All civilization is under a debt to France. For centuries those who have visited this brave nation and its capital city have been inspired by its graceful culture and enlightened by its intellectual clarity. It is therefore appropriate that today, in the year when Paris celebrates her two thousandth birthday, the United Nations should be meeting in her midst. We are all grateful for her greeting.
30. It is six years since I had the privilege to address the founder Members of this great Assembly. Unhappily, we can none of us pretend that in the interval the world has made any notable progress towards unity, toleration and enduring peace. In 1945 at San Francisco the great Powers were united in a joint endeavour. In good faith, as we sincerely hoped, this Organization was set up.
31. How different is the scene today. The abrupt division of the nations into two confronting camps, their failure to resolve the many problems which face them, the use of force by aggressors in an attempt to compel the solutions which they seek, all these are clear enough evidence of a change for the worse. And to this I now find added, here in the United Nations, another experience which is new to me: the bitter vehemence of the polemics exchanged at international gatherings. It is small wonder if in such conditions some should ask, can we breathe life into an international order and build the peace and security for which the whole world yearns?
32. As many of you know, the greater part of my public life has been concerned with the international scene. I can only tell you, in reply to these doubts, that I am more than: ever convinced that, if we are to succeed in this task, the nations of the world must submit to the rule of law and abide by it. Confidence can only be created and maintained on a basis of respect for international engagements. It is therefore the duty of all nations, as indeed it is their interest, to respect international authority and to uphold it.
33. It was this conviction which led me, as Foreign Secretary, to put forward in 1943 the United Kingdom plan for a new world organization. Much of this plan was eventually embodied in the Charter of the United Nations. It was this conviction which, even before the war with Germany had ended, led me, on behalf of my country, to give the fullest support to the initiative of the United States which resulted in the conference at San Francisco. When I spoke at the opening of that conference, in April 1945, I outlined the reasons which made some kind of international organization even more necessary then than it had been before. I would like to quote to you these few words: [Our proposals], I said, “impose obligations equally on all of us, on every Power here represented. But I am conscious that a special responsibility lies on great Powers in these days when industrial potential is so decisive a factor in military struggle... Great Powers can make a two-fold contribution. They can make it by their support of this organization. They can make it also by setting themselves certain standards in international conduct and by observing those standards scrupulously in all their dealings with other countries... The greater the power any State commands, the heavier its responsibility to wield its power with consideration for others and with restraint upon its own selfish impulses.”
34. These words, I suggest, are as true today as when they were spoken. With them in my mind I take this opportunity to declare that my own faith in the principles and purposes of our Charter is unshaken. That faith is not daunted, either by the disappointments of the past or by the critical challenge of the present. It is only too true that we are today confronted with difficulties enough and to spare. They loom and vex us in every continent. Yet, if the nations have the will to solve them, here, in this Organization, is machinery which by itself alone can work that miracle. Here we have an instrument to hand. We must use it, as the Charter says, as a centre for harmonizing the actions of nations. And by that I mean the actions of all nations, for in my judgment it would indeed be a tragedy if this Organization lost for any reason its universality, its appeal and its widely representative character for men of all creeds and convictions.
35. But the instrument cannot produce harmony in an atmosphere of discord and abuse. For example, on Wednesday last three of the Powers represented here at this Assembly, the United States, France and ourselves, put before you certain proposals for disarmament [A/1943]. One might surely have expected, remembering the hopes placed in the United Nations in the early days, that these proposals would have been welcomed, or at least considered on their merits. Yet, within a few hours, they were denounced by the representative of the Soviet Union in a speech which certainly did not err on the side of moderation. Mr. Vyshinsky’s cataract of abuse did not anger me, but it saddened me, as I think it must have saddened and discouraged the millions throughout the world who read or heard of it. In my view the peoples of our countries do not expect their leaders to shout abuse at one another, but rather to make contacts and to try to reach understandings for peace.
36. The most fantastic of all the charges levelled against us last Thursday was that we are war-mongers. Let me assure this audience — need I really do this? — that everyone in Britain “the people, Parliament, the Government” deeply desire peace. And is not that natural enough? We have suffered too much, as individuals and as a nation. We had six years of war. For more than a year of that war the countries of the Commonwealth and Empire stood alone — alone — in the fight against Hitler’s aggression, whilst those who are now calling us war-mongers had a pact with Hitler. Since the war I have travelled widely throughout the British Commonwealth and in the United States of America. Everywhere, everywhere, as in my own homeland, I had first-hand evidence of how deeply the people, and the Governments which they freely elect, are devoted to peace.
