Here we are in solemn assembly again, and once more we meet to survey the past, tackle the present and map out the future. It is a supreme task, but its completion is endless. For no sooner do we deal with the present and future, then they pass to the realm of history and we have only to face a new present and a new future. Thus, in our search for peace, in our struggle for liberty, in our quest for justice, the United Nations in fact is in continuous session. Indeed, in this atomic age we are called upon to be in the field at all times, always ready for action without retirement or resignation.
74. The United Nations, however, can handle international situations only with a true understanding of the facts, and nothing but the facts. A mistaken appraisal might lead to a breach of the peace, especially where the region concerned is highly inflammable. I do not wish to talk in the abstract. I have in mind a vivid illustration that is just to the point. From this rostrum there has been a great deal of loud talk about Arab nationalism. The Minister for Foreign Affairs of Greece, in a highly valued analysis, has enriched international knowledge with a meat eloquent statement on Arab nationalism [689th meeting]. On the other hand, statements of a different character made here in the Assembly, have attributed to Arab nationalism dangers, perils and what not. I must declare here before this august body that there is nothing dangerous about Arab nationalism. It is only when any national movement is misunderstood that danger becomes imminent. The truth is that Arab nationalism is a peaceful, constructive and creative movement. It seeks friendship and international co-operation upon equal terms and mutual respect. Dynamic as it may be, Arab nationalism has no plans for aggression or expansion of any sort or of any character.
75. As ancient as the Arab world, Arab nationalism has preceded the present conflict of ideologies that divide the world into camps and blocs. Although Arab nationalism is undergoing the inevitable process of exchange, of give and take, no foreign indoctrination in the Arab world is taking place or will ever take place.
76. As to the main objectives, Arab nationalism stands for the final liberation of every span of Arab territory from the Persian Gulf to the Atlantic Ocean. Furthermore, Arab nationalism strives to shape our economic and social systems in accordance with our own needs and the best of our national traditions. It is our aim that all aspects of our life should spring from within, making our past, present and future a living, vibrant, continuing reality. In particular, our defence build-up is to be our own. It is exclusively dedicated for defence and defence only. Our whole military set up, with its bases, arms and equipment from whatever source they may come, are exclusively in the service of Arab sovereignty and independence. Mr. Lloyd, in his statement before the General Assembly [685th meeting], charged that arms delivered by the Soviet Union to certain Arab countries are intended "to pre-stock forward bases for the Soviet Union...." This is sheer fallacy. It is nothing but an insult to our national honour, which we must reject outright without hesitation. We must declare, however, that Arab armies, no matter of what colour their equipment may be, have one single allegiance, one single loyalty, one single flag. It is Arab nationalism. No one should, therefore, be deceived or become the victim of his own deception, imagination, humiliation, if I am allowed to put it in this way.
77. I must emphasize that in dealing at length with Arab nationalism, I am not going out of my way. The question of the Middle East has now become part of our general debate. Should it proceed in the manner it started, it is likely to be the major question of the session. Mr. Dulles and Mr. Gromyko [680th_and 681st meetings] have dealt in detail with the general situation of the Middle East. Mr. Lloyd also has stated the position of the United Kingdom on this question. Other delegations have expressed their views one way or the other. We have witnessed attacks and counterattacks; we have heard proposals and counter-proposals. In the heat of the debate, it appeared as though the Middle East had become an orphan with no say in the matter. The Middle East seems to be dragged into the cold war whether it wills that or not. But the central fact is that the Arab States are fully independent and fully sovereign. The Arab States are fully represented here in the General Assembly. Their affairs are their own and no one is entitled to interfere. Even the General Assembly — and I put it with all due respect to the dignity and authority of the Assembly — in its totality cannot interfere in any prerogative of any national sovereignty.
78. In the general debate, more than one delegation expressed fear and anxiety over the state of affairs in the Middle East. We too feel fear and anxiety, but in greater depth, for we are the people and the area is ours. But our diagnosis and remedy are totally different. It has been said in the General Assembly that Soviet technique aims at inciting Arab nationalism to break all ties with the West. Arab ties with the West are breaking. This is no secret to reveal. It is no secret either that the Arab countries are eager to establish the best relations with the West on a level of equality and mutual respect. But it is the policy of the West which is destroying ties with the Arabs. It is the West which is destroying the West. We need only cite Syria as a case in point. In 1919 it was Syria that expressed to the American Crane-King Commission its choice for an American mandate as an alternative to Syrian independence and Syrian sovereignty. What a great faith Syria had displayed at that time. The change, however, did not come from Syria. It is the West again.
