter. The progress has been more noticeable in the economic sphere, as there has developed little friction over or opposition to what needs to be done. The limitation there is one of resources. In the political sphere too substantial progress has been made, but there the process has not been marked always by agreement and co-operation.
5. On the economic side, effort has been mobilized on a collective regional and even individual basis and has proceeded in many and varied directions. The activities of the Economic and Social Council are beginning to show wholesome results and are being progressively better appreciated. The reduction of tariffs, the promotion of freer trade, technical assistance, economic aid, the operations of the International Rank for Reconstruction and Development and International Monetary Fund, the wholly beneficent activities of the United Nations International Children’s Emergency Fund and the activities of other similar organizations and agencies are all directed towards that end. The Colombo Plan is an excellent instance of regional or group co-operation. All this effort, however, needs to be vastly expanded and intensified. The struggle against want, disease and ignorance must be waged constantly, unremittingly and on an ever wider scale.
6. One aspect that must be stressed is that the circumstances and needs of under-developed countries call for much greater emphasis upon economic aid than upon technical assistance. We trust that during the course of the present session special attention will be directed towards achieving this result. While, therefore, much remains to be attempted and achieved, that which has been done and is being planned deserves to be gratefully acknowledged and appreciated.
7. In our own case, in addition to the benefits ensuing from the kind of activity that has just been mentioned, we have recently been the recipients of aid and relief in respect of our urgent need of food, for which we are deeply grateful. This timely and generous aid has enabled us to tide over the emergency and to avoid grave distress that threatened to overtake a large section of our people. Special mention must in this connexion be made of the United States of America, Canada, Australia and New Zealand, which accorded us generous and speedy aid.
8. In the political sphere notable progress was made in the years that followed immediately upon the termination of the second world war. The Philippines, Indonesia, Burma, India, Ceylon, Pakistan, Iraq, Syria and Lebanon all achieved or made more absolute their independence. Since then Libya has been set up as an independent State, the Sudan has arrived at the threshold of independence and Somaliland has been promised independence in a matter of six years from now. Great Britain, which has set an example in this regard to the other colonial Powers, is continuing its effort to carry on the process in its West African colonies. The process has, however, been brought to a standstill elsewhere. Parts of Asia and the greater part of the vast continent of Africa are still held in political subjugation. We have been reminded of tensions that continue to threaten international peace. The situation in Korea, the Far East and Europe are uppermost in the minds of most of us. Last year, on Korea, I said [395th meeting]: “It does not seem to us that then are any insuperable difficulties in the way of bringing the conflict in Korea to a dose on a basis which should be just, humane and honourable for all concerned. We hope that a settlement of that description may be reached during the course of this session of the General Assembly. We shall be ready to do our share in and make our due contribution towards converting that hope into a reality.”
9. Fortunately this hope has been realized to the extent that an armistice has been concluded in Korea, and there has been a cessation of fighting on that front. Hut peace there, as elsewhere, continues to be precariously balanced. Our deliberations here and the decisions that we may reach will profoundly influence the future course of events. We pray that we may all be rightly guided so that what we say and what we do here will promote and foster peace and the well-being and happiness of men rather than further provoke ill will, strife and misery.
10. But the situation in Korea and in the Far East is not the only source of tension that threatens peace. In fact, in both cases it is but a symptom and manifestation of the basic evil to which 1 have just referred. In other words, that evil is the denial of the brotherhood of man — of all men, whatever the colour of their skins, white, dark, brown or yellow — and the arrogant assumption that certain sections of mankind are entitled as of right, to exercise domination over other groups of their fellow-beings. This is a doctrine that we repudiate and abhor. In our view, the exercise of such domination is an affront to human dignity which constitutes the gravest single threat to the maintenance of peace and the establishment of beneficent co-operation between different sections of the human race, irrespective of whether this domination manifests itself in Korea, in Indo-China, in Tunisia, in Morocco or elsewhere. It is a cancer that is constantly eating away a large part of the fruits of all beneficent human efforts. We are convinced that there will never be established peace upon earth or goodwill among men until those who, once a year, sing sanctimoniously of the heralding of such consummation demonstrate effectively, through their policies and conduct, the full, complete and utter acceptance of the equality and brotherhood of all men. We have had declarations in plenty, but these declarations — often couched in noble and high-sounding language — are far more often belied than honoured in practice. Until this disparity between our declarations and our conduct is eliminated we cannot hope to see established peace upon earth and goodwill among men. We have been exhorted: “Why do you say that which you do not? It is greatly displeasing in the sight of God that you say that which you do not.”
