31. It is an honour to be able to congratulate Mrs. Pandit on her election to the presidency of the eighth session of the General assembly. The rise of Asia during the past eight years in the determination of world events is best attested by the contrast between the state of affairs today and the state of affairs at San Francisco. You, Madam President, were at San Francisco. You tried to make, in the interest of the freedom of your country, your clear voice heard by the diplomats and statesmen gathered there; but you were not permitted to enter the conference, let alone to speak in it. And when you held your reception in the Room of the Dons at the Mark Hopkins Hotel, some of those who attended that event literally came through the back door lest they should be seen by their superiors, or — what was still more fearful — by the superiors of their superiors. You were at San Francisco, but you were outside; you were at the periphery of things. Today, however, you are at the centre. This passage from the periphery to the centre, which, in the short span of eight years, you have gone through in your remarkable career, only epitomizes for our epoch the phenomenal growth in moral and political stature of your great country, and therewith of the whole continent of Asia. I should suppose that not only all Asians from every corner of the continent would take pride in this arresting development, but all free men everywhere. We congratulate you, therefore, on your attainment, both in itself and because of its larger significance.
32. I wish also to take this opportunity to congratulate our distinguished new Secretary-General on his election to his high office and to wish him well in the discharge of the important responsibilities that devolve upon him. He can count on the trust and co-operation of the Government and the delegation of Lebanon.
33. The idea of this opening general debate is that governments and their representatives pause for a moment in order to take stock, from as high a point of view as possible, of the most important issues that face them. Thus, one must make three choices: one must concentrate on the more important issues, one must give them a fundamental treatment and, even under this guise, one must be brief. This task is possible only if one takes a standpoint of principle, namely, if one examines the state of the world in the light of some ideal of truth, justice and peace.
34. I stress the word “truth” because there is such a thing as false justice, and certainly such a thing as false peace. Neither of these states can be tolerated in the long run, and if they persist for a while it can be only because they are on their way to a justice and a peace that are genuine and true. But the prospect of a permanently false justice and a permanently false peace can never be admitted by man. Truth, then, is a higher guide than either peace or justice and, in seeking to take a stand on the fundamental issues of the day, governments and their representatives must, first and foremost, be guided by it.
35. It is commonly argued that national sovereignty in our modern world must, in the interest of the common good, undergo some limitation, and that this is why there is international organization today — bilateral, multilateral, regional and, of course, under the aegis of the United Nations. But whatever limitations may have to be accepted willingly by us upon our respective sovereignties in practice, in this initial debate it is given to each one of us to exercise his sovereignty to the utmost. In thinking through the great problems of the hour, we are permitted to perform an act of unlimited sovereignty. When we seek the ultimate and the fundamental, when we take the standpoint of principle, when we venture to yield to our highest hopes and to be guided by our deepest and truest desires, we should then, obviously, be about every limitation, except, indeed, such as flows from the truth alone. The time of haggling and bargaining and horsetrading is not now; that time will come later. The challenge now is to see things steady and whole; for unless we do see them this way. who can guarantee that our footsteps later will not turn out to be only blind leaps in the dark?
36. There is a perceptible abatement in international tension. The effect of this abatement on the nonpolitical fields has been immediate and obvious. In his introduction to the report of the Economic and Social Council to the General Assembly, the President of the Council writes: “The year’s work of the Economic and Social Council . . . has been conducted in an atmosphere of harmony and a growing spirit of co-operation... Not only was the Council able to celebrate in Geneva the armistice in Korea, but for the first time a large number of unanimous votes were recorded — a clear sign of a conciliatory attitude among the delegations, symbolic of the change in mood in the Council’s deliberations” [A/2430, p. xi]. This is great news about the Economic and Social Council.
