Denmark

First of all, I should like to associate myself with the words of gratitude expressed by so many of my colleagues to France and to the French Government for the wonderful hospitality shown to the sixth session of the General Assembly, and for the gracious welcome they have extended to all representatives. 23. It is a tragic fact that, only a few years after the end of the Second World War, which was supposed to give mankind peace and security, we live today, as it were, on a volcano. Peace and security, which should be fundamental human rights, are still far off, and that is why they have become of overwhelming importance for the sixth session of the United Nations General Assembly. 24. With man’s remarkable power of adaptation, he is, I think, able to dismiss to some extent all thought of the uncertain conditions of the world, and to do his daily duty in his place in life without thinking too much of the fact that nobody knows what the position of the world will be next month. But in man’s subconsciousness lies the fear of the future, our future and especially that of our children, the fear that we are approaching doomsday. 25. That is how things are after the first fifty years of the twentieth century have elapsed. What a change from the conditions prevailing at the end of the last century, especially in Europe! It was really believed that man had come so far that it was but a question of time when war would be completely abolished as a means of solving international disputes, and arbitration and conciliation set in its place. Generally speaking, the world was at peace, and man thought that this stability would last and that he could look to the future with a feeling of security. 26. Instead of peace, we have had two devastating world wars. Hardly ever in history have so many sweeping revolutions taken place within such a short space of time. Indeed, we face a new world situation. Socially, economically and politically the world has completely changed. Great Powers as well as small States have been destroyed, and new Powers have come into existence. Europe has lost her leading position both as regards politics and economy. Everything is fluctuating; instead of a stable and quiet development, we have now reached a state where tranquillity and security do not exist anywhere in the world. 27. During the Second World War, the Western Powers and the Soviet Union recognized that the bitter reality of war necessitated a co-operation as allies against the common foe. It was, indeed, a necessity. Of what use would the gallantry of the Soviet army at Stalingrad have been if England, with dogged tenacity, had not endured the German air raids at the critical moment, and if its navy had not protected the transport of weapons which Russia needed to continue the war? Of what use would it have been if the United States had not devoted the prime of its manpower and its overwhelming productive capacity in the fight for the liberty of mankind? Of what use would it have been if the French underground movement had not so faithfully defended France’s honour? The co-operation had to be realized. Without the Soviet Union’s tough resistance and sacrifices of human lives, the Western Powers would hardly have been able to hold out. 28. It was generally hoped that, just as this co-operation was made necessary by the war, it would continue after the war and, just as the Allies had won the war, they would make sure to win the peace. Was it believable that the victors could fail to co-operate in solving the problems created by their common war? Just now, when the hopes of man are directed towards Paris, towards this Assembly, it is worth remembering that such were the beliefs and hopes but six years ago. 29. How differently things have developed! It is no use concealing this fact. We must now realize that, despite this necessity for co-operation, two world notions, called East and West, are facing each other. Instead of decreasing, the chasm between them seems constantly to widen. This terrible development — for it is terrible — threatens to create international disorganization where all that we thought we had gained in the 19th century will be lost, where the states take the law into their own hands and where the use of force takes the place of the law established on the principles of the Charter of the United Nations. 30. We got a clear picture of the situation by listening to the speeches made last Thursday by representatives of the United States and the Soviet Union. The Minister for Foreign Affairs of the Soviet Union said that after having read the statement made the day before by the American, the English and the French Foreign Secretaries, he could not sleep because he kept laughing. I am sure that many others, just as I, were deprived of their sleep not by laughter but by grief and anxiety because this was the answer given to the West’s appeal for co-operation, an appeal intended to alleviate the tension and smooth the path for agreement and consequently for measures which might take the heavy burdens of rearmament from the shoulders of the people, thus recreating the feeling of security which man had at the end of the 19th century but has since lost. 31. The leading thread through Mr. Vyshinsky’s speech was that the democratic countries in Europe and America had but one desire, another world war; that monopolists and capitalists have a yearning for war and the desire to make a fortune out of war and to promote gigantic profits, and that the parties to the North Atlantic Treaty wish to transform the United Nations into a tool of war. The idea that the American, the British or the French people should desire to involve mankind in war is in itself so absurd that it passes my understanding. In reality it is the people in those countries who decide on war and peace. A realistic consideration therefore, would have shown the USSR representative that his accusation against the Western democracies was unreasonable. 