37. In all our actions we seek peace; yet our proposals are laughed to scorn. I must admit that I do not understand or accept such methods. I do not believe, or ask you to believe, that in any dispute one party is one hundred per cent a black villain, and the other party one hundred per cent snow-white. That is against the law of averages. All men are fallible, and peace can only rest on mutual forbearance and restraint.
38. Should we not, then — fellow representatives, I make this appeal — should we not, then, do much better to proclaim a truce to name-calling and angry words? Could we not, instead, apply our minds dispassionately to serious problems ? I am sure that we should. Shall we try from now onwards ? That will be my task.
39. Before I deal with positive tasks for this Assembly there are two general points which I desire to make.
40. We are told that membership of the North Atlantic Treaty is incompatible with membership of the United Nations. This assertion is based on the charge that the North Atlantic Treaty Organization is an aggressive bloc, which it certainly is not, and never has been. Article 51 of the Charter expressly recognizes the rights of collective self-defence and the North Atlantic Treaty is firmly based on that Article. Its sole purpose is defence. Why, then, you may ask, was the North Atlantic Treaty necessary? I was not a member of the Government that signed it, but I and my colleagues wholly and fully support it. The answer to that question is that the disparity between the forces of East and West had become a grave danger to peace. The world has surely learned by painful experience the danger of such inequality. We disarmed in good faith but our example was not followed. In like good faith we now seek to restore the balance, still in pursuit of peace. For we know that to win that peace we must negotiate as equals.
41. The second condition is respect for the sanctity of treaties. This is an obligation which binds all States' — may I say all States both small as well as great? I commend to your attention the wise words spoken on this subject by the New Zealand [337th meeting] and Brazilian [335th meeting] representatives. Those who benefit from collective security must also accept its obligations. Unless this is admitted, the United Nations will never work, and there will be international anarchy. How, then, can we apply the principles that I have just set before you to the work of this Assembly which is meeting now?
42. First, let me make it clear that France, the United States and ourselves intend to persevere with our disarmament proposals. We do not insist upon them, as the representative of the USSR maintains, but we invite this Assembly to examine them with sincerity and goodwill. We ask our critics to study them. We suspect they may have been so busy laughing at them that they have not really had time to read them. To us, it seems that our proposals are serious and sensible and that they lay the foundations for a practical plan to be accomplished by stages. Let me draw your attention to certain important new features of the proposals.
43. In the first place, we now put forward a progressive system of disclosure and verification of armed forces and armaments. We suggest — we only suggest; we do not dictate — that this should begin with the less important categories of armed forces and armaments, and then move on to those that are more difficult to handle. This, I admit, is something new. Its purpose is not delay. The sooner we can agree on the simpler categories, the sooner we shall have the confidence to tackle the more complex tasks.
44. Secondly, we propose that agreement should be reached on certain definite criteria, criteria for the limitation of armaments of which Mr. Acheson the other day [335th meeting] gave us examples.
45. Thirdly, and most significant of all, we now propose that atomic weapons should be included in the same system of disclosure and verification as conventional armaments.
46. All this, I submit, is a new departure in three important respects. Yet we are told that we have made no advance upon what we have proposed before. The USSR delegation has often complained in the past that we were artificially separating conventional and atomic armaments, and I understand that argument. Well, now we have linked them together. Is that an advance or is it not? If our disarmament proposals contain nothing else, I submit in all seriousness to my fellow representatives that for these reasons alone they are worthy of study by this Assembly.
47. Now the criticism is made that we, in these proposals, link the reduction of armaments with the settlement of outstanding political issues. Of course we do. That is perfectly true; but that does not suggest that we are looking for reasons for delay, nor, still less, does it prove the insincerity of our efforts. But is it not obvious to anyone who seriously thinks about these matters, particularly those of us who sat through those long disarmament discussions at Geneva so many years ago, that genuine disarmament can only be achieved step by step with the reduction of tension and the settlement of urgent political disputes? If we had come before you with grandiose proposals for immediate disarmament, isolated from any attack upon the real fundamental causes of tension, then you might have accused us, and accused us justly, of insincerity. We have not done this. We have been, I submit, realistic and practical.