37. According to the same report, the President of the Council considers that the outstanding resolution of the past year was that relating to the establishment, within the framework of the United Nations, of an international fund for the development of the underdeveloped countries [resolution 482 A (XVI) of the Economic and Social Council]. This ambitious idea aims at going far beyond anything hitherto attempted either by the United Nations or by any specialized agency. That such an idea was conceived at all was due to the relative relaxation of tension, but the actual bringing into existence of the fund would be conditional, as the Council itself has stated in the declaration it is asking governments to adhere to, upon the making of “sufficient progress... in internationally supervised world-wide disarmament”. The point I am making is that there is a direct inverse correlation between international tension and the prospects of development.
38. This principle can be further illustrated by the fact that, for the first time in the history of the United Nations, the Soviet Union this year joined in pledging contributions to the United Nations programme for technical assistance. When there is thus a relaxation in the political field, or a will to relaxation, a corresponding liberality of spirit manifests itself in the economic field.
39. The fie d of human rights is also peculiarly responsive to international tension. Since the proclamation by the General Assembly of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights in 1948 in Paris [resolution 217 (III)], the Commission on Human Rights has been elaborating legally binding conventions or covenants. But although most of the preparatory work for the Declaration was itself also preparatory for the covenants, not much progress has been made during the past five years; at least, one cannot say that such covenants, if finished today, would be more readily adhered to than five years ago. The chief reason is not so much the difficulty of juridical elaboration — difficult as that certainly is — as the paralysing effect of the international tension. For so long as the danger and fear of war exists, even the most liberal countries, the countries whose whole outlook and heritage are based upon the doctrine of freedom and of the infinite worth of the individual human person, cannot be too careful as regards the possibility that subversive elements within them might take advantage of their liberal laws. This tendency is reinforced by the moral certitude that their possible enemies will not sign the legally binding documents. Progress in human rights is thus directly dependent upon the growth of international trust and understanding.
40. This does not mean that, so long as tension persists, the believers in human rights should get discouraged. On the contrary, they should continue with their work no matter how arduous it proves to be. The documents should be finished and ready, in the certain belief that the hour of their usefulness will one day strike. At the same time, we should not limit the task of promoting human rights to the drafting of legal documents. There are other avenues of approach to the fulfilment of this obligation under the Charter, including the great process of education and the just mobilization of public opinion. The delegation of Lebanon, therefore, welcomes the new initiative taken by the Commission on Human Rights in exploring wider possibilities for the discharge of its mandates.
41. Thanks largely to the wisdom, firmness and high principles of the Egyptian revolutionary government under General Naguib, and thanks also to the increasing unity of the Egyptian people under his leadership, Anglo-Egyptian problems appear to be on the way to a final settlement. Egypt has the complete support of Lebanon, as indeed, of every other Arab State, in its demands for the fulfilment of its national aspirations.
42. The everlasting question of Palestine continues to be our greatest tribulation in the Near East. No light, or any promise of light, appears to be breaking into this situation. In fact, with the passage of time and without any attempt by the United Nations or, more precisely, by those Members which are truly effective in the matter, to implement its own solemn decisions, there is a hardening of feeling and position on both sides and a dangerous growth in the cynical belief that, for the long as well as for the short run, only force avails. I am only being realistic and honest in affirming that, whether or not the United Nations wearies of this problem, Palestine will remain on its agenda for many a year to come. Some affect to see in this fact, namely, in the fact that the United Nations is there to remain seized of this explosive problem, a hopeful ground for peace. I would share this view, were I to see the United Nations pass from mere resolution to resolute action in connexion with Palestine.
43. It will be recalled how, on 9 December 1949, the General Assembly, by more than a two-thirds majority, voted the internationalization of Jerusalem [resolution 303 (IV); how this vote was, in effect, only a reaffirmation of the decision of 1948 [resolution 194 (III)], which was in turn a reaffirmation of the decision of 1947 [resolution 181 (II)] ; and how subsequently to 1949 this decision was again reaffirmed and any attempt at altering it was decisively defeated. In all this, the United States and the United Kingdom, which, as everybody knows, could have been and still are most decisive in the matter, not only vigorously opposed the decision before it was taken, not only did nothing after it was taken to help in implementing it, but actually, either directly or indirectly, encouraged Israel to disregard it. One would have supposed that after the decision had been taken and after they had really given, in perfect good faith, a most valiant account of themselves in opposing it, the United States and the United Kingdom would have excused themselves before Israel and turned round and supported the will of the world community. But matters never stop at that with Israel, even in respect to Jerusalem, a city which, whatever it means to Israel, certainly means, or should mean, even more to the Powers that support Israel.
