Mr. MACKENZIE KING expressed his particular pleasure in having the opportunity to tell the Government and people of France how deeply the Canadian delegation appreciated the choice of Paris as the place of meeting of the third session of the General Assembly of the United Nations. The city of Paris, throughout many centuries, had been a radiant centre of political and cultural achievements. No country represented in the Assembly was so remote from Paris, nor so distinct in tradition from France, that it had not been greatly influenced by movements of enlightenment and progress which had had their origin in that city and that country. That was peculiarly true of Canada and of its people. One third of the people of Canada had ancestors who came from the shores of France. They still spoke its language and shared the traditions of French civilization.
In listening to the eloquent and moving speech of the President of the French Republic at the opening of the General Assembly (136th meeting), and in recalling the great services which Mr. Vincent Auriol had rendered and was rendering to his country, Mr. Mackenzie King could not but reflect upon the continuing significance of the role of France among the nations. After all that France had suffered and endured in two wars, it had again taken its place in the front rank of the world community. Canadians had never doubted that France would rise again to the full stature of its glorious past.
France, as an example of man’s ability to develop political freedom within the framework of organized society, should remind the Assembly that, in performing its work, it was carrying forward a great tradition. Through the instrument of the United Nations, the peoples of the world also had now an opportunity to develop political ideas and forms of political organization of service not to one nation only or to a few nations, but to mankind.
The present Assembly of the United Nations afforded an opportunity of judging to what extent the Organization had, thus far, found it possible to further the great purposes to which it was dedicated. Now there was an opportunity to measure the work done, and to survey work that remained to be done. The present Assembly should be made the occasion for a searching analysis of failure where such had occurred.
If Governments were sincere, they would admit that there was not one among them which had not been discouraged by the difficulties that had beset the path of the new Organization and which today was not disturbed by doubts and uncertainties. Too many of them had assumed that the high aims and purposes of an organization which sought the betterment of mankind throughout the world could not fail to have a universal appeal. They had not been sufficiently conscious of the realities of the world situation.
Mr. Mackenzie King believed that the United Nations had attempted to accomplish far too much in far too short a time. It had overlooked the fact that any world institution, especially one which aimed at effective co-operation among all nations, was certain to be of slow growth. It was true that nature never rested. It was equally true that nature never hastened. One reason why the international institutions which the United Nations had created since the close of the war were not working in the way it had been hoped they might, was that the sense of a world community of interest on which those institutions must rest and which in themselves they tended to create, had not yet been developed. It might take a long time to develop such a sense.
The United Nations must seek to close the gap, already far too wide, between the purposes which were within its reach and those which exceeded its grasp. It must not dissipate the moral and other resources of a world which desperately needed peace on too many secondary objectives, however desirable they might be in themselves.
It should be recognized that the advance of science demanded, in an increasingly urgent and imperative way, the existence of a community sense which was worldwide. In seeking to create that sense of a world community, the United Nations was certain to be confronted with many difficulties. In that connexion, Mr. Mackenzie King had sometimes wondered whether the experience in co-operation and association of the countries of the British Commonwealth of Nations, to which Canada was proud to belong, had not some lessons both positive and negative, which might be of help in meeting like difficulties in the development of a world community sense by the United Nations.
It was true that the countries of the Commonwealth had never had a charter, had never appointed a secretary-general, and had never taken a decision by a simple or two-thirds majority. They had nevertheless, over many years, worked together with an increasing appreciation of the interests they had in common. It was true they had by no means solved their difficulties: some of those difficult situations had found their way to the agenda of the United Nations. Nevertheless, by and large, it was true that the countries of the Commonwealth did try to understand each other’s problems, institutions and points of view. Between themselves they had sought agreements by accommodation and mutual forbearance. They had contrived to share in large measure a common point of view, without, however, positively formulating it. That community sense they had developed despite the differences in language, race, religion and tradition which characterized the member States. In that more limited experiment in international political association there were some things which might be of value in helping to further a wider appreciation of a world community of interest among the Members of the United Nations.