48. I now turn to other ways, tasks for this Assembly, in which we can show that we are able to work constructively for peace. And let me add that — and I say this as one who has watched your work for so many years from without — one positive achievement by this Assembly or by the great Powers whose differences are so notorious, would do more to help the peace of the world than all the eloquence that everybody’s oratory in this Assembly can command. Now what are those tasks?
49. In the first place, Korea. The United Nations, which took up the challenge of aggression, is ready and waiting to make another great effort and help to bring about the pacification and unification of this unfortunate country, once an armistice has been concluded. Thereafter, the United Nations will be called upon to play its part in the I great task of restoring the shattered economy and the devastated homelands of these long-suffering victims of aggression. Let us resolve here and now that this great work, will be undertaken irrespective of ideological considerations.
50. In the second place, Germany. Can we not accept; the German Federal Chancellor’s request? What are we asked to do? We are asked to agree to a commission to determine whether conditions in the Federal Republic of Germany, in Berlin and in the Soviet Zone of Germany make it possible to hold genuinely free elections by secret ballot throughout these areas. That has formed the subject of the joint note [A/1938] which we have addressed to the Secretary-General. Would not this proposal do something to reduce the tension which exists in Europe today? Would it not help to bring back unity and confidence to the heart of Europe? Would we not thus bring nearer the day when a free Germany can play her part in peaceful association with a free Europe?
51. Then there is the issue of Austria which has waited for so long. Can we not sign that treaty? Can we not bring to that small country evidence that the great Powers can agree on this one issue, and relieve it of the burden of occupation? Cannot the Austrians be allowed at last to live and let live?
52. And why cannot Italy be brought into full membership of our Organization “why not? This nation, with its freely elected government and its ancient and glorious traditions, should be represented here. Why does the veto have to be used to prevent that? Why does it frighten anybody? Surely this is a matter on which we should be able to agree without damage to anyone’s interests. And there are other similar examples, in particular Ceylon”.
53. It is not political weapons alone that we have to forge and use to work for peace. You have well understood this in your Organization, where a wide variety of agencies and commissions are at work in many spheres touching on the economic well-being, the health and the social advancement of mankind.
54. Mr. Acheson and Mr. Stikker, and my Australian and New Zealand colleagues have all referred with truth and force to our urgent and immediate economic problems. The Colombo Plan is one of the means by which we in the Commonwealth family seek to meet this challenge. It is an immensely formidable challenge, especially at a time when the unwelcome necessity to rearm adds fresh burdens to our already laden shoulders, but it must be faced.
55. My message, therefore, to you is this: on both fronts, I suggest, on both fronts together, political and economic, let us grasp definite and limited problems, and work for their practical solution. That is the real road to peace. That is the way to make a fresh start. If we can once do that, we shall have created a situation, and, if you like, a climate, in which the kind of moving appeal which Mr. Auriol made to us can meet its full response. Preparation, confidence, and agreement: that should be the order of our endeavour, starting from small issues and working to the great, a steady pursuit, with a fixed determination and with real goodwill.
56. For my part, I repeat: we threaten no one. We will attack no one. We rearm for one purpose only: not for a world war but to negotiate peace from strength. But if we are to succeed in all this, then each one of us has a contribution to make. The Government and the people whom I represent here are second to none in the loyalty which we give to the United Nations, and we have another loyalty which we prize no less, our loyalty to the cause of freedom itself. There is no conflict here. How could there be, when the United Nations itself was born of a struggle to protect freedom against tyranny?
57. We in Britain are part of a Commonwealth family. That partnership is our life and faith. For most of us there would be no meaning in political endeavour without it, yet this same partnership is constantly evolving. It takes new forms and shapes; it welcomes national aspirations as well as the wider loyalties that bind us all; it is an instinctive comradeship which has its message for the world. It tells us that no nation is so strong or so rich in natural resources that it can achieve as much by itself alone as in association with others — partnership, comradeship, brotherhood, the sense of commonwealth, call it what you will.
58. Here is a spirit which is stronger than race or creed and which can move men and multitudes to a common purpose. Today, we are trying to find a new relationship, not only within the Commonwealth and Empire, but with all nations and peoples with whom we come in contact. We want it to be based on consent and goodwill, and I believe that we have the experience and the understanding to give form and reality to this faith, and surely it is a task for us all.
59. In this scientific age, what can anyone hope to achieve by violence except the destruction of life itself? By toleration, patience and restraint, we can build a world worthy of those in all our lands whom we remembered yesterday. In loyalty to them, and to those who follow after, we must not, and we will not fail.