Mr. TSALDARIS said that previous speakers had already stressed the gravity of the circumstances in which the present Assembly had met. Indeed, the time had come for all to make their decisions and to proclaim the truth frankly and without any reservations. Only thus could the cause of peace be served. The lessons of experience had a compelling force. That had been shown by several speeches made at the Assembly and it was for the representatives to draw the necessary conclusions so that the debate might produce the results awaited by anxious mankind.
What was the problem facing the Assembly? Mr. Tsaldaris felt that it consisted above all in inspiring complete confidence in the United Nations in all peoples wherever they might be. That was the only way to end the apprehension which haunted men at present and which, as experience had shown, could easily degenerate into a real psychosis of mistrust and fear.
The United Nations had been born of a great hope. Nothing useful could be built save in the spirit of faith and optimism. The United Nations must not depart from that spirit, but great and bold decisions were needed at the present juncture.
Whatever their nature or the concrete problems to which they referred, those decisions must, unless they were to become useless, have but one aim, namely, to enhance the force of law. Indeed, what would be the scope of any resolution of the United Nations if it did not have the means to implement it? In accordance with those ideas the Greek delegation would support all proposals aimed at strengthening the machinery of the United Nations and at imposing respect for its decisions. The Greek delegation, therefore, attached particular importance to the progress of the work of the Interim Committee, which had already displayed its usefulness in several fields. The delegation would also support the suggestions put forward in the Assembly by the Turkish representative on the subject of a less rigid system of voting.
Efforts to perfect the machinery of the United Nations were, however, themselves dependent on the spirit in which they were undertaken, and that was the crux of the problem.
Greece was profoundly devoted to the ideals of peace, liberty and friendly co-operation between all nations, and had from the very outset placed its hopes in the United Nations. More than that, the Greek Government believed that supporting the United Nations was a major principle of its foreign policy. Greece believed in the efficacy of the United Nations, based upon the unchangeable principles of international law. It regarded the General Assembly as an international rostrum which, thanks to its immense possibilities and the confidence in which it was held by men of good will, might enable nations to achieve their greatest wish: the liberation from fear and the liberation from want.
Strengthened by that will and firm in that faith, Greece had always striven, as a Member of the United Nations, to fulfil the specific and implicit obligations it had assumed when it signed the Charter. The voice of Greece, which in the course of centuries had often been raised in defence of mankind’s attempts to uphold peace based on justice, could now claim attention in the capital of Descartes and Montesquieu with the authority conferred by the consciousness of having never betrayed the principles underlying the Charter of the United Nations.
In the difficult circumstances with which all were familiar, Greece’s policy had never ceased to be directed towards pacification and understanding with all the nations. Greece’s relations with its eastern neighbour, the Turkish Republic, were imbued with a fraternal spirit which it would be desirable to find at the basis of the United Nations. Relations with the other States of the Eastern Mediterranean basin were developing along the same cordial lines. To the West, Greece was now settling material and psychological differences brought about by the Fascist aggression of 28 October 1940. An agreement in principle had already been concluded in Rome and would soon give official consecration to the friendly relations existing between Greece and the new Italy. That happy event, which he felt would enable two nations separated by the ravages of war to renew their ancient bond of friendship, provided a positive proof of what would be accomplished by the spirit of understanding and good will among peoples. The Greek Government and the Greek people were resolved not to miss a single opportunity for the appeasement of conflicts or the lessening of friction.
While pursuing that policy of collaboration with its neighbours, the Greek Government was striving to lay the foundations of a larger association of peoples of good will within a regional framework that would strengthen the efforts of the United Nations.
At a time when the general endeavours of the United Nations in that direction were meeting with well-known difficulties, such a policy of regional integration could only be greeted with satisfaction by all those who sincerely desired the creation of a new world.