11. We heard yesterday [434th meeting] with satisfaction a clear statement of policy on behalf of the Government of the United States about the main problems with which we shall lie called upon to deal during the present session. That statement breathes a spirit of conciliation and conveys an eagerness to march forward towards the achievement of the goals set out in the Charter of the United Nations. We welcome it as such. There is much in that statement that we can emphatically endorse. We note with particular gratification the reaffirmation on behalf of the Government of the United States of the belief expressed in the Declaration of Independence that governments derive their just powers only from the consent of the governed, and also of the belief declared by that greatest of American presidents, Abraham Lincoln, that there is “something in that Declaration giving liberty not alone to the people of this country but hope to the world for all future time”.
12. Mr. Dulles went on to assure us: “No peace can be enduring which repudiates the concept that government should rest on free consent, or which denies to others the opportunity to embrace that concept.”
13. If I may say so without impertinence, I have long admired the lofty views and noble concepts of Mr. Dulles. I have often had occasion to repeat the words with which he inspired us in San Francisco two years ago. He said on that occasion: “Dignity cannot be developed by those who are subject to alien control, however benign. Self-respect is not felt by those who have no rights of their own in the world — who live on charity and who trade on sufferance. Regard for justice rarely animates those who are subjected to such grave injustice as would be the denial of peace. Fellowship is not the mood of peoples which are denied fellowship.”
14. Yesterday again we were deeply affected when he appealed — specifically to one set of leaders, but I have no doubt generally to all of us — to recognize that: “love of God, love of country and the sense of human dignity always survive. Repressive measures inevitably lead to resentment and bitterness and perhaps something more. That does not come about by artificial stimulation; it comes about because the Creator has endowed all human beings with the spark of spiritual life”. It is true that Mr. Dulles qualified himself. He said: "Hut our creed does not call for exporting revolution or inciting others to violence. Let me make that emphatic. We believe that violent change usually destroys what it would gain. We put our hopes upon the vast possibilities of peaceful change.” But what if peaceful change in the desired direction is resisted and blocked by those in a position of domination and if matters of peaceful change are sought to be put down by repression?
15. Speaking of Indo-China, Mr. Dulles said: “The pretext, until now, has been that the Associated States of Indo -China were mere colonies, and that the communist war was designed to promote ‘independence’ . . .” and went on to affirm: “It is no longer possible to support such a pretext:. The French Government, by its declaration of 3 July 1953, has announced its intention of completing the process of transferring to the governments of the three Associated States all those remaining powers that are needed to perfect their independence to their own satisfaction.”
16. We sincerely welcome that development. Is it, however, an instance of the efficacy of peaceful change? France, which had readily agreed to transfer the sovereignty of these States to an aggressive Japan, was not willing, after Japan had been defeated, to acknowledge the independence and sovereignty of the people of Indo-China. Hence the violent struggle. It is because of that violent struggle that the French Government has at last been compelled to make the declaration of 3 July 1953. That declaration is no evidence that France is inspired by the desire to promote liberty and independence through peaceful change: it is proof of the success of violent struggle.
17. Should there be any here who might be disposed to question the validity of that contention, we would draw their attention to the situation in Tunisia and Morocco, with which we have been confronted over so long a period. Here is a people with a glorious history and proud traditions, keenly sensitive to its present inglorious and humiliating plight of dependence, which is seeking to win back the independence of which it was stripped by France in the latter half of the last and the early part of this century. The people and its sovereigns have been engaged in a process of seeking to achieve their perfectly legitimate objectives through negotiation and peaceful change. What has been France’s response? Repression and more repression. What has been the reaction of the Western Powers? Indifference.
