Mr. CLEMENTIS stated that, in connexion with the present session of the General Assembly of the United Nations, there had again appeared commentaries and reflections which emphasized the seriousness of the contemporary international situation, the alleged sombre outlook for the session and, consequently, also for further co-operation between nations. That mood had also been reflected in the addresses of some of the preceding speakers. The reason that was being mentioned as responsible for the present state of affairs was the lasting tension between East and West, a formulation which had also been used by the Secretary-General in the introductory part of his annual report.
Mr. Clementis did not wish to deny or minimize the significance of undisputed facts, among them the fact that many basic problems of the post-war world were being viewed from different angles and that, consequently, the endeavours to solve them also differed from each other. However, to speak of the disputes and tension between East and West in the way they were being spoken of at present, and to give such formulation the trend it was given, was inaccurate and incorrect. It was inaccurate because the line which divided adherents of one or the other view on disputed international questions did not, as such terminology suggested, run along the geographical line of an imaginary iron curtain, but along a line which divided really peace-loving people from those who gave first place to their imperialistic and selfish aims.
Politically, that formulation was unfortunate because it sought to impress upon world public opinion the incorrect fact of some given and unalterable division — determined by geographical conditions — of the world into two parts.
The so-called East was characterized by quite a number of things: the mobilization of all its energy and the concentration of it on the building of peace, the gradual improvement of the economic and cultural standards of the population, the building of a society which, by its very structure and far-reaching and bold building programmes, already had an anti-war, anti-aggression character. All those facts were not facts which divided; they were facts which united and which, in the brief post-war period, had made possible the constructive peace-loving and definitive solution of old neighbourly differences and disputes in those regions.
If it proved possible, in the East, to liquidate some very complicated disputes and to create in many regions a new, higher type of co-operation between nations, it was certainly impossible to seek, in the actions of that East, the causes of the present tension, and still less any causes of misunderstanding within the United Nations.
The history of the United Nations, with all its successes and failures, its good work and its disappointments, was not so old as to make one forget the elementary fact that the Charter was the fruit of the unanimity of all the founding Member States. At the time the Charter was born world public opinion had looked upon its principles, spirit and formulation as something given and complete, as a base from which would henceforth only grow further improvements and solidification in a clearly formulated direction. However, the comparatively short period of the United Nations’ existence had shown that some of its Members, under the influence of their reactionary circles, strove to alter that base and thus render impossible the full development of the work in the spirit of the Charter.
Such deviation from the spirit and also from the letter of the Charter manifested itself very clearly in, among other things, the circumvention of the United Nations in matters where its competence was clear, and in attempts to engage the United Nations where the solution of one problem or another indisputably fell within the competence of other institutions, according to bindingly formulated agreements and obligations. The authority of the United Nations was in fact being undermined through the recognition of its authority in cases which were outside its competence.
Czechoslovakia had regarded from that point of view the causes of the difficulties which the United Nations had encountered from the beginning of its activities. That was why it had consistently opposed, and would go on opposing, the politically dangerous game which confused conceptions and sought an alleged rectification of the present state of affairs in the United Nations, not by any return to the spirit that had found its expression in the Charter but, on the contrary, by one which, through changing the text of the Charter, wished to sanction the none too pleasant present-day state of affairs and, by doing so, to jeopardize altogether the mission of the United Nations.
The lack of respect not only for the spirit but also for the principles embodied in the Charter had been very expressively and sadly illustrated by the course and result of the elections of chairmen of committees on the very first day of the present session. Those elections refuted the emphatic assertions that there was no tendency among Members of the United Nations to keep any nation or group of nations in a minority, and that the minority position was a self-imposed one.
He thought it symptomatic that those who thus demonstrated their non-co-operative and intolerant attitude within the United Nations were the very ones who justified their efforts to change the Charter by accusing the others of non-co-operation. Within the framework of the sinister war campaign which had so thoroughly engaged the attention of the previous session of the General Assembly, each justified rejection of an unacceptable standpoint or of a decision of a mechanical majority was being depicted in a way meant to cover up the facts and reasons which had led up to the rejection.