Greece had neglected nothing in trying to establish normal relations with its three northern neighbours, Yugoslavia, Bulgaria, and Albania. All the successive Greek Governments had been inspired by the same desire to contribute to the consolidation of peace in that part of the world, and had displayed the same good will towards the three countries in question. Greece’s complete good will had been noted by the United Nations Special Committee on the Balkans in its two reports to the third session of the General Assembly. The Committee referred to the co-operation of the Greek Government in implementing resolution 109 (II) of the General Assembly of 21 October 1947, whereas the Governments of Albania, Bulgaria and Yugoslavia, had refused to co-operate with the Special Committee or even to recognize it as a duly constituted body of the United Nations. Those tenacious efforts on the part of Greece had not yielded the results expected. The President of the Assembly, Mr. Evatt, had referred during the previous meeting to the paradoxical situation that the essential function of the United Nations was to maintain the peace, yet there was no peace in the world to maintain. Mr. Evatt was usually a vigorous optimist and that pessimistic remark might have escaped him in a moment of depression. Mr. Tsaldaris could state, however, that, as far as his country was concerned, that statement was only too tragically true.
In that connexion he wished to draw the Assembly’s attention to some of the conclusions reached by the United Nations Special Committee on the Balkans after systematic work, to the perfect impartiality of which he wished to pay public tribute. The Special Committee pointed out that the Governments of Albania, Bulgaria and Yugoslavia still refused to co-operate with it. Furthermore, it found that those Governments had not complied with the injunction laid down in the General Assembly resolution « to do nothing which could furnish aid and assistance» to the guerrillas in Greece. The Greek guerrillas had continued to receive aid and assistance on a large scale from Albania, Bulgaria and Yugoslavia, with the knowledge of the Governments of those countries. The Special Committee was convinced that the guerrillas in the frontier zones had been largely dependent on external supply. Great quantities of arms, ammunition and other military stores had come across the border. Strongly held positions of the guerrillas had protected their vital supply lines from Bulgaria, Yugoslavia and particularly from Albania. In recent months, there had been less evidence of receipt of supplies from Yugoslavia by the guerrillas. Further, the guerrillas had frequently moved at will in territory across the frontier for tactical reasons, and had thus been able to concentrate their forces without interference by the Greek Army, and to return to Greece when they wished. Lastly, they had frequently retired safely into the territory of Albania, Bulgaria and Yugoslavia when the Greek Army exerted great pressure.
The recent victories won by Greek troops may have created the impression that the gravity of the so-called Greek question had diminished. But that was not the case. Despite the successes which had brought the Greek Army to the frontier lines, or rather because of the fighting, the situation had become extremely serious. Driven back during the latest mopping-up operations of the Greek Army, the terrorist gangs had found shelter in neighbouring territory. After being re-equipped and re-grouped there they had just reappeared on another sector of the frontier. An untenable situation had just been created on the frontiers of Greece and had recently assumed alarming proportions. Having that in mind, the Special Committee had spoken of its conviction that the continuation of such a situation constituted an insurmountable obstacle to the establishment of «good neighbourly relations» between Greece and its northern neighbours, as recommended in the General Assembly resolution. Still more, it constituted a threat to the political independence and territorial integrity of Greece and to peace in the Balkans. The conduct of Albania, Bulgaria and Yugoslavia had been inconsistent with the purposes and the principles of the Charter.
Greece had been one of the greatest victims of the war. Its territory had been ravaged, its population decimated and its chores devastated. And yet the Greek people had not lost courage and had gone back to work hard, aided by the most generous assistance of their great friends, the United Kingdom and the United States of America. Mr. Tsaldaris wished to point out in that connexion that that admirable proof of human solidarity, so consistent with the spirit of the Charter, was now bringing back life to Greek countryside, the Greek transport system and the deserted ports of Greece. The Greek population did not regard it as a sign of «capitalist imperialism» but on the contrary as a splendid example of devotion to the cause of humanity.
