It is rather a hard task, coming to this rostrum after so many illustrious speakers, to discover new, up-to-date ideas worthy of being addressed from this platform to the whole world. For this reason, I shall be very brief in making my points, either in disagreeing with some ideas presented by other speakers, or in expressing the support of my delegation broadly, and in principle only, of certain important proposals submitted by the leading Powers, especially that proposal [A/1943] presented by the three western Powers concerning regulation, limitation and balanced reduction of all armed forces and a armaments, and the other one [A 1947] presented by the Soviet Union regarding measures to combat the threat of a new world war and to strengthen peace and friendship among nations.
19. Since the opening of this session, the world has been listening with the deepest interest to the declarations of the chief representatives of the sixty nations assembled here trying to solve the vital problems of the world and to relieve the tension undermining the desire of eliminating war and ensuring peace. I wonder if those listeners were satisfied or disappointed when they heard the elaborate speeches delivered here and broadcast all over the world? Were; those who listened satisfied or disappointed? They were very anxious to be assured that there would be no war and that peace was guaranteed, but were they assured in that sense? Certainly not. They were also eager to hear that the signatories to the Charter of the United Nations were remaining loyal to their pledge to refrain from the threat or use of wars, and to their faithful promise to fulfil in good faith all the obligations assumed by them under the Charter. Did they hear anything of that sort? Certainly not. Up to now we have not heard any assurance to that effect. Nations are supposed to stand by their pledges of honour and preserve the confidence of their agreements. I am afraid the anxious listeners were disappointed when they heard nothing to assure them that there would be no war, that the armaments race would be terminated and that the huge funds expended in producing and accumulating war materials would be diverted to social and economic projects, to ameliorate the conditions of the needful peoples and countries, thus preventing poverty and class discrimination. That is the only way to eliminate communism in the noncommunist countries, and the only way to exhibit the demerits of communism in communist countries.
20. The actual conflict threatening world peace is waged between adherents of these two social doctrines or regimes: one, communism — offensive and seeking expansion; the other, democracy — defensive and seeking self-preservation. The peace-loving peoples of the world want to be assured that these social regimes will not collide by force of arms. The misunderstandings between the parties should be dissipated by their meeting together and discussing all the different points, trying to find a solution in good faith. They are bound to do so. In the. last session the General Assembly adopted a draft resolution presented by Syria and Iraq asking the great Powers to meet and solve among themselves, in the spirit of the Charter, all their differences. The resolution [377c (V)] was adopted unanimously, including the Big Five, who promised solemnly to comply with this recommendation. Unfortunately, nothing has been done in that direction up till now.
21. Mr. Dean Acheson put before the General Assembly, in his introductory speech, a proposal for the regulation of armaments, in agreement with his two western colleagues, Mr. Anthony Eden, United Kingdom representative, and Mr. Schuman, representative of France. But Mr. Vyshinsky, representative of the USSR, branded this proposal as fantastic and ridiculous. He presented another proposal with the same aims, but with different means. This is a case which necessitates their meeting together to discuss their respective views in private, away from propaganda platforms.
22. These proposals of both sides are not new to the United Nations. They have been presented and debated several times, but they have been neglected. In 1946 the General Assembly adopted a resolution [42 (1)] on the basis of which Member States were called upon to submit to the Security Council adequate information comprising detailed figures of their armed forces and armaments of all kinds. For this purpose of regulation and reduction, the Security Council established the Commission for Conventional Armaments. This Commission has worked hard. During the two years in which I participated in its work as a member of the Security Council, 1947 and 1948, it worked hard and tried hard, but in vain, to obtain any information of that nature. Now the same fate will meet the tripartite proposal, because one side cannot be expected to disclose all its armaments and subject itself to verification while the other party remains cloaked in secrecy and mystery.