44. Scarcely was the decision of 1949 taken, according to which Israel could not set up its capital in Jerusalem, when the Israel authorities, in blatant defiance of that decision, announced that Jerusalem was their capital from eternity to eternity. I do not know whether Israel knew in advance that the great Powers would not utter a single word of protest, but the sequel proved them strangely unconcerned. Government departments began to be moved there; the Israel Parliament met regularly in the Holy City; and every attempt in the meantime by the Trusteeship Council to implement the design of the General Assembly was frustrated, largely because the United States and the United Kingdom, from considerations either of impracticability or of tenderness towards Israel, would not whole-heartedly co-operate in the matter. May I be permitted here to remark that “impracticability” often means only that you have decided in advance against seeing a thing through, or at least for doing nothing yourself to have it come through.
45. The last step in this process took place a few months ago, when the Israel Foreign Ministry moved to Jerusalem and invited the foreign envoys to move there also. I do not know how many of them actually left Tel Aviv, but we have been told that the missions of the United States, the United Kingdom, France and several other Western European and Latin- American governments refused to move to Jerusalem. How long this anomalous situation will last, I do not know. It is perfectly obvious, however, that there are only two alternatives: either something decisive must be done soon by the great Powers, in whose hands alone the issue lies, to bring about an effective implementation of the internationalization scheme, or all missions must sooner or later transfer to Jerusalem.
46. The present tactics seem to be to let matters ride quietly for a while until, whether at this session of the General Assembly or at next year’s session, the opportune moment arrives when it will be possible 'to have the United Nations take a fresh decision, rescinding the old one and making it possible for Israel, from the international juridical point of view, to establish its capital in Jerusalem.
47. Since this is my reading of the Jerusalem situation, it is appropriate, I believe, to make one or two fundamental observations.
48. First, I know there are attempts to persuade Jordan to establish its capital in the Old City, as a sort of compensation for accepting the Israel fait accompli in Jerusalem. It is right to declare that the Arabs will never accept the capital of Israel to be in Jerusalem.
49. Second, the Christian and Moslem religious forces also insist on the internationalization of the Holy City. There is reason to believe that even the strictly religious Hebrew circles will insist on the same. The position of the Catholic Church was made abundantly clear by the two encyclicals of the Pope in 1949 and by many subsequent declarations and statements by Catholic authorities. About ten days ago a letter was sent to the Secretary-General of the United Nations by the Catholic Near East Welfare Association, whose President is none other than Francis Cardinal Spellman. The Secretary-General was requested to bring this letter to the attention of the General Assembly. As far as I know he has not done this as yet, and I therefore take this opportunity to request him to distribute this document among us. It has been in his hands for twelve days. This letter is from the Catholic Association in the United States which is exclusively interested in Near Eastern questions and which is headed by Cardinal Spellman, and it states, in part, the following: “It is sufficient to recall here the resolutions and votes of the General Assembly in 1947, in 1948 and in 1949, as regards the international zone of Jerusalem, and then to point out and to condemn the effrontery of a Member of the United Nations, the State of Israel, which has, without right and in defiance of these resolutions and votes, tried to make the New City of Jerusalem its capital. “It is true that many Members of the United Nations have openly opposed this utter disregard of the decisions of your august body. When Secretary of State John Foster Dulles of the United States of America called Israel’s removal of its Foreign Ministry from Tel Aviv to Jerusalem an ‘inopportune act’ which embarrassed the United Nations, he could have been called the spokesman for those who wish to have the Jerusalem decision of the United Nations implemented, “On two prior occasions this Association has found it necessary to present to the United Nations protests against the over-extension of Israel. As the General Assembly opens its 1953, or eighth, session, we ask you, Honourable Sir, to present to it our condemnation of Israel actions against an international Jerusalem and our respectful request that the United Nations remember its plighted word and proceed to the implementation of its decisions. “The Catholic body throughout the world” — and this is very strong language — “as is evidenced by the repeated statements of their leader, Pope Pius XII, will not be contented with a mere internationalization of the Holy Places in Jerusalem. The intention of the original 29 November 1947 resolution of the United Nations — a resolution repeated and voted several times since — was to set up an international enclave of Jerusalem, stretching in a ten-mile radius to the Holy City of Bethlehem, as ‘a convenient and effective means of ensuring both the desired international supervision and the political, economic and social well-being oi me population of Jerusalem’, “Neither ‘functional internationalization’ nor ‘indirect internationalization’ should be substituted for true internationalization, which, despite allegations to the contrary, can never be ‘out of date’.” These words, coming as they do from a Catholic organization in the United States concerned with the affairs of the Near East and headed by Cardinal Spellman, seem to me to be very significant.