Had Greece been left to make the best of its own resources and of the measures of assistance offered by its friends, it would be a happy country at the present moment. The revival of Greece was, however, not desired by those who wrongly held that ideological differences had to be an insurmountable barrier to the establishment of a policy of good-neighbourliness. That fact was in reality the whole gist of the problem which quite erroneously they had become accustomed to refer to as «the Greek question». In point of fact, that question was only a phase of a worldwide problem. What really was at stake was a question of rights and of the United Nations’ ability to make itself respected among the peoples.
Was the United Nations prepared to see its decisions scorned by certain Member States and by certain non-member States and the resolutions of its institutions flouted and brought to nought?
Was the United Nations going to look on, without taking any effective measures, while certain countries which had undertaken loyally to carry out the obligations flowing from the Charter persisted under various pretexts in evading the injunctions of the United Nations institution whenever those injunctions did not correspond to their political aspirations?
Was the United Nations prepared to suffer the contagious spread of an international state of mind in which law was trampled under foot? Or would it decide to use its immense moral force to nip the evil in the bud? Or would the failure of peaceful means of settlement offered by the Charter drive Member States victims of aggression to have recourse to the natural right of legitimate defence, whether individual or collective?
A number of eloquent appeals had been made to safeguard the authority of the United Nations. The representative of Poland had declared from the Assembly’s rostrum, at the IB9th plenary meeting, that his Government «was still convinced of the need to raise the prestige of the United Nations» and «that it is therefore determined to defend the Charter of the United Nations... and to turn the Organization into an efficient instrument for the defence of peace throughout the world».
But what better way was there of serving that exalted ideal than for each and every nation to submit, without reservation, to the decision of the United Nations and its institutions?
The Greek people replied to those questions by acts. The pattern of day-to-day events sometimes became so complicated that it was impossible to see the wood for the trees. But there were moments when the issue at stake became clearly visible not only to historians and the learned but also to ordinary mortals. There were moments when a nation as one man became conscious of the part which it was called upon to play for the future of humanity, conscious of the responsibility which destiny had placed on its shoulders. It was with all due humility and gratitude towards the Almighty that he could say that the Greek people were conscious of their responsibility. Those who were fighting in the mountains and marshes of northern Greece knew for what they were dying. One and all they knew that it was their duty before the bar of history, their duty towards humanity, and that duty they were carrying out without hesitation or faint-heartedness.
The weighty questions which he had just put before the Assembly stared the Greek people in the face in all their grim reality. Greece was bled white, refugees fleeing before terrorist bands exceeded 650.000 in number. Thousands of children, torn from their parents, had already been deported by the anarchist hordes to countries bordering on Greece. If those children did not perish on the road as a result of privations or ill-treatment, a moral death awaited them at their destination. Incited to hatred of their country, one day they would be used to form new bands of janissaries. Reconstruction work was placed in jeopardy and the whole terrible tragedy was unfolding itself before the eyes of the world in defiance of the decisions taken by the United Nations.
The assassination of Count Bernadotte had caused general mourning throughout Greece. He, together with Colonel Serot and all the other victims — noble American, French and Norwegian — of the campaign for peace which the United Nations was conducting in Palestine, had been mourned by the Greek people in the same way that they mourned the thousands of Greek officers and men who had given their lives in the fight against terrorist bands since the Greek Government had had recourse to the Security Council in December 1946. The Greek people could not and did not draw any distinction among them. All, including the observers of the United Nations Special Committee on the Balkans, had offered their lives for those principles which formed the very basis of the Charter.
It had, therefore, to be admitted that the so-called «Greek questions was a problem of the actual survival of the United Nations.
The Greek people appealed to the sovereign Assembly of the United Nations to put an end to their sufferings.
Mr. Tsaldaris did not wish, in the course of the general discussion, to go into the details of the whole question, crucial as it was for Greece and the United Nations. The Greek delegation would do so at the proper time and place and reserved its right to suggest appropriate measures.
Greece had fulfilled its duty towards the United Nations; what Greece expected from it was that the Charter should be respected.