In many areas during the last year we have seen the Charter of the United Nations ignored, if not defied. These situations have caused great human suffering and have increased international tension towards the breaking point. In the shadow of the general war which always threatens, it is important not only for the sake of the small nations involved but in the interest of the great Powers themselves that we should try to find ever widening areas of application for the principles of the Charter.
2. The achievement of peace based on law requires positive but limited sacrifices, which may not eventually be forthcoming, but which it is our duty to seek, each according to his ability and influence, and to seek without fear or favour.
3. One approach to this end to which this Organization has devoted much energy and thought is to set a limit to the development and manufacture of the means for mass destruction. Some people place great hopes in the outcome of disarmament talks and have reached the optimistic conclusion that the very destructiveness of modern weapons will prevent another war. There are some, however, who are beginning to fear that another war may be inevitable, because they see little hope for the general acceptance of the only basis for permanent peace - the rule of law based on justice.
4. It is not of course given to mankind to foretell the future. One thing seems certain: if war comes even the victor will be involved in appalling political, social and economic troubles — troubles which will far outweigh those advantages which, if now willingly sacrificed, might secure real and lasting peace.
5. I have referred to a view, now widely prevalent, that the destructiveness of weapons alone will prevent their being used. That is a thought with which, perhaps, it is natural for humanity to console itself in the presence of such enormous dangers. As a prediction it may be either right or wrong. But I suggest
it would be very much safer and wiser for us all not just to assume that it is light. Personally, I believe that where there is a vital conflict of interests, or mutual fear of deadly violence, between two sets of human beings, peace can only be maintained in one of two ways: by the acceptance of the rule of law or by the superior force of a third party. We are all now in the inescapable dilemma that we have no third party except the collective judgement of mankind represented in this Assembly; and unless we now make rapid progress towards the rule of law, we may soon have drifted past the last opportunity to prevent the use of the ultimate weapons.
6. If anyone today relies on the disarmament approach alone to prevent war, let him reflect that the last series of disarmament conferences began in 1920 and continued up to and even through the first battles of the last war. If he relies on the destructiveness of weapons alone to prevent war, let him reflect that it did not prevent war in 1939, although more frightful destruction and loss of life was anticipated than actually took place up to the burning of Hamburg. Indeed it should be recalled that in one of the countries that declared war in 1939 there were a quarter of a million papier-mâché coffins stored and ready, so great was the scale of destruction then expected.
7. There are many in this Assembly and outside it who know from experience that fear does not always prevent war and that indeed it sometimes drives genuinely peace-loving nations to make war. Fear does not paralyse the average man or-the average nation; it stirs them into a feverish search for more and better weapons than their enemies have produced.
8. If anyone today relies on the growing military power of the United States and the Soviet Union to bring about a stalemate, let him reflect that heretofore masses of armed men seem to have obeyed the laws which govern, we are told, the explosion of uranium-238: when the amount of fissionable material becomes large enough and is in close enough proximity, the probabilities of detonation become a certainty. Today, as the masses of military weapons and forces are becoming critical, science is rapidly annihilating the safety factor of distance. If we want to prevent an explosion we must waste no time. We must immediately increase the distance between the explosive masses and, while distance still affords some measure of protection, use all our energy to lay the foundations for peace.
9. This generation, of course, is not responsible for all our difficulties. It is heir to many problems created by predatory ancestors in another age and in greatly different circumstances. It is be devilled too by the unjust and reckless actions of some Governments in our own time. But, while it is our duty to condemn these past and present injustices on appropriate occasions, we have no time to waste in recrimination
or in bemoaning our fate. We must move swiftly, decisively and wisely if we are to save ourselves and our children from being destroyed.
10. I can see no material gain that is worth the cost for any participant in this war that threatens us. Neither do I see any moral satisfaction to be gained by anyone other than that of dying in a fight for the demonstrable and unequivocally clear purpose of establishing the rule of law based on justice and applicable universally to all mankind.