79. In the course of the debate, a number of delegations urged the General Assembly to discuss the situation in the Middle East, reserving the right to submit concrete proposals. The case as stated, however, does not disclose a problem that could legitimately be discussed by the United Nations. We were told — and this is the case against Syria — that the true patriots of Syria have been driven from positions of power. We were told also that Syria is getting arms from the Soviet Union, thereby endangering the security of its neighbours. This is the gist of the case against Syria. Clearly this is no matter that can be seized by the General Assembly. The affairs of Syria are for Syria and not for the United Nations. Who is in power and who is not in power in Syria is the concern of Syria alone; it is not the concern of the United Nations. We are here to deal only with international questions. We are not here to deal with the change of leaders or with the change of Governments. This domestic realm of internal affairs must remain immune, for it has been declared immune in the Charter.
80. As for the arms deal, we see no valid justification to interfere. Every State has the sacred right and duty to secure its defence and safety. All States represented in the General Assembly are engaged in arms shopping, seeking arms here and there. I am very sorry to use this fantastic term "arms shopping", but this is the term which describes what has been taking place so far with regard to the arms race. In this regard, Syria is neither the first nor the last. In any event, it is no luxury for Syria, nor is Syria the only amateur in this field.
81. Syria's defence build up, however, is no danger to any neighbour — and I wish to stress, to any neighbour. All Member States are preoccupied with building up their defence, and there is hardly any Member in the General Assembly without a neighbour. Syria is not at fault because it has more than one neighbour. With Turkey as a neighbour, Syria’s defence should be no reason whatsoever for alarm. Syria, out of determined policy let alone physical potentialities, harbours no malicious designs against Turkey. As regards Syria's Arab neighbours, it is nonsensical fun to speak of danger. The elementary truth is that no danger would arise one way or the other. It is unthinkable that any Arab country could be a source of peril to any other Arab country. It is inconceivable for any Arab soldier to be a menace to any Arab State. Differences of opinion may exist among Arab States. This is natural and understandable. But for Mr. Lloyd to refer to the latest note from Jordan to Syria as an indication of danger is an argument entirely devoid of any atom of truth. What may possibly arise amongst Arab States are divergencies, but never emergencies. This is the absolute truth that I can convey to the General Assembly in unequivocal terms. As for Israel, an armistice neighbour, Syria is not at fault should a neighbour disturb the water, as the old story goes.
82. It is thus clear that the matters raised in regard to Syria do not fall within the competence of the General Assembly. We shall therefore strongly oppose any discussion touching upon matters relating to the affairs of Syria. Saudi Arabia shall stand by Syria in the defence of its sovereignty and independence. Saudi Arabia will not fail to discharge this duty, a duty which springs not only from pacts but from the strongest bonds of Arab brotherhood.
83. There remains the question of the proposals which may be submitted in regard to the Middle East. Certain delegations seem to be trying to invoke the resolution on the essentials for peace of 1949 [resolution 290 (IV)]. Others appear to prefer a resolution declaring certain principles. At this stage of the debate we shall not take a position. But one thing must be amply clear: we shall resist any attempt to interfere in the affairs of Syria. We shall refuse any discussion of the Middle East in the context of division between East and West. We shall not allow the Middle East to be plunged into any cold war of any character or colour.
84. The affairs of the Middle East are, should be and should remain the sole concern of the people of the Middle East and the States of the Middle East. We shall oppose any proposal that does not take full consideration of the sovereignty of the Arab States as Members of the United Nations. However, we can think of only one proposal — if anyone is eager to know of a proposal which squarely meets the situation in the Middle East, a proposal which offers a healthful solution to relieve tension in the Middle East — a proposal that would urge the Western Powers to settle their differences with the Arab world in Palestine, in Algeria, in Yemen, in Oman and in Buraimi, in accordance with the principle of self-determination as enshrined in the Charter.