18. France takes its stand upon so-called treaties and seeks shelter behind Article 2, paragraph 7, of the Charter. As regards treaties of the character of those relied upon by France, permit me to repeat a few observations that I made last year during the course of my statement in the general debate. I said then [395th meeting]: “Another weapon which it is sought to press into service for the purpose of bolstering up this outmoded and immoral system is some provision in a treaty or convention directly imposing or indirectly introducing the relationship of domination and dependence. “In every instance of the kind that has so far come to our notice the treaty or convention was the result of the use of aggressive force or was secured by coercion or in circumstance. which left the other party little choice in the matter. Most treaties and arrangements of this type are also vitiated by the consideration that they purport to have been entered into on behalf of the dominated people by some ruler or functionary who was compelled or persuaded to barter away the birthright of the people in return for some benefit, exemption, indulgence or consideration substantial or illusory, granted or promised — for himself or his family. “Such a treaty or convention, however solemnly expressed, can claim no validity whatsoever. It merely attests to a breach of trust on the part of the ruler or functionary who purported to enter into it and a procurement and abatement of such a breach on the part of die dominant Power in whose favour it was executed . . . no arrangement can, in our view, claim moral validity, which is not arrived at between the representatives of a free people occupying a position of equality vis-a-vis their opposite numbers and subject to no pressure or coercion of any description.”
19. Assuming, however, that the treaties are valid, where does France stand in respect thereof?
20. The Tunisian treaty guarantees full internal autonomy to Tunisia. France has, in effect, torn that part of the treaty to shreds. The guarantee has proved to be a snare and a delusion. In fact, the struggle of the Tunisian people today is aimed at securing the implementation of that part of the treaty.
21. In the Moroccan treaty, France pledged, among other things, to lend constant support to His Sherifian Majesty against all dangers which might threaten his person or throne or endanger the tranquillity of his states. The way in which that pledge has been honoured is manifest from the fact that His Sherifian Majesty is today an exile and virtually a state prisoner in Corsica. The French Resident-General has declared that that is the culmination of a series of events over a period of ten years, which has proved that French co-operation with the Sultan is no longer possible. That is true only in this sense: that France is determined to perpetuate the political dependence of Morocco, and the Sultan had dedicated himself to the task of restoring independence to his people.
22. I turn now to the question of Article 2, paragraph 7, of the Charter. That matter was exhaustively discussed last year in the First Committee and the General Assembly. It is not necessary to go into it again at this stage. It may, however, be observed that there has been noticeable an increasing tendency on the part of those who have established for themselves a position of domination to seek to resist any discussion of the evils and abuses of such domination by pressing into service the provision contained in Article 2, paragraph 7. We shall advert to this aspect on an appropriate occasion when this question may again be raised. Suffice it to say here that Article 2, paragraph 7, cannot be used to defeat the very purposes of the United Nations Charter.
23. France goes on talking of reforms, mainly in the municipal sphere. What are the aim and essence of these much-vaunted reforms? The purpose of the so-called reforms is to secure for the territories’ French nationals, who are in no sense citizens of the States and who constitute only a negligible proportion of the population, a representation of 50 per cent in the municipal councils and the so-called consultative assemblies. These reforms amount to a fraud on the people of Tunisia and Morocco and would deprive those people in perpetuity of liberty, freedom and dignity in their own lands. That, in effect, is France’s reply to the process of peaceful change.