23. As to the other proposal of Mr. Vyshinsky, it will be defeated as usual and the plan for disarmament will remain in oblivion. The race for armaments continues to frighten a world which is awaiting the explosion. We are certain that neither of these two conflicting sides will venture to take such steps which will brand them as aggressors by initiating war; but these mobilized millions of men cannot remain under arms forever without action. Precedents in history have shown unwarranted acts by isolated armed forces on frontiers, and such things may happen at the present time with reprisals.
24. I am afraid that the wave of optimism which lightened men’s hearts for a short time before the opening of this session has now turned to dismay after hearing the introductory speeches of the leaders of world policies. The hopes of nations were concentrated on this Organization, but finding the United Nations is impotent even in implementing the principles of its own Charter so far as a strong Member is concerned, the small nations can be excused if they lose confidence. This deplorable state of affairs would appear to put a duty on the sponsors of the Charter in the Dumbarton Oaks proposals to meet again at once and seek a way out of this crisis. Consideration of the horrible weapons which can be adapted for mass destruction and which both sides possess makes it evident that so-called victory of one side in any future war could only mean destruction of both sides. The burden has to be borne by the small nations as well as by the big Powers. How much more convenient and better it would be if the leaders of the big Powers were to pronounce from this rostrum that there will be no war, and that they have agreed among themselves to meet together and solve all the world’s problems which are now pending? What joy it would spread over the whole world if they did this, instead of coming here and facing each other with fists ready to strike.
25. The whole problem is that the big Powers in the United Nations are disagreeing among themselves and do not keep the pledges which they made in the Charter to refrain from the use of force and to preserve and maintain international peace and security in any circumstances. That disagreement has also led to another problem, reference to which is included in the items on the agenda for this session, namely, that of the admission of new Members. We have about a dozen new applicants whose applications are still on the shelves of the Security Council, due either to lack of a majority or to the obstruction of the veto. Many times has the question of the admission of new Members been discussed in the General Assembly, in the Main Committees, and in the Security Council without any result being reached simply because the Big Five do not agree on tire admission of these applicants. The opinion given by the International Court of Justice put an end to these discussions, and I do not see what useful purpose is served in putting this item on the agenda, and in what way the problem can be solved. There is no way so long as the admission of a new Member depends upon a two-thirds majority in the General Assembly adopting an affirmative recommendation of the Security Council. As long as this affirmative recommendation is not obtainable unless the Big Five agree, it is useless to discuss it any more here. As long as the provisions of Article 4 of the Charter stand, there is no other way out of this impasse. It will be seen that all the decisions of this Organization depend upon the full concurrence of the Big Five. The Big Five are responsible for these disputes and for the dismay which is felt by the whole world because they do not agree and because they are preparing themselves for war.
26. Where are those promises which were made before; where are the four freedoms? They are not to be found anywhere. These four freedoms are now absent from the world more so than they were in the last century. If the Big Five would meet together and agree on the principle of universality, which was advocated in the Security Council and which got many adherents and supporters in the General Assembly, that is to admit all applicants without distinction or discrimination, it would help to solve the problem. This Organization is intended to be universal; it is not intended specially for certain States. Why should we not try to get the whole world here? It is far easier to manage otherwise unmanageable people if they are Members rather than if they are not.
27. One of the representatives referred to the Atlantic Pact with approval, and then went on to welcome the so-called Defence of the Middle East Command. I should like to call your attention to the passage where the speaker to whom I refer put these two projects on the same level of correctness. I have to disagree on this point emphasizing the obvious difference between the two. The Atlantic Pact is a treaty of alliance between the twelve signatories who negotiated its terms and concluded the text therein with mutual consent for defence of their own territories against any external aggression. This convention is similar to the Collective Security Pact concluded last year by the seven Member States of the League of Arab States and falls under the provisions of Article 51 of the Charter. The Defence of the Middle East Command, however, is not the same thing. It was prepared and signed by four States other than States of the Middle East, and those Middle East States had no knowledge of this pact concluded in their absence to defend them. They were not consulted and were unacquainted with this project.