By the presence of the United Nations in Paris, Members were reminded not only of what might be accomplished through the combined efforts of nations, but also of the peril which again threatened civilization. The conflicts of the previous eighty years had flowed hack and forth across the land of France and had exacted an appalling penalty of its people. Since the latest and greatest of those conflicts, the nations had set themselves the double task of reconstructing the shattered political and economic life of Europe, and of preventing a recurrence of such conflicts. Those were aims towards the realization of which every nation might have been expected to co-operate wholeheartedly. It must frankly be admitted, however, that there was cause for misgiving about the progress of both those undertakings. The reconstruction of Europe, stimulated by aid from countries which had suffered less directly from the war, and carried forward by the co-operative effort of the peoples of Western Europe, had, fortunately, made some progress.
On the other hand, rather than participate in that work of reconstruction, from which they themselves would have benefited, certain nations had chosen not merely to stand aside, but, wilfully or otherwise, to misrepresent and obstruct the efforts of others. That obstruction in the task of reconstruction was, unfortunately, but one example of what would appear to be a policy of deliberate hindrance of the political and economic re-organization of the post-war world. In so far as that might be so, it was impossible not to be profoundly concerned for the well-being of the entire work of reconstruction and peacemaking which had been undertaken since the war.
It would come as a painful surprise, if not as a shock, to Canadians to learn that anyone addressing the present General Assembly could have left the impression that Members of the United Nations had ignored the interests of the peoples of those countries which bad suffered most from the war and from the severe hardships imposed by the Hitlerites. Such, certainly, had been the impression Mr. Mackenzie King had had when listening to the address of the representative of the USSR in the general debate. He had found, moreover, that others had received a similar impression.
It was true that the specific references had been to the Economic and Social Council and the Economic Commission for Europe, but the impression conveyed had been that the United Nations was indifferent to the interests of the peoples of those countries which had suffered most. That was certainly not true of the United Nations as expressed in the contributions of its Member States.
The General Assembly would be glad to hear from the representatives of Poland, Czechoslovakia and Yugoslavia, what quantity of farm implements, how many motor trucks, how many locomotives, to say nothing of food supplies and medical aid their countries had received since the end of the war, by gift and credit from countries, Members of the United Nations, that had sought to help in the common task of reconstruction.
The people of Canada had taken their full share of the load of providing relief and assistance for the war-shattered countries of Europe, through mutual aid, through military relief, through UNRRA, as well as through direct governmental credits of over 500 million dollars for the continent of Europe. The people of Canada had fully supported the policy of the Canadian Government for the rehabilitation of the economy of war devastated countries, and had supplemented that assistance by sending millions of dollars more, through private and voluntary channels, for the relief of the needy and destitute. Their sole purpose had been to assist the peoples who had suffered most from the war to rebuild their homes, restore their agriculture, restart their industries, so that their countries could take their places again in the world economy and world community.
Mr. Mackenzie King emphasized that what he had said about the Canadian effort, and the spirit which had inspired it, held good in every particular for the contribution that the United States had made and was continuing to make in each of those fields towards the recovery of Europe’s economic independence and well-being.
The second major undertaking of the post-war world had been the establishment of machinery for the settlement of international disputes and for the maintenance of peace. Great hopes had been entertained that the establishment, at San Francisco, of the United Nations would mark the beginning of a world organization which would provide real security. Today, that task stood in equal peril.
The settlement of international disputes through machinery provided by the United Nations had made some progress, though it was still far from having achieved success. Its success or failure appeared to have been dependent upon the extent to which the application of the veto had been in accordance with the general consensus of opinion of the Member States.
In areas where it was clear that the veto had not been applied to further the special interests of one or more Member States rather than the general interest, procedures of negotiation had been undertaken, and had proved helpful and constructive. However, in every area and on every subject where it was obvious that the veto had been applied to further some particular interest, rather than the general interest, the process of compromise and adjustment had been ignored and little or no progress had been made.
The stalemate which had resulted from that state of affairs affected many situations which were of direct and imperative concern in the life of all free nations. Its continuance could not fail to lead to threats to freedom, arising not only from aggressive aims at territorial expansion, but also from sinister plans to undermine the structure of free government within the borders of individual nations.