85. This is the background of the situation in the Middle East. The danger is there, we entirely agree. It is no use concealing these facts. But it is the cause upon which we differ, it is the diagnosis upon which we differ, and it is the remedy upon which we differ. The actual danger in the whole area, in our view, springs from a set of problems — call them the relics of imperialism, call them whatever you wish. They form the main source which breeds unrest and tension. It therefore becomes our duty and the duty of the General Assembly to examine these problems in complete frankness, in a manner worthy of the cause of international peace and security and worthy of the dignity of the United Nations.
86. I shall begin with the question of Algeria. I do so because there is war in Algeria, and we meet here to commemorate the third year of that war. It does not require a genius to state the case for Algeria. In plain words, the Algerians, like any other people in the world, have an inherent right to sovereignty and independence. The position of France in Algeria is a position of imperialism — pure and simple — and no amount of eloquence can defend a position of imperialism. At present, France is engaged in laying down a special regime for Algeria — the regime which led to the fall of the Government of France. On Algerian soil, France is throwing all its weight behind an attempt to reconquer the country. Both objectives are bound to meet with miserable failure. A political regime for a people can be established only by the people themselves. The ultimate destiny of the war in Algeria is victory for freedom, victory for the people of Algeria. If any testimony is required, we need only look at the twenty States which have emerged on the battlefield of freedom and have forced their way to membership in the United Nations.
87. We should not, however, fail to express our indignation at the savage acts of repression committed by the French troops in Algeria. In homage to military traditions and the rules of war, French soldiers employed in Algeria can hardly be classified as troops. The human conscience has been deeply moved at the unspeakable, the unthinkable brutality committed by the French authorities in Algeria. In France — and this is a happy coincidence — free-thinkers and men of letters have registered their indignation in angry terms. The French Minister for Foreign Affairs was met with excited demonstrations in Latin America in protest against these brutalities — that Continent which is far removed from the scene of events but which is still so close because of its spirit of human brotherhood.
88. That in a nutshell is the situation in Algeria — a theatre of blood, destruction, repression and everything else that human suffering entails. In the words which the General Assembly proclaimed in the preamble to the Universal Declaration of Human Rights — and I would remind the Assembly of these words — the people of Algeria have been "compelled to have recourse ... to rebellion against tyranny and oppression". It is my humble submission that the right of tyranny — if it can be called a right — can be redressed only by the right of rebellion. This is a new right which is joining the other human rights: the right of rebellion against tyranny and oppression. The people of Algeria are now exercising their right of rebellion against French tyranny and oppression. The rebellion became a regular war, but France unfortunately reduced it to genocide.
89. We cannot sit idly by, with arms folded, witnessing this human calamity. France must be reduced to obedience and respect for the wishes of the international community. The very minimum duty of the United Nations is to investigate on the spot. A United Nations mission or representative could bring to light the abominable conduct of French authorities in Algeria. Our Secretary-General, the great servant of our Charter, will not fail to patronize this investigation.
90. As to the substance of the issue, it is our sincere belief that nothing short of freedom will suffice to extinguish the holy flame glowing in Algeria. And nothing short of Algerian membership in the United Nations will lead to peace and tranquillity. We have only to lend our ears and our hearts to the dignified and eloquent appeal to France made in the Assembly by the Minister for Foreign Affairs of Ireland in his able and eloquent statement [682nd meeting]. I come here to applaud his sublime stand and to salute the bravery of his people. He has urged France to liberate itself from Algeria — and, truly, it is a process of French liberation from Algeria. If France were to respond to that call, it would be writing history again, as it did in the days of the Revolution.
91. Closely allied with the question of Algeria are the problems of Yemen and Oman. There, the British are bent on a campaign of aggression, in an attempt to retain a position of imperialism in the Arab Peninsula. Air bombardments of towns and villages in Yemen — a State Member of the United Nations — are becoming the news of the day. In Oman, the British forces are causing havoc and destruction to the defenceless and innocent people. British military attacks against Yemen and Oman are reminiscent of the nineteenth-century colonial campaigns in Asia and Africa. Such breaches of the Charter call for immediate action. It is our belief that a team of United Nations observers, posted along the areas under attack, would help restore tranquillity, as a prelude to an honourable settlement in accordance with the principles of the Charter. In any case, we shall have occasion to deal with these matters before the proper organs at the proper time.