50. Third, politically, strategically and ideologically, Israel will never be satisfied with the New City as its capital. Nobody who has meditated profoundly upon the nature of Zionism and who has read with some care the pronouncements of Zionist leaders can have any doubt that the real Jerusalem is the Old City, the site of the Temple. Therefore dynamic Zionism will never rest until it has secured the Old City. It follows that whoever wills today the New City as the capital of Israel is therewith and thereby willing — consciously or unconsciously — for the Old City to fall one day in the hands of Israel. The only way of averting this eventuality — which, I assure the Assembly, will have far-reaching consequences, and not primarily for political reasons — is from now on to place the entire area of Jerusalem under effective international supervision.
51. Whether we have regard to obvious strategic considerations, or to the interest of peace and reconciliation in the Near East, or to the dynamic character of Zionism, or to the fact that Jerusalem is holy to three world religions, or to the one obvious act whereby the real goodwill and impartiality of the great Powers, and especially of the United States, can be demonstrated, or to the fact that it is not a wall here, or a garden yon, or a tomb yonder, that is holy in Jerusalem, but the entire area as carefully demarcated by the United Nations — however we consider the matter, we arrive at one and the same inescapable conclusion, namely, that Jerusalem must be politically neutralized.
52. The Palestinian Arab refugees are once again on our agenda. And here also there are disregarded United Nations resolutions according to which these unfortunate people, whose plight is worsening daily, are to be given the option of returning to their homes and living peacefully there. Israel says there is no room for them, and even if there were, it could not take them because Arabs living in Israel — especially returning Arab refugees — might become subversive. But it is fair to ask two questions. First, is it that there is no room when already Israel has, since its foundation, admitted hundreds of thousands of Jews from all over the world into its territory, and when we hear of plans for admitting two to three million more? Secondly, if Arab and Israeli cannot live in peace and concord in the same political fold, if within the same national political system they cannot demonstrate that they need not subvert one another, how may we hope that the Israel State and the Arab states will one day establish relations of peace and concord among themselves? There is, after all, a larger political system in the Near East called the Arab world, and Israel lies at the heart of it. If Arabs within Israel are suspect, would not Arabs in this larger system be perfectly justified in suspecting Israel within them?
53. The Arab refugees are the key to practically every issue relating to Israel. The solemn resolutions of the General Assembly with respect to them should be honoured. Those of them who choose not to return to their homes, or who, after returning, decide, for one reason or another, to emigrate again, should be peacefully resettled elsewhere. Their frozen moneys should be unfrozen and adequate compensation should be given those who wish to relinquish their property in Palestine. Their present demoralization is beyond description and the rancour that their continued existence and their unspeakable plight generate in their hearts as well as in the hearts of all Arabs in the Near East against the West and against Israel is daily deepening. They form a matrix of despair wherein all manner of subversion and radicalism develops. That they should remain a source of misery and danger to themselves and to their immediate world is in the interest of nobody, least of all Israel.