The reasons were quite simple; their illustration could be clearly seen in any one of many concrete cases, for example, in the case of Greece, where, through the open and undisguised intervention in the interned affairs of the country first on the part of the United Kingdom and subsequently on the part of the United States of America — a tragic situation had been created which was obviously in flagrant conflict with the obligations imposed by the Charter. Such a state of things could not be accepted as being in accordance with the spirit of the Charter; the Czechoslovak delegation could not be a party to the measures which had brought it about and were prolonging it.
In other cases, the programme of the Security Council and the General Assembly was being saddled with questions and proposals formulated in such a way as to force some countries to reject them and to gain thereby further material for propaganda against them. If some States chose such a procedure within the United Nations with regard to questions that were being discussed by United Nations organs, their procedure was all the more arbitrary where the fulfilment of general obligations by Member States was concerned.
Under Article 1, paragraph 2, of the Charter, Member States assumed the obligation «to develop friendly relations among nations based on respect for the principle of equal rights and self-determination of peoples, and to take other appropriate measures to strengthen universal peace ». The case of Czechoslovakia had become, lately, one of the classic examples of the infringement of that obligation on the part of many Member States. Czechoslovakia had become the object of unfair and often irresponsible statements, even by responsible statesmen of Member States, and of a campaign which aimed at interfering with its internal affairs. Thus, some Member States allowed their radio stations to conduct a slanderous campaign against Czechoslovakia, a campaign which did not stop short of base calumny, and which could be described as incitement to activities against legal State organs and against the supreme representatives of the State.
The Czechoslovak Government had no desire to forbid anyone to criticize, to spread information, even if coloured by the reporter’s own opinion or judgment of conditions in that popular, democratic Republic. It condemned only untruthful and libellous reporting complemented by a campaign that interfered with the internal conditions in the country and aimed at the overthrow of its democratic institutions.
The representative of Czechoslovakia staged that the work in his country in the economic, social and cultural fields proved that the campaign had failed in its purpose. On the other hand, such disregard of the principles of decency was assuredly not an encouraging illustration of the fulfilment of obligations undertaken by Member States.
He nevertheless believed that those phenomena were only of a passing character and that in the long run forces would gain ground all over the world which would make possible international co-operation in the spirit of the Charter. His delegation did not wish to wait for those better times in idleness, for then they would never come. That was why Czechoslovakia had endeavoured to maintain international co-operation in all fields where it could be upheld. It had believed and still believed that various economic and political systems existed in the world and that co-operation between them was not only possible but necessary for the benefit of all and in the interest of peace. However, it did not confine itself to merely proclaiming that point of view, but was striving to live up to it in practice.
In the realm of politics it had been doing so by improving and intensifying its relations on the basis of treaties of alliance which were of an exclusively defensive character and sought solely to guard against the dangers which had threatened its existence as a State and a nation during the past war. Those alliances were conceived in the spirit of the Charter and expressly invoked its principles and the obligations accepted thereby, even in cases where the other contracting parties were States not yet admitted to United Nations membership, although they had a long time ago fulfilled the necessary conditions and manifested by their application for membership their desire for active co-operation in the cause of world peace. Czechoslovakia had entered into those alliances on the broadest possible basis of co-operation for peace, complementing them with economic, cultural and other agreements which made it possible for it to collaborate with the nations concerned more effectively and on a higher level.
All that did not mean that the delegation of Czechoslovakia agreed with the conception of Mr. Bevin that the basis of real world co-operation was to be found in regional structures. His declaration (144th meeting) practically amounted to the abandonment of the ideas of the United Nations, and to encouraging the formation of opposing blocs of States. The Czechoslovak Government, on the contrary, was of the opinion that regional activities must and should be parallel with the activities within the United Nations.
That was why its activities in that direction did not in any way limit its participation in the work of the United Nations and its various agencies and commissions. It had not refused and did not refuse to take part in such work and such commissions of the United Nations as were truly the expression, of its unanimity and could therefore contribute, in the spirit of the Charter, to the solution of contemporary problems. On the other hand, it had always opposed and would go on opposing all institutions created in disregard of the principle of unanimity and had, indeed, shown, while they had lasted, that they had not only failed to fulfil the task for which they had allegedly been created, but had often made difficult and obstructed the solution of basic issues. That was why the Czechoslovak delegation, even on the present occasion, had no cause to alter in any way the stand it had taken in important political questions dealt with by the previous sessions of the General Assembly.