92. I turn now to the question of the Gulf of Aqaba. Basically, this is not an international question. I bring it to the attention of the General Assembly only to disprove its international character. The facts are simple to state. The Gulf of Aqaba is a national inland waterway, subject to absolute Arab sovereignty. The geographical location of the Gulf is conclusive proof of its national character. It is separated from the Red Sea by a chain of islands, the largest being Sanafir and Tiran. The only navigable entrance — which, itself, is within Arab territory — does not exceed 500 metres. Thus, by its configuration, the Gulf is in the nature of a mare clausum, which does not belong to the class of international waterways. In the course of a visit which I made a few weeks ago to the Gulf of Aqaba, I deplored the distortion and wilful misrepresentation into which the whole issue has been plunged. The Gulf is so narrow that the territorial areas of the littoral States are bound to overlap among themselves, under any kind of measurement, even if we assume that the Gulf comprehends part of the high seas.
93. In the second place, the Gulf of Aqaba is of the category of historical gulfs that fall outside the sphere of international law. The Gulf is the historical route to the holy places in Mecca. Pilgrims from different Muslim countries have been streaming through the Gulf, year after year, for fourteen centuries. Ever since, the Gulf has been an exclusively Arab route under Arab sovereignty. It is due to this undisputed fact that not a single international authority makes any mention whatsoever of the Gulf as an international waterway open for international navigation.
94. It was last year, in the aftermath of aggression waged against Egypt, that the Gulf was claimed as comprehending an international highway. The fact stands now that Israel has not withdrawn from the Gulf — to say nothing of its acts of piracy and lawlessness duly reported to the Security Council. Israel warships, still in the Gulf, are one aspect of aggression. The resolution [997 (ES-1)] of 2 November 1956 calling for withdrawal of Israel behind the Armistice lines remains unimplemented as far as the Gulf is concerned.
95. Israel, I might say, has no right to any part of the Gulf. Israel’s claim, were it to have any legs to stand on, could only be argued on the United Nations Plan of Partition or the Armistice lines. On either ground, the claim of Israel falls to the ground. On the plan of partition [resolution 181 (11)]. Israel cannot claim Eilat before Israel is confined to the lines of the plan, with a final retreat from the districts of Jaffa, Lydda, Ramla, the central zone and Weston Galilee, areas all behind the United Nations Plan of Partition. With regard to the armistice lines, again Israel has no ground to stand on, for a simple reason. Under the express provisions of the armistice agreements, the demarcation lines are purely "dictated" by "military considerations" and have no political significance. These are the words of the armistice agreements.
96. Thus, the area under Israel is nothing but a military control without sovereignty whatsoever. Israel has no sovereign status in the Gulf of Aqaba. Israel’s position is one of aggression, and aggression never lasts, no matter how it lasts.
97. In his report to the General Assembly [A/3594], the Secretary-General referred to suggestions made by certain Members, urging for an opinion on the legal status of the Gulf of Aqaba, to be pronounced by the International Court of Justice. It goes without saying that our respect to the Court is unreserved and unlimited. But the matter is not to be decided exclusively on judicial grounds. The question involves matters of the highest order pertaining to pilgrimage and other national and political considerations. As a keeper of the Holy Places, his Majesty King Saud is not prepared to expose to question any matter touching upon the Holy shrines and the free passage of pilgrims to Mecca.
98. However, recourse to the International Court of Justice calls for a reminder, regrettable though it may be, but still a reminder worthy of being brought to the attention of the General Assembly. On more than one occasion Arab delegations have endeavoured to seek the advisory opinion of the Court of Justice on the Palestine question, but they were defeated. Recourse to justice at that time was denied and now we are faced with a plea to hurry to the Court, leaving behind us a bleeding legacy of grave injustice.
99. One other point was raised in the Secretary- General’s report in connexion with the right of innocent passage. In spite of divergencies of opinion on every question falling within the province of international law, not a single legal precedent has declared a right of passage, innocent or otherwise, in a closed or inland water.
100. Innocent passage, however, raises the question of innocence. It is true that innocence