28. If the Atlantic Pact has its justification in the Charter of the United Nations, this intruding quadripartite formula cannot find justification in any international usage. The Middle East States are masters of their own policy, and no defence can be imposed upon them from outside. If the western Powers wish to make an approach to the Arab States in the Middle East in regard to a political understanding, they should first find a satisfactory and just solution of the Arab complaints.
29. Instead of doing so, they overlooked the Egyptian crisis and the Palestine catastrophe, with its refugees, and proceeded to draft a kind of intervention in Arab domestic affairs impinging on their sovereign rights. I do not know if the authors of that project expected the Arab States to acquiesce in that arrangement while such sad events were being perpetrated around the Suez Canal and in other Egyptian territories, and whilst the resolutions of the General Assembly regarding the repatriation of the Arab refugees of Palestine received no support from the big Powers, who were themselves responsible for the implementation of those neglected resolutions.
30. Another representative referred to the case of Palestine, advising the Arabs and Jews there to live together in friendship and advocating the peaceful co-existence of peoples of the same area. That was wise advice, probably emanating from goodwill, but the representative knows very well that peaceful co-existence must be based on justice and respect for the rights of neighbours, which is not the case in Palestine at present.
31. In this connexion I want to say a few words on the item of Palestine which has been inserted in the agenda for this session, as it has been inserted in every agenda for the previous four years and no doubt will continue to be included for many future years and keep the United National busy. In November 1947 this General Assembly adopted a resolution [181 (II)] dividing Palestine into two parts, giving 60 per cent of the country to the Jewish immigrants and 40 per cent to the Arab inhabitants of the land. As soon as this resolution was adopted by the General Assembly, the Jews started the tactics of intimidating the Arab citizens there who were living in the portion allotted to the Jews, in order to put them to flight. They did this by different methods of persecution.
32. So, late in 1947 and early in 1948 the Arabs of the districts of Tiberias and of Safad fled from the country and went to Syria and the Lebanon. A little later, about 1 April of that year, during the Mandate — because the Mandate for Palestine was only terminated on 15 May 1948 — about 40,000 Arabs in the big city of Haifa also fled from the country. A little later a similar incident took place in Jaffa. The Jewish Haganah attacked Jaffa and between 70,000 and 80,000 Arabs left the country and took, refuge abroad.
33. It should be noted here that, during the Mandate, the Mandatory Power deprived the Arabs of arms of all kinds, so that they were completely unarmed while the Jews were well armed. It is sad to relate that the Mandatory Power neglected its duty and allowed the Jews to have armaments, so that when the declaration of the partitioning of Palestine was made by the partitioning plan, the Jews were well prepared to execute their vicious plans to expel the Arabs from their homes in order to appropriate those homes and property.
34. So it went on until the termination of the Mandate on 15 May 1948, when the Arab States marched on Palestine to repatriate their refugees and to establish peace there. The United Nations and "the Security Council intervened seriously in an effort to stop the fighting in Palestine, to create a truce, and afterwards an armistice. This was achieved.
35. In the end the numbers of refugees reached the very large number of between 800,000 and 1 million. Before this crisis Palestine had 1,250,000 Arab inhabitants and 600,000 Jews. Now in the Jewish territory there are about 500,000 Arab owner-inhabitants. The Arabs were all expelled from their homes before the termination of the Mandate. After it, the Jews seized on a dispute with the Arab States to attack other territories inhabited by Arabs, allotted to Arabs in the partition plan. I refer to western Galilee, including the districts of Acre and Nazareth which were occupied without resistance because there were no Arab forces at all in that neighbourhood. The Jews also attacked the districts of Lydda, Ramie and Beersheba, occupying them practically without resistance because there were no Arab forces there either, and they expelled the rightful Arab inhabitants and so increased the number of refugees to about 800,000 or 1 million — I am not sure of the number now, but the relief agency which is working: on this subject puts the figure at over 800,000. Some are scattered in the Lebanon, some in Syria and others in Jordan and Gaza which is now controlled by the Egyptian forces.