24. When the matter came before it last year, the General Assembly expressed confidence that, in pursuance of its proclaimed policies, the Government of France would endeavour to further the rights and liberties of the peoples concerned, in accordance with the United Nations Charter. During the period that has since elapsed, France has demonstrated how misplaced was the Assembly's confidence. The Assembly expressed the hope that the parties would continue negotiations on an urgent basis for the purpose of developing free political institutions. France has throughout sought to suppress freedom and free political institutions. The principal crime of the Sultan of Morocco, so unceremoniously deposed and removed, was that it would not repudiate the principal political association in his domain which had declared as its objective the country’s complete independence. The Assembly appealed to the parties to settle their disputes in accordance with the spirit of the Charter and to refrain from any acts likely to aggravate the present tension. France’s reply to the appeal has been shootings, gaolings and the deposition of the Sultan.
25. What chance is there left for the vast possibilities of peaceful change, in which Mr. Dulles expressed his faith yesterday? The situation in Tunisia and Morocco is tense and is fraught with possibilities of grave developments. A remedy and a solution must he urgently sought, found and applied.
26. In dealing with the question of Tunisia and Morocco, both in the United Nations and outside it, we, for our part, have made full allowance for France’s difficulties and its quite understandable sensitiveness on the subject. France has itself recently passed through the soul-searing experience of foreign domination. Its own experience should impel it to seek an early solution to the problem of Tunisia and Morocco, consonant with the dignity and traditions of France and the values to which it subscribes, and giving full effect to the perfectly legitimate aspirations of the peoples of the two former States to be complete masters in their own lands. The minimum that is needed is a clear declaration, in the terms of France’s declaration of 3 July 1953 on Indo-China, that France intends to complete at an early date the process of transferring to the peoples of Tunisia and Morocco such remaining powers as are needed to perfect their independence to their own satisfaction. The declaration should be accompanied by an immediate substantial measure of advance towards the achievement of that objective. Such a step should constitute a pledge for what may still remain to be done and should be a proof of an honest desire to do it as soon as possible.
27. We hope that there may still be time to resolve this conflict in friendly co-operation between the parties more directly concerned. But we also fear that it may soon be too late. After all is said and done, what is it that distinguishes the case of Indo-China from the case of Tunisia and of Morocco? The peoples of these two States have been much closer to France than the people of Indo-China has been. They have, for good or for ill, imbibed French culture to a much larger degree than has the people of Indo-China. Does not, then, the difference lie only in this, that, while the people of Indo-China has carried on an armed struggle over a number of years, the peoples of Tunisia and Morocco have throughout sought an honourable settlement through peaceful changes?
28. This is a dangerous comparison. The peoples of these two States feel so frustrated that they may soon be convinced that there is no other honourable course left open to them except one of violent struggle. It is true that they lack the means of embarking upon such a struggle, but it may not be long before such means become available. When a people is driven to desperation, it ceases to count the cost.
29. If France does not recognize and put into effect its obligations in respect of the full self-determination of the peoples of Tunisia and Morocco, will it not deserve the moral condemnation to which Mr. Dulles gave expression yesterday [434th meeting] concerning “governments which exert themselves without reserve to the creation of ever more powerful means of mass destruction, which tolerate no delay and spare no expense in these matters, and which, at the same time, are dilatory, evasive or negative towards curing the situations which could bring these destructive force.' into play . . .’’?
30. Mr. Dulles declared yesterday that the United States, and others also, have their contributions to make and their obligations to fulfill, including their obligations in relation to Non-Self-Governing Territories. Tie stated on behalf of the government of the United States that the United States was prepared to show in itself the spirit which it invokes in others. We heartily and sincerely welcomed that declaration and shall eagerly await and appraise the contribution that the Government of that great country and other governments who think alike with will make during the course of this session towards fulfiling their obligations to the peoples of Tunisia and Morocco.
31. In his statement yesterday, Mr. Dulles said: “Southeast Asia affords the Soviet leaders a chance to give substance to their peaceful words and we anxiously await their verdict.” May I be permited to conclude by observing that North Africa affords France and the other Western countries a chance to give substance to their noble and high-sounding declarations? We anxiously await their verdict.
32. Our last observation is: “Our praise is due to God, the sustainer of all the universes.”