The Czechoslovak delegation attached great importance, particularly in view of the present state of relations between the nations, to the steady improvement of economic relations, in the hope that a loyal economic co-operation would automatically bring about an improvement in other spheres as well. It was taking an active part in all the work of the economic institutions of the United Nations. Czechoslovakia was building up its economy in such a way as to be able to supply a maximum quantity of the products of which there was a shortage in the world. Although not rich, it was giving a helping hand in the reconstruction and development of less-developed countries and was thereby making it possible to raise the standard of living of their populations. It had concluded and was concluding trade and economic agreements with countries throughout the world, irrespective of their economic and political systems, and supplying goods according to their requirements and its own ability.
His country had unfortunately not met with a similar attitude on the part of some of the richer and more powerful Members of the United Nations. There were policies aimed against it which were by no means inspired by the idea of peaceful co-operation and which were in conflict with the spirit and the letter of the Charter. A classical example of that was an episode which had occurred before the Marshall Plan, at the Paris Peace Conference, where former Secretary of State Byrnes had stopped a credit that had already been granted for Czechoslovakia on the ground that its representative had greeted with applause Mr. Vyshinsky’s statement that the United States was using economic aid to weaken countries in order to influence them politically.
That principle had since that time apparently become the official creed in the United States, and sanctions would now be used against anyone not applauding it.
Mr. Clementis emphasized that, on the one hand, statements were constantly being made in favour of the extension of mutual co-operation, and long and costly conferences were being held on the boosting of business and the removal of barriers, whilst, on the other hand, a policy was being practised according to which his country, for example, was denied goods which it had not only ordered a long time ago but had even paid for. Such discriminatory occurrences were all the more regrettable as they were being applied in relations between Members of the United Nations. That discriminatory policy did not even stop at an endeavour to render difficult and impossible any economic relations with Czechoslovakia so as to impede its post-war reconstruction; pressure was being exerted on those who, in their own interest and for their own needs, sought to intensify their economic relations with his country.
In an atmosphere of war propaganda and under the pretext that the war potential of alleged possible enemies must not be increased, unprecedented obstacles were being put in the way of the normal exchange of economic goods, and difficulties were put in the way of the reconstruction of countries which stood in need of modernizing their industry or, in many cases, of building it up anew. He wished to stress that such tendencies were not to be found in the so-called East. Consequently, to his regret, he could not concur with the words and hopes of the Secretary-General about economic reconstruction and recovery, and entirely disagreed with the latter’s evaluation of the Marshall Plan. He had been somewhat surprised by Mr. Bevin’s assertion that the countries of Eastern Europe had been forbidden to come into the Marshall Plan, and that was the only reason why they were outside. The fact was that the Eastern European States had been and were still willing to co-operate in the collective reconstruction of post-war Europe. That was proved by their activities in the Economic Commission for Europe, but they had not been and were not willing to help a scheme which deliberately pushed aside the United Nations and gave preference to the reconstruction of that part of Europe from which a new threat was arising to their security. Finally, they could and would collaborate only in such schemes as helped, rather than hindered, their own planned economy. There was no need to argue further about the fact that the Marshall Plan was the very opposite of those requirements. That, and nothing else, was the secret of the refusal to participate in that Plan.
He wished to stress once more that his delegation was in favour of the elimination of every kind of political discrimination in the field of economic relations and their undisturbed intensification and extension. That was why even those realities would not move it from its firm decision to contribute to the full extent of its possibilities to an understanding between nations and to their loyal co-operation. Present-day difficulties would not discourage it from holding the conviction that it was necessary and possible to improve co-operation among the United Nations. That was why Czechoslovakia consistently fulfilled all its obligations under the Charter. That was proved both by the text of its Constitution of 9 May 1948, by all its activities at home and by its relations with other nations. That was why it took an active part in the work of the United Nations as well as of the specialized agencies, although heavy financial obligations were involved.
In spite of its own difficulties, Czechoslovakia did not remain behind even in the fulfilment of obligations of solidarity in the social field. He would refer to his country’s participation in the International Children’s Emergency Fund and the success of the United Nations Appeal for Children.
The UNESCO Seminar, which had been Czechoslovakia’s guest in 1948, had by its results contributed to the education of future generations. The regional headquarters of the World Health Organization would, Mr. Clementis hoped, find in his country a suitable field for the organization of its fight against disease. The United Nations Information Bureau in Prague was being helped by the Government to fulfil its mission.