11. The danger of war today, as I see it, is inherent in the potential threat which each of the two tremendous concentrations of power represents for the other. The very existence of these gigantic and highly centralized forces, with no comparable force to hold a balance between them, is something new in human history. It generates problems of a kind which humanity has never yet had to solve. It is not enough that neither of these two great Powers is so mad as deliberately to seek a general war. It is not enough that they are prepared to discuss disarmament. If they are to survive - they and all the rest of us with them - they must create the political conditions in which disarmament talks can succeed. Those conditions do not yet exist. The relations between the great Powers at present are marked by an intensely competitive diplomacy. Such a diplomatic struggle is not compatible with progress towards disarmament. As long as that struggle continues, disarmament talks can be little more than a façade, concealing the real trend that is taking place - a trend not towards peace but towards war. That kind of disarmament discussion, the illusory kind, so far from being a preparation for peace, is in itself an actual threat to the peace. It is a threat because it gives the peoples of the world the false idea that they are safe, whereas in reality we are all in deadly and imminent danger. If we are to save ourselves from that danger we need to make great efforts and great sacrifices. To brace ourselves for those efforts and sacrifices we need to be clearly conscious of our mortal danger. Talks that tend to obscure that saving consciousness may have fatal results. Therefore, I wish to urge on the Assembly the need for a much more radical approach to disarmament: the need to lay the political foundations of peace. If those foundations can be laid, the superstructure - of agreements to limit weapons - will be solid and lasting. But until the foundations are laid there can be no stable superstructure; there will be only a flimsy and ephemeral façade.
12. What are these foundations, the political preconditions of peace? The basic idea can be expressed in a very simple form: the progressive elimination of areas of conflict is a condition precedent to the limitation of weapons. In the debate of Hungary [669th meeting], we made suggestions as to how in Europe a safety zone could be substituted for an area of potential conflict. Progressive military disengagement in Europe, along the lines which we suggested, would be a major contribution towards the building of peace. But there are other areas in which the problem, while equally acute, presents itself in a different way and needs a different solution, or rather a different application of the same basic idea.
13. In the Middle East, for example, the danger comes not from the confrontation of great military forces, or from military occupation, but from acute diplomatic
competition: competition for ascendancy in a sensitive strategic area rich in the most vital raw material of the modern world - oil - but up to now with a low standard of living. In that area, and to a lesser degree in other areas, each Power bids against the other to secure Governments friendly to itself.
14. This competition to secure friendly Governments might seem at first sight to be a harmless enough rivalry. But on closer examination we can readily see that the natural dynamics of this kind of diplomatic struggle tend inevitably towards war. The process, indeed, is only too obvious. In any country, in such a contested area, if one great Power has secured a Government friendly to itself it will naturally wish that Government to continue to hold office. The other great Power, equally naturally, will be led to wish the success of the internal opposition in that country.
15. Thus, by the intensity of their competition the great Powers become more and more deeply implicated in the internal policies of this vital and troubled region. The consequences of this involvement in terms of human suffering, both immediate and potential, would be hard to exaggerate; for the rivalry of the great Powers, sapping the spirit of independence and self-reliance in the smaller nations, constantly tends to promote both civil wars - the most cruel of all wars - and national wars among the peoples of this region. If that result were sought by deliberate long-term policy, it, would be hard to find terms strong enough to condemn the callousness of the calculators. But in fact, as I have tried to indicate, the struggles which recurrently convulse this region are not provoked as a matter of deliberate long-term policy, but arise inevitably from a natural process involved in fierce diplomatic competition between great Powers for the friendship of weaker Governments. And bad as the immediate and local results of such competition are, the ultimate potential result is far more terrible. This competition, with its play of alliances and counter-alliances, with the overt or suppressed local resentments which it causes, may easily get out of the control of the participants, both great and small, and ignite a general war.
16. The progress towards disaster in the Middle East can be arrested only if the Powers concerned in their own interest genuinely agree to respect the sovereignty of the weaker countries, to harmonize their policies through the United Nations and to abate their diplomatic competition. Such an agreement would constitute a mutual diplomatic drawing-back comparable to the military drawing-back which we envisaged in the case of Europe, and would serve the same end: the reduction of international friction in order that real progress can be made towards disarmament and peace. The name "condominium" has been used to describe a possible common policy to be agreed upon between the Powers in relation to the Middle East. It would be hard to think of a term with more unfortunate suggestions. What is needed is not a condominium, a joint dominion, but an agreement to cease all attempts to dominate: not a condominium but a non-dominion.
17. But even the concept of non-dominion is inadequate, because it is negative where positive policies are required. Positive qualities must - if peace is to be saved - be developed by the Powers in concert with this Organization. For the dangers that threaten in the Middle East - and in certain other regions also -
do not derive solely from the rivalry of the great Powers, although they are enormously increased by that rivalry. With the rate of production almost static, poverty tends to increase with the very steep rise in population which medical science has made possible. And as human misery increases, dangers of violence increase with it; dictators and demagogues thrive. Nothing can avert this process save a determined and combined effort by the highly industrialized countries, by the economic interests involved, and by this Organization to help the Governments concerned to raise the standard of living and to encourage political and economic co-operation, rather than national antagonisms, among the Middle Eastern peoples. Irrigation, industrial and power development, education and technical instruction are all fields in which much remains to be done. It is true that this Organization has accomplished much useful work in the Middle East. But no one would claim that the efforts made so far, inside or outside this Organization, have been commensurate with the colossal scale of the problem. It may be said that investment on the scale required is beyond the bounds of economic and financial possibility. That is a misconception, for what is needed is not for the Powers to spend more money, but to spend it on different things.