54. It has been often remarked — by friends as well as by foes, kindly or unkindly — that the Arabs are only negative, that they do not know what they want, that they do not come forward with positive proposals, and that if only they, would “make peace” with Israel, all would go well with them, and in particular they would be able to strengthen themselves militarily, to develop their own countries much faster than they are able to do at present, and to receive substantial economic assistance from abroad, especially from the United States. This is an important challenge which I propose now to take up.
55. The Arabs are indeed negative. But when people speak disparagingly of the negative attitude of the Arabs, they should in all fairness remember that if what befell the Arabs in Palestine had befallen any other people, this people would have been even more negative than the Arabs have been.
56. But the Arabs are not only negative. They are negative — and rightly so — with respect to one tiling, namely, acquiescence in the fait accompli as the final unalterable decree of history. What people usually mean by “being positive” is that the Arabs should now accept the fait accompli and move forward from there. In this false sense the Arabs cannot be positive. But between the two radical extremes, unmurmuring acceptance of the stark fait accompli and its total effacement, certainly there is a whole gradation of possibilities which may be explored and which people of good will everywhere must help us explore.
57. In fact, in the thinking of the Arabs there are positive elements that may be gathered together by those who care. The difficulty is not really with the Arabs; the difficulty, I fear, is with certain world forces and with certain tendencies in Zionism which conceive of the continuance of an unsettled state of affairs in the Near East as to their advantage. And now I ask: what are the positive elements in the thinking of the Arabs? They stem for the most part from the standing decisions of the United Nations.
58. Thus, if there is a serious determination by the United Nations to implement its decisions with respect to Palestine; if the Israelis agree now — as, in point of fact, they did agree in May, 1949, in Lausanne — to negotiate on the basis of these decisions; if there is an absolute assurance by the great Powers that territorial encroachment by Israel upon the Arabs will never be allowed; if Israel, for the sake of peace, desists from aggravating the dangerous disequilibrium between population and the absorptive capacity of the land, by putting an end to its present policy of immigration; and if the Arabs are actively helped to strengthen themselves and if no obstacles are put in the way of their developing the closest natural ties among themselves, then, if these conditions are fulfilled — and they are not only eminently positive but they all fall within the bounds of reason, justice and possibility — I believe things will begin to happen with respect to Palestine.
59. But obviously things will not happen — and it is not fair to expect them to happen — so long as there is boundless ambition and arrogance; so long as there is hardness of heart and no sign of humility; so long as every concession is expected to come from the Arabs, and their fate in Palestine, if not also in the Near East, is quite openly conceived on the pattern of the fate of certain native races that were conquered and became extinct; and so long as the strong possibility persists that every two years and at most every four years Israel will have an exceptional opportunity of strengthening itself internationally as well as vis-a-vis the Arabs. I suggest that all these things must be fairly taken into account if a new era of peace and prosperity for all concerned is to be ushered in in the Near East.
60. Tunisia and Morocco are again on the agenda of this session of the General Assembly Resolutions were adopted by the Assembly last year with respect to these two questions [resolutions 611 (VII) and 612 (VII)), but the situation in both territories has, if anything, deteriorated in the meantime. We feel that the United Nations must once again be seized of the North African problem with a view to taking the necessary measures. I shall not enter into any detailed examination of this complex matter; that must be left to the committee stage. Besides, a few weeks ago I had the honour of presenting the Moroccan case before the Security Council [619th meeting] and thus the views of the delegation of Lebanon on this matter are already on record. But there are two questions of fundamental principle that I want to raise in this debate.
61. The first is again to face the charge that we are only negative in our approach. I believe that here again positive" elements of a reasonable and just solution can be gleaned. For the ultimate aim is complete self- government, an aim both vouchsafed by the Charter and allowed by France. To that end, therefore, we suggest five steps that can be taken at once for both Tunisia and Morocco. First, a general political amnesty should be granted, permitting the leaders, whether in prison or exiled or dispersed all over the world, to return home and function normally under the laws of their country. Secondly, existing emergency or extraordinary measures should be removed with a view to granting the people the ordinary liberties of association and expression. Thirdly, increasing political responsibility should be given to Tunisian and Moroccan leadership under a representative constitutional system to be worked out freely between the French authorities and this leadership within two years. Fourthly, this freely elaborated constitutional system should include adequate safeguards for the rights of France and of French nationals in the two territories. Fifthly, a declaration should be made by France affirming complete self-government as the ultimate aim, specifying as much as possible the stages according to which transfer of responsibility is to take place, and setting a time-limit for the completion of this process.