There was no nation, however great, which, in a world such as that of to-day, could defend its freedom solely with its own resources. All nations were, therefore, interested in security. Where existing machinery for the prevention or settlement of international disputes had proved or was proving inadequate to effect security, I additional means had to be sought.
Security for individual nations, under such circumstances, could be assured only by the effective co-operation and the united power of those nations whose determination to maintain their freedom constituted a strong bond of community between them. It was not surprising, therefore, that certain nations, which knew that their security depended on collective action in some form and which were not yet able to achieve that security on the universal basis which the United Nations contemplated should, pending this large accomplishment, seek to achieve their security on a less than universal basis.
Nations were all inter-dependent. The good of each was bound up in the good of all. That sense of community of interest could not be too rapidly or too widely developed. It was vital to the defence of freedom to maintain a preponderance of moral, economic and military strength on the side of freedom. All else was wholly secondary. The direction of its energies to that imperative end seemed to be the supreme task of the United Nations today.
A further all-compelling reason why a world community sense could not be too completely developed lay in the urgent necessity for the effective control of atomic energy. Scientific achievements had in recent years placed a terrible weapon of destruction at the disposal of mankind.
The processes by which atomic energy was released were now well known to the scientists of all nations. The ability to make and release the atomic bomb would, in the course of time, be available to any nation which possessed the necessary skill. The international control of atomic energy might change it from a force of terrible destruction into a power which could greatly benefit the whole of mankind.
In the presence of the menace which atomic energy constituted, every nation, in the interest of its own people as well as those of other lands, could not strive too earnestly to ensure that mighty transformation. The hopes of the entire world were centred today in the United Nations as the one world organization capable of establishing such international control.
The representative of the USSR had stated that, after thirty months of work by the Atomic Energy Commission, there had been no positive results and that its work had remained fruitless (143rd meeting). He had sought to place the blame on the United States for the failure, thus far, to bring about the international control of atomic energy.
That allegation was not borne out by the facts. The Government of Canada had taken part in the important discussions and negotiations concerning that subject ever since their inception. Mr. Mackenzie King felt, therefore, that he could speak with some knowledge of the facts. The facts showed conclusively that, not only had the United States striven earnestly for a solution, but that, subject to proper safeguards, they had unhesitatingly offered to give to the world the far-reaching advantages which had come to them in consequence of their vast efforts in that field during the war.
In international relations, as, indeed, in all human relations, attitude and will were of first importance. A solution of most problems was not difficult to find where men or nations were really anxious to discover common ground and brought their wills to that task. Where, however, there was no will to peace, and an attitude of antagonism rather than of co-operation was deliberately fostered, the appeal soon became an appeal to force rather than to reason. Wherever the appeal was to force, security, which was essential to the preservation of freedom, demanded a preponderance of strength on the side of freedom. That was necessary, not from any thought of aggression, but to save from destruction the very nations and peoples who had at heart the aim of creating better conditions for others as well as for themselves.
The problems of today could not be solved by any formula. They would be solved only to the degree to which each individual and each nation did its part to further the common good by an attitude of good will towards all. In that respect, example was all-powerful. Patience and forbearance were not signs of weakness; they were the hall-marks of strength.
If the world was to escape destruction, international relationships, at present characterized by antagonism and coercion, would have to make way for a world community which recognized that humanity presided above all over relationships between nations. The habit of mind which resolved problems in terms of class, of race or of national prestige must be abandoned and its place taken by a world outlook.
The terrible truth was that the nations had yet to decide which was to prevail: the law ox blood and of death, ever imagining new means of destruction, or the law of life, of peace, and of work, ever evolving new means of delivering man from the scourges which beset him. Mankind had still to discover whether violent conquest or the salvation of humanity was to triumph in the end.
Whatever might be said by or of individuals, the peoples of the world, in every community, ardently desired world peace. They were looking anxiously to all the representatives of all the nations at the Assembly to work together towards the fulfilment of that great purpose.
The proceedings of the present session of the Assembly might help to determine whether the world was to be plunged into the darkness of anarchy or whether mankind was to continue to move towards the light of ordered freedom and universal peace.