18. If the Powers concerned can substitute joint schemes of human betterment for their present competitive economic diplomacy, the consequent reduction in international tension will enable them to slacken the present terrifying rhythm of the arms race. And if the resources - of human skill and ingenuity, no less than of material - at present committed to the arms race are used instead for an equally strenuous effort for prosperity and peace, the prospects for humanity, not alone in the Middle East but throughout the world, can be utterly transformed.
19. What we have in mind, therefore, is that a commission of this Organization could be created for the promotion of reconciliation and economic development in the Middle East. Through that commission, the highly developed countries could canalize their economic aid to the area. That aid would be without political conditions - or rather with only one political condition: that the beneficiaries should avoid recourse to war.
20. It may be said that such projects are visionary. Perhaps they are, but those who like to use that word to describe any far-reaching suggestion for peace would be well advised to keep another vision before their eyes: a vision of what the third world war would mean for mankind. No one who has that vision before him is likely to be satisfied with anything less than a full-scale all-out campaign for peace. That campaign must start from a very much greater respect for the freedom of weaker peoples. It must bring the end of imperialism in all its shapes and forms, whether direct or indirect, Eastern or Western, diplomatic or military, capitalist or communist. And the ending of imperialism is not only in the interests of the subject peoples, of peace and of the general good, but in the specific interests of the peoples of the imperial countries themselves. So we have been dealing with a diplomatic drawing-back by the major Powers from intervention in the affairs of nationally independent but weak countries. It is necessary to deal also with the not less dangerous case where a large Power exerts direct political control over a weaker country.
21. There was a time, of course, when wide territorial dominion meant increased wealth for an imperial power and a higher standard of life for its people. Today the increase in the standard of life arises more from the technical skill and ability to turn one form of matter or energy into another than from the possession of broad acres of wheat fields, or even of oil fields. As our skill in exchanging goods and services becomes equal to our skill in producing them, when there is a firm agreement that each nation shall buy or invest as much as it sells, then food, raw materials and industrial products will flow freely around the world. When we reach that stage, the desire to control colonial markets and sources of raw materials will have become an anachronism. Indeed, even at the present stage, the occupation of foreign lands tenanted by an uncooperative and resentful people is a financial liability rather than a net asset to the occupying Power. It is a grave personal liability, too, for the settlers of the Power that has outstayed its welcome. These settlers may have devoted their lives to building up their adopted country and may have made a success of a business or a profession; but if a bitter clash with the metropolitan country arises, they must waste their energy and their savings in perpetually defending themselves and their children. It should be noted that the countries most rapidly increasing their domestic output of goods and services, expanding their foreign markets and improving their standard of life are the countries which have no forcibly annexed territories.
22. There was a time, too, when territorial expansion meant, for the occupying Power, an increase in prestige, an increase in security and a decrease in the number of men under arms. Today, forcible control over foreign populations means permanent conscription, ever increasing numbers of munition workers and police forces, ever increasing tension abroad and ever increasing insecurity at home.
23. I have tried to state the tragic choices which involve the fate of all of us, whether occupied or unoccupied, free, partially free, or unfree. Is there a way out? I think there is, with God’s help, if we co-operate in finding it and if we assist each other to follow it. We suggest that the way is through the acceptance of the following general principles.
24. Powers which are in forcible occupation of foreign territories must declare their willingness to withdraw at the earliest practicable date to be fixed in agreement with the United Nations.
25. The inhabitants of the territories concerned must declare their willingness to be patient until that date arrives, in each case, and to act forgivingly and generously thereafter.
26. The United Nations must declare its willingness to accept as a common burden the cost of the practical steps necessary to assist the withdrawal of the occupying Powers, to supervise the fulfilment of the pledges given by the peoples in the territories evacuated, and to assist the newly enfranchised peoples to meet the responsibilities of freedom.
27. The great Powers must reach an agreement to halt their present acute diplomatic competition, involving the selective arming and subsidizing of weaker peoples. For that competition, they must substitute a joint effort along some such lines as those which I have suggested for the Middle East.