62. I believe these suggestions are practical and positive. I assure the French delegation that they proceed from a basis of complete goodwill to France. It seems to me quite clear that the fifteen Asian and African nations will keep bringing this matter to the attention of the United Nations until considerable progress towards real self-government is made in North Africa. I beg and appeal to the distinguished representatives of France in this Assembly to allow us to reason with them on this matter. If they agree, we shall all do our best to maintain the debate on as high and dignified a plane as possible. In the long run, only good can come from a honest and free discussion of grave issues, provided the spirit be one of real understanding and friendship.
63. The second point I want to touch upon under this heading is the constitutional question of competence. It is argued by some that, under Article 2, paragraph 7, of the Charter, the North African question is one of essential domestic jurisdiction, and therefore cannot be taken up by any of the organs of the United Nations. I had occasion last month to refute this thesis so far as the Security Council was concerned. For it is obvious that questions of international peace and security override every question of domestic jurisdiction and that no nation can create with impunity, even within its own internal jurisdiction, a “situation which might lead to international friction or give rise to a dispute”, and then take shelter under Article 2, paragraph 7, of the Charter. Thus the domestic jurisdiction clause is limited not only, as indeed it expressly says at the end of its text, by the enforcement measures of Chapter VII of the Charter, but also by the provisions for the pacific settlement of disputes under Chapter VI, and in particular by Article 34. No nation can do just what it pleases under its own laws if such action really endangers, or is likely to endanger, the maintenance of international peace and security.
64. But the argument is revived even with respect to the General Assembly. Representatives of the United States have said, in and outside the United Nations, that they disapprove of the tendency to clutter up the United Nations with issues that touch upon the internal jurisdiction of States. The representative of the United Kingdom the other day [443rd meeting] invoked Article 2, paragraph 7, in connexion with the South African item, and Mr. Eden said last year [393rd meeting] that the habit of disregarding this provision endangered the very foundation of the United Nations. And it is, of course, the patent contention of the French delegation, as Mr. Schumann told us on 25 September [445th meeting], that the General Assembly has nothing to do with North Africa.
65. Those who invoke Article 2, paragraph 7, appear conveniently to forget three other relevant articles of the Charter. I refer to Articles 10, 11, and 18. Article 10 says, in part: “The General Assembly may discuss any questions or any matters within the scope of the present Charter . . .” Article 11, paragraph 2, says, in part: “The General Assembly may discuss any questions relating to the maintenance of international peace and security brought before it by any Member of the United Nations . . .” And Article 18, paragraph 1, stipulates: “Each member of the General Assembly shall have one vote.”
66. Now, questions of dependent or Non-Self-Governing Territories, as, for instance, North Africa, certainly fall within the scope of the Charter, as do questions of human rights. Therefore the General Assembly certainly may discuss them, whether or not they relate to the maintenance of international peace and security, and it can all the more discuss them if they actually so relate. Thus, so long as the voting system of Article 18 is in force, any Member of the United Nations can bring before the Assembly any question failing within the scope of the Charter and, if he can muster the necessary votes, he will have that question both included in the agenda and discussed. Whether we like it or not, such is the structure of the United Nations that, if there is sufficiently strong feeling about any matter within the scope of the Charter — and this scope, as we all know, is practically all- embracing — then no legalistic protestations on the basis of Article 2, paragraph 7, can possibly prevent its full discussion by the General Assembly.
67. Why have I gone into such detail about this constitutional matter? It is because I want to lead up to one of the most important things I propose to say in this speech. It has to do with the revision of the Charter. We all know that there is a movement today to begin reflecting upon this matter from now, so that ideas and texts and attitudes will ripen by the time the United Nations takes up the task of revision two years hence. In fact, items 70 and 72 of our agenda have this process in view. In my opinion this is a healthy process worthy of all encouragement.