He had no wish to underrate the positive results of the work done by the United Nations thus far in some of the fields of international co-operation; he was glad that Czechoslovakia had taken an active and appropriate part in that work. But it could not and should not be forgotten that in other fields, which were the most important part of the task of the Organization, none of the satisfactory results anxiously awaited by mankind had been achieved so far. It would be wrong and dangerous, however, to form pessimistic conclusions concerning the United Nations. On the contrary, everything should be done to ensure that, having put on record an unpleasant reality, Members should reach the right conclusion and ascertain the cause of such a state of things, so that they could correct existing shortcomings and enable the United Nations to fulfil its real mission, which was the assuring of peace and the prevention of the growth of powers that might provoke a new catastrophe.
That goal could be reached, if the United Nations returned to the spirit which had imbued it when the Charter had been born. It would suffice for a renewal of mutual confidence; of confidence in the mission of the United Nations, if the Members went back to agreements already concluded, to obligations already assumed and to respect for principles unanimously agreed upon, and if they concentrated on finding ways to realize them.
The Czechoslovak delegation therefore welcomed the proposal of the Government of the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics (A/658), presented by Mr. Vyshinsky (143rd meeting), as cordially as it was sure to be welcomed by millions upon millions of peace-loving people throughout the world, irrespective of their political convictions. It was a concrete, realistic and unambiguous proposal, and its acceptance and putting into effect would assuredly be the beginning of a new and important era in the history of the world in general and the United Nations in particular. It was necessary that the acceptance, and in particular the carrying out, of that proposal should be watched over really and truly by the public opinion of the whole world, which expected from the present session just such a great and outstanding achievement.
The proposal presented by the Soviet Union delegation followed from principles unanimously adopted at the first session of the General Assembly. That being so, no objections could be raised to it in principle. That fact could not be obscured by unfounded attacks against the State which had put it forward.
He felt that the present USSR proposal represented a substantial step forward when compared with others. It had a twofold significance: first, it concretely formulated, both as to time and extent, the reduction of armed forces, and, secondly, it appealed to the great Powers directly. Much deliberation and discussion had been devoted to the relations between the great Powers and the other States and vice versa. The theories advanced had been for the greater part incorrect and mechanical, setting out as they did from a non-existent great Power camp on the one side and a camp of the rest on the other, and an alleged conflict between their interests.
The fact, however, was that there was an identity of interests of all peace-loving nations, and that nations were getting into conflict with those great Powers which were determining the present situation within their sphere of interest in a way which served neither the interests of the other nations nor the cause of mankind.
For that reason the Government of Czechoslovakia was grateful to the USSR for consistently pursuing a policy of peace, for taking a firm stand, before those forums where Czechoslovakia had no representatives to uphold such a policy.
On the other hand, the Czechoslovak delegation appreciated the special position which the great Powers held within the framework of the United Nations, adequately balancing their greater obligations. One of those obligations was to give a good example to the others. The proposal of the Soviet delegation offered them a suitable occasion to do so.
Although on the formal side the proposal was addressed as regards the reduction of the armed forces only to the great Powers, there was no doubt that its adoption and execution would have a far-reaching importance for all the other States as well, not only because it would pave the way to a better understanding between the nations, but also because it would rid many countries of the financial and other anxieties connected with the maintenance of superfluous armed forces and expenditure for armaments.
If the material, the energy and the labour which had been invested after the war in gigantic programmes of re-armament had been devoted instead to the purposes of peace, the reconstruction of the post-war world would have made giant strides forward.
The programme of the present session of the General Assembly contained a great number of serious problems. Among those, the adoption of the resolution presented by the Soviet delegation was by far the most serious and pressing. It would also open the way toward an understanding in other questions that were being dealt with both in the United Nations and elsewhere. The United Nations was a community of sovereign nations, an institution which did not and could not exist outside that community since its common work, its successes and failures were, in a concrete way, influenced by all relations between nation and nation.
It was admittedly a long and arduous task to create the conditions for collaboration between countries of differing political and social structure, but it was not a task incapable of fulfilment. There was no institution, save the United Nations, which could attempt that task.