32. It goes without saying that I do not know Mr. Vyshinky’s ideas as to what the world would be like after another war: but experience gained in the last war and the development of weapons since then, must, it seems to me, make it incomprehensible that anyone dares assert that a country desires war. After a third world war there will be nothing left to live for, neither for the conqueror nor for the defeated. Nevertheless, the Foreign Minister of the Soviet Union asserts that the Atlantic States form an aggressive bloc, and his speech ended in a proposal the main point of which was that the General Assembly should declare that participation in this bloc is incompatible with membership of the United Nations. Although this proposal is not directed specifically against Denmark, which is but one of the smallest links in the chain of the Atlantic community, I deem it necessary in this connexion to account for our conception of the purposes of the North Atlantic Treaty. 33. Why did Denmark join the North Atlantic Treaty? It may be said in so many words that we felt insecure as things had developed, and we wanted to do what was in our power to secure peace and liberty and because we were and are confident that the North Atlantic Treaty is a means to secure peace and preserve the liberty which makes peace valuable. What, then, is liberty to us? It is, first and foremost, the right of the people to decide for themselves, a right which may involve the necessity of waiving part of their sovereignty. But this can only take place on a voluntary basis, not in order to submit to another Power, but in favour of a community with others who have the same conception of freedom as we have, the freedom which ensures the dignity of man and his right to live in security under the protection of the law. 34. Mr. Eden, the Foreign Secretary of the United Kingdom, once said in a speech made in Copenhagen: “What is the surest sign of democracy? It is that when the bell rings at seven in the morning, you can be sure that it is the milkman who comes”. During the nazi occupation many Danes, and I among them, lived to see that it was not the milkman who rang the bell but the Gestapo, either to carry you off to an unknown destination, or, in some cases, even to an untimely end of your life. We have known what it means to lose liberty; we know the terrible uncertainty of lawlessness. 35. It was inter alia to avoid this happening once more that we joined the community of the North Atlantic Treaty in order to maintain peace and, if despite all our efforts war should come, then to avoid another occupation. But to us the preservation of peace is the chief aim. I can say it so strongly because, while it is of course the task of the treaty to protect the members against occupation in case of war and thus to preserve their liberty, the failure to achieve its principal aim, namely to avert a new world war, must be considered a decisive defeat for the policy of the North Atlantic Treaty. I am sure that the other Member States share this notion, and this shows how wanton is the assertion that this treaty has aggressive intent. Can anybody really imagine that Denmark, taking into consideration her geographical position, her outlook on life and her military weakness, would join a treaty with aggressive purposes? 36. But had we any reason to fear a repetition of conditions as they existed during the last war? In 1948 it had become quite clear that the United Nations had not succeeded and, in all probability, would not succeed in the near future in conferring on the world the feeling of security we had expected, because the necessary co-operation between the great Powers had failed. The picture before us was that on the one side was a group in close military co-operation with large standing armies, and on the other side were the Western States, disunited and defenceless because they had reduced their forces to a minimum trusting that now a long period of peace had begun Only by joining hands and by restoring their collective defence was it possible for this group of States to regain a little of its lost security. This is no accusation against others for harbouring aggressive intentions, but still less should this accusation be made against the parties to the North Atlantic Treaty only on account of their desire to re-establish some kind of balance in the relative strength in the world. 37. The experience of history shows us that lack of balance in the relative strength of various groups of nations is a threat against peace. It is our desire to settle through peaceful negotiations all disputes which may arise, but it is our belief that equality breeds no war. A mere comparison between the relative strength of east and west will destroy at one blow the assertion that the aim of the North Atlantic Treaty could be aggressive. A treaty comprising both large and small States, the majority of which are in the European continent, will hardly lend itself to aggression. It is but few States who feel impelled to commit suicide. 38. The treaty, on the other hand, may work according to its aim: prevention of aggression. We joined the North Atlantic Treaty as a Member of the United Nations, the Charter of which establishes the right of individual and collective self-defence. It is a provisional and necessary supplement to the Charter. We know what its principal aim is. We know that it will never be used for aggression. We are not, and will not be disappointed in this respect, nor will the people of the Soviet Union be disappointed in trusting our will to peace. 39. We all know the so-called peace propaganda brought forward in all western European countries at communist initiative, warmly supported by USSR propaganda. That is why I wondered at the speech made by the distinguished representative of the Soviet Union. Was it a speech redly aiming at peace? To me it sounded like a series of violent accusations against the whole western world on a basis that no pertinent judgment will endorse. It ended in an appeal to the peoples to take the matter into their own hands, but the peoples in our democratic countries have easy access to voicing their opinion. For they speak through their governments, which are elected by virtue of the confidence they enjoy with the majority of the people, and which, are removed if they fail to retain such confidence. He who wants peace and understanding will not, I suppose, appeal to a minority of the population to act against its lawful government, against the law and the constitution? It is also unnecessary, for our countries want peace, their governments and peoples agree thereon; but they want peace with freedom and right of self-determination which is not affected by threats. 40. Mr. Vyshinsky is right in saying that the rearmament of the more or less disarmed western European States imposes heavy economic burdens on these States, but these burdens are not so heavy that it can be rightly maintained that our economic conditions today are worse than at the time when western co-operation in the economic and military domain began. The co-operation within the North Atlantic Treaty is not only of a military nature; it aims also at the welfare of our peoples and at a high standard of living for the man in the street. What a blessing it would be if we could sacrifice less on military tasks and more on peace. I cannot but believe that the Soviet Union also would welcome a lightening of its military burdens which, per head, exceed those of other countries. 41. Here is a point which to me has become the decisive one, and where a result can only be reached if both parties make honest endeavours to remove the hindrances to an understanding, reciprocal lack of confidence and universal fear. 42. It was not without reason that President Franklin D. Roosevelt and Mr. Winston Churchill in the Atlantic Charter laid down freedom from fear as one of the chief objectives to be aimed at in the new world order. It should be possible to reach this objective. Despite the various systems under which the peoples live, it should be possible for them-to live in peace with one another. If we had a more open world where information was freely spread about actual conditions, about what the peoples and their governments really think, then confidence — and how important confidence is — might be re-established, and destructive fear would disappear little by little. 43. To me it looks as if the proposal for regulation, limitation and balanced reduction of all armed forces and all armaments, including atomic, which France, the United Kingdom and the United States of America have submitted to the sixth Session of the General Assembly, with its system of disclosure and verification of armaments in successive stages which means open control as the first step towards disarmament, would offer an adequate basis for work which none who really wants peace can reject point blank. 44. Perhaps it is of no importance what a small country says and thinks, but the small States more than any others-feel the anxiety and disquiet of the present day. That is why I wanted to say this as the representative of a small country, fully convinced that the western world is united in the desire to find a way for negotiation and understanding between the two systems which at present dominate the peoples of the earth. As the representative of a small country which for centuries has lived in good relations with Russia and wants also in future to do so and which quite recently has given practical proof thereof, and as the representative of a country which has not forgotten the share of the Soviet Union in the suppression of Nazism and thereby in the liberation of Denmark from the German occupation, I dare to appeal to the leaders of the Soviet Union that they, just as we, will endeavour to make a new start. I appeal to them not to reject the hand extended by the West, but to enter into an open and serious consideration of the path to be followed and of the means to be used in order that we may, with God’s help, confer upon mankind freedom from fear of war.