68. But already two big battles loom on the horizon of revision, and it would be well to be clear on that point from now. There is, first, the battle of the veto. This relates to Article 27, and will be joined in by the permanent members of the Security Council. In fact, already in this session the Soviet representatives have given us a foretaste of the character o' tips battle. Some of the middle Powers which have never liked the veto will also join in the engagement. And it is also clear that India, which, as I said at the beginning, enjoys today a much greater international status than it did in 1945, will play a vigorous role in the determination of the issue. The battle of the veto may be characterized as relating to the adjustment of power among the nations that make the greatest difference for the maintenance of international peace and security in the world.
69. But there is a second battle that is already clear in its outline. This is precisely the battle for Articles 10, 11, and 18 and therewith, of course, for Article 2, paragraph 7. It is the battle for the powers of the General Assembly and for the relative w ng weight of its members. It raises a profound question, the question of sovereign equality and of whether the notion of nation-State should not be reconsidered in this amazingly contracted world. For what we are witnessing in the United Nations, as for instance with respect to North Africa, is the breakdown of strict legalism in international relations. The fifteen nations that keep urging the United Nations to do something about North Africa have no political ambitions in that area, and hardly any of them have any economic relations with it whatsoever. Nor is it strategy or geographical propinquity that determines their interest. What is it then that prompts them to bring this matter to the attention of the United Nations?
70. It is a certain fundamental cultural community with North Africa. Strict internationalism is thus clearly breaking down into interculturalism in the United Nations. One is not therefore dealing with sixty distinct, indifferently related units; one is dealing with six or seven fundamental cultural groupings. The Atlantic community, which acts fairly consistently together, constitutes such a grouping; so does, to a large extent, the so-called Asian-African bloc. And therefore the problem of international relations is not so much how to regulate the relations of some eighty distinct, sovereign States, as how to adjust the far more complex relationships among the half a dozen fundamental cultural groupings of the world.
71. In the gathering battle for revision, strict legalistic internationalism is going to clash with interculturalism. Attempts will doubtless be made to strengthen Article 2, paragraph 7, so as to limit the scope of Articles 10 and 11. Nations then will be asked to sacrifice to a large extent their cultural affinity with other nations in the name of a more or less atomistic, mechanical conception of international existence. The scope of debate in the General Assembly may then be curtailed, and cases like Tunisia or Morocco, or like the question of human rights in Hungary a few years ago, which can now be placed on our agenda in all propriety, may be prevented by the Charter from being brought before the world organization. It may thus turn out, if this tendency triumphs, that the first ten years of the existence of the United Nations were a kind of honeymoon, and were exceptional so far as the real freedom of the small and helpless and dependent to aid their grievances before some world forum was concerned.
72. This is a battle for which we should all be prepared. The issue of the veto is most important. Certainly the strong and powerful have every right to assume primary responsibility for the maintenance of international peace and security. But they should not grudge the weak and helpless at least the right to talk, to bring their real or imagined grievances to the attention of world public opinion, to feel the burden of moral responsibility, to seek active spiritual community with the like-minded.
73. The world therefore faces three ultimate problems: how the strong can live together in peace in a world shrunk to a neighbourhood, how the weak can live in dignity and equality with the strong in a world in which security can come about only through collective security, and how the few fundamental cultures of the world can develop freely interacting and mutually enriching and respectful relations among themselves. The history of our epoch will be written by these three problems.
74. Incomparably more important than the problems of the Near East or of North Africa, or even of the revision of the Charter — not perhaps for the peoples directly concerned, but for the world at large — are the problems of war and peace at the present turn of history. For depending on how these crucial issues will work out, the fate of all of us — in the Near East, in North Africa, everywhere — will be relentlessly determined.
75. People are grateful the world over that the shooting in Korea has stopped and that high statesmanship will surmount all the difficulties still besetting the holding of the conference, and that after and through the conference a unified, free, democratic and secure Korea will emerge.