36. This large number of refugees who have been deprived of their homes, their fields, their palaces, their gardens and their roads, are looking from afar upon their own land and territories, looking at the Jewish immigrant intruders who came recently to take their places, who are collecting the fruits of their gardens, who are living lavishly and snugly I in their homes and exploiting their fields; while the Arab refugees are left outside, under trees or in tents, suffering every kind of hardship from heat in summer and from cold in winter. They are there with their children. They cannot go in because, if they tried to do so, rifle bullets would pierce them.
37. This is the situation in Palestine. The matter ought definitely to be settled by the United Nations. The resolution [194 (III)] of the General Assembly in 1948 was that the Arab refugees in Palestine should be repatriated as soon as possible, and that those who do not wish to be repatriated should be recompensed and resettled elsewhere. The General Assembly set up a Conciliation Commission to implement that resolution. It was composed of three Powers who have been acting since 1948, until now without any result. They could not attain anything in face of the Jewish resistance to allowing any refugees to go back to their homes because the homes left by the Arabs were already occupied by new Jewish immigrants from abroad during this time. The number of Jews was already doubled, by those immigrants in order to utilize and occupy the homes and properties of the Arabs who had been expelled from their country.
38. The General Assembly repeated the same resolution at the fourth session in the year 1949 [resolution 302 (IV)], and again in 1950 [resolution 393 (V)] but all in vain and up to the present time nothing has been done and not a single refugee repatriated or allowed to return to his home.
39. It is a pity that the representative of Israel, criticizing yesterday from this platform a speech delivered by our Iranian colleague, Dr. Jamali, said that he would refresh Dr. Jamali’s memory by reminding him that it was as a result of the Arab State’s attack in Palestine that the tragic problem of Arab refugees had been created. I am sorry to say that this gentleman is Mr. Shertok, who has been aware of events from beginning to end, who is now Foreign Minister of Israel and was the representative and Secretary-General of the Jewish Agency during all the time of the Mandate, and who was sitting with me in the Security Council during 1947 and 1948. All these matters are well known to him. How does he ignore the situation and the events? He either distorts facts or forgets, but I do not think his memory is so bad that he forgets such conspicuous things which are so evident to everybody and must be especially to himself.
40. I wish now to refresh his memory, as he tried to refresh that of Dr. Jamali yesterday. Dr. Jamali’s memory is correct, it does not need to be refreshed, but Mr. Shertok’s memory ought to be refreshed. I remind him now that it was not the attack of the Arab States on Palestine which caused the crisis of the Arab refugees, because the Arab refugees were expelled from Palestine before the intervention of the Arabs months before that. As I have already stated, this exodus from Palestine as the result of intimidation and terrorism started in December 1947 and continued until the month of May. In the middle of May the Mandate was terminated and the Arab States intervened on 15 May. This was the first intervention of the Arab States, while this exodus took place long before, as I have stated; and I think that Mr. Shertok remembers very well a discussion in the Security Council which took place before the intervention of the Arab States, during which I stated that the number of refugees from the homes of Arabs amounted at that time to about 400,000; and Sir Alexander Cadogan, representing the Mandatory Power, replied correcting this figure, saying it was not 400,000 but perhaps 300,000 or 250,000 up till then. Mr. Shertok was present and knows all this. Now he says that the intervention of the Arab States after 15 May gave birth to the problem of the Arab refugees. You see that it is not as he said, and I am sorry that this gentleman has taken such an attitude in denying facts which he knows are facts and correct just as I have related them.
41. I hope, and all the Arab world hopes, and the humanitarian centres of Europe expect, that this problem of refugees will be solved in a good way, in a right way, by the execution of the resolution of the General Assembly, by repatriating them to their homes. This is justice, this is right, and anything else would certainly be neither justice nor right.