28. We have no intention of attempting to draft a programme to deal with the withdrawal of all the various types of occupation, ancient and modern, from territories with different degrees of cultural and political development. That, in appropriate cases, must be the duty and the work of a competent executive authority responsible to this Assembly over a number of years to come.
29. Like many of our fellow Members here, we are a young State, but a people with a proud and ancient history. Our own outstanding national problem - the division of our country - must eventually be solved by the practical application of the principles of the Charter and, specifically, the principle of self-determination of peoples. We have never ceased to demand the application of that principle in our own as well as in other cases, and from it we have nothing to fear. Indeed it would be useless to deny that, in joining this Organization, the hope that our action might advance the attainment of this end was present in our minds. It is as such a country that we speak here today in the hope that our profound conviction, born of long experience of tragic frustration, may carry wight with this Assembly. The principle of self-determination of peoples ought, we believe, to be the great master principle by which this Assembly should be guided in its quest for a just and peaceful world order. That principle holds, for example, the key to the reunification of Germany, to the solution of the Cyprus question and also to one of the most acute and urgent of the contemporary conflicts which threaten world peace - the conflict in Algeria.
30. The case of Algeria deeply disturbs those of us who are the friends and admirers of the great French nation and of the noble and valiant French people. But the nature of the conflict there is one that leaves a country with Ireland’s traditions no choice. As this case is to be considered by the General Assembly, we cannot do otherwise than support self-determination for Algeria.
31. We would urge the French Government, in the interest of the French people, in the interest of the French settlers, in the interest of the peace of mind of its friends, in the interest of world peace, and for the glory of France, to declare its readiness to concede the right of self-determination to Algeria at the earliest practicable date to be fixed in agreement with this Organization. We would urge it to concede that right absolutely and unequivocally; to declare that it is prepared to negotiate with the freely elected representatives o! the Algerian people, and to accept their majority will for the future of Algeria - whether it be for union with France, association with France, or complete separation and independence. Partial concessions like those offered in the French Government’s loi-cadre are not enough. The generous movement of enlightened opinion whose presence in France the world salutes must carry a French Government to bolder and wiser measures than this. The French Government must abandon the theory which the loi-cadre asserts: the theory that Algeria is an integral part of France. For that theory France has paid dear. It will be in its own best interests to replace it by the clear admission of Algeria’s right to self-determination.
32. We would urge the revolutionaries in Algeria, for their part, to cease fire forthwith; to accept peacefully the result of free elections and negotiations, and to declare their willingness - if they win those elections - to be not only just but generous to all the European settlers who wish to remain following a settlement. We would urge them also to declare their willingness to compensate generously such of the settlers as might wish to leave, for the loss of their property and their way of living.
33. We would urge the United Nations in the particular circumstances of the Algerian case, to agree to supervise the arrangements agreed upon between France and Algeria; to be prepared to supply as supervisors for the elections men who have practical experience of free elections; to be prepared, if necessary, to supply a United Nations police force to assist in preserving law and order over a transitional period. Should any settler desire to leave, it should be for the United Nations to fix a generous rate of compensation, and if need be, to provide loans to Algeria to enable prompt payment to be made.
34. Finally, we would appeal to both the French and the Algerian peoples to co-operate for their mutual benefit and for the benefit of us all. The Algerian people, whatever their political decisions, will need French technical assistance and support to develop their resources in the years ahead. The French people will, I am sure, no matter how the Algerians determine, be prepared to co-operate in continuing the work of development which they carried on so efficiently, as I personally observed, in the days before 1914 and between the wars.
35. And lastly, if I may be permitted, I appeal to our French colleagues to use their influence with the people of France to persuade them in their own interest and in the best interests of the French settlers, whose difficulties they must feel so keenly, to agree to the suggestions we have made. France stands not to lose but to gain by doing so. La presence française, of which the world stands in need, is not a matter of colonial dominion but of the intellectual and moral leadership which generations of her gifted sons have earned for the great French nation. That is the true meaning of la presence française, of which the world stands deprived while France is absent in Algeria. France is often urged to liberate Algeria: it is even more important that France should liberate herself from Algeria.
36. The principles of the Charter are founded, to a great extent, on French thought and on the abiding devotion of generations of Frenchmen to the idea of liberty. Today these principles need to be given new life. The world today stands in need of inspiration, of imaginative and magnanimous action which will transcend the chafferings of short-term calculation. It is our hope as, I am sure it will be the hope of many here - that France will, before it is too late, give the world the example of such an action. If she does so, she can take once more her place in history which belongs to her of right, the place which her heroes and her thinkers have won for her as the great exemplar and defender of human freedom and of the rights of man.