76. There is a distinctly new tone in the international atmosphere these days. By comparison with past years, we have seen so far in this session only sweetness and light. There is a conscious attempt not only to avoid provocative language but to try to understand something of the other point of view. Incontestably we behold a will to find out if honest and honourable agreement on the outstanding issues is possible. It is the duty of every one of us to undergird and nourish this will.
77. The leaders of the Soviet Union and the leaders of the Western world have repeatedly gone on record during recent months that a way to the peaceful settlement of all disputes is not out of the question at the present moment. This view is shared by leaders throughout Asia, particularly by Mr. Nehru. We are entering, therefore, a historic period of fundamental negotiation, whether this negotiation takes place through ordinary diplomatic channels, or through debates m the United Nations, or through conferences about the Far East or Europe, or through informal exchange of ideas at the dinner table. The communist and non-communist worlds seem to be in the mood of probing each other for a more interesting mode of existence than the cold war.
78. There are three general orders of disagreement that must be tackled: the military-political order, the disarmament order, and the ideological order.
79. On the military-political side, no one who has carefully studied the pronouncements of responsible leaders, communist as well as non-communist, during the last ten months, with respect to Korea, the Far East, Southeast Asia, Germany, Austria and Eastern Europe, and with respect to bases on foreign soil, can fail to see that, with sustained goodwill and a reasonable degree of readiness to compromise, positive elements of agreement can be worked out on all these issues. The inherent difficulty with respect to one or another of these matters may be almost insuperable, but when considered together they seem to present on several sides room for accommodation, even though this accomodation might take years to mature or to bring about. At least real progress can be made immediately on some of these issues. Thus the military-political issues of today’s world do not appear to be unmanageable.
80. The questions relating to disarmament, I think, are more complex. One of the most decisive factors in the world situation — perhaps the most decisive factor — is the technological revolution proceeding apace with respect to instruments of war. I am not thinking only of the nuclear weapons, but of the other well-nigh infinite possibilities of modern warfare. One need only comprehend the elements of physics and astronomy to appreciate what it involved in the possibility of creating artificial moons around the earth. Where, then, does disarmament begin and where does it end? The astounding technological revolution that is in full swing in this field complicates immeasurably the process of reaching any agreement.
81. Above and beyond any difficulty in the political and disarmament fields, and ultimately conditioning every such difficulty, is the great estrangement in the realm of the mind and spirit. For you may settle every political problem and you may disarm to the bone, still if distrust persists and if there is a fundamental contradiction in idea and outlook, there will be no peace. It happens that dialectical materialism teaches precisely that such contradiction is of the essence. Therefore what is needed is a theoretical and spiritual overcoming of Karl Marx. When Marxism-Leninism undergoes the fundamental revolution of overcoming itself, then we may hope for real and lasting peace. Physical olive branches are important and should never be despised, but when, year in and year out, millions of young minds the world over are moulded in schools and universities according to the unregenerate tenets of dialectical materialism, pray tell me in all honesty, how is peaceful co-existente in a contracted world really possible in the long run ?
82. The greatest need, therefore, is for an attempt at settlement in the spiritual order, an attempt in which not only the communist diplomats and statesmen meet and argue with their Western colleagues, but the communist scientists and theoreticians accept the challenge of conferring at length with the most responsible thinkers of the non-communist world. When Mr. Vyshinsky announces, not that they have mastered the atomic and hydrogen bombs, but that Soviet textbooks have been radically altered with respect to the necessity of war and revolution, the ultimacy of the class struggle, the development of human society, the laws of history, the place of the economic process, the nature and place of government, the nature and destiny of man, the existence of objective truth, the power of the mind to grasp it, the dignity of the human soul, the glory and necessity of freedom and the character of whatever ultimate reality there is, when Mr. Vyshinsky tells us that profound modifications of doctrine are taking place in Soviet textbooks with respect to these ultimate themes, then the world may relax and look forward to the possibility of a new dawn. Peace is the fruit of goodwill illuminated by understanding, but without some identity of vision, and indeed vision of the good, all understanding is but a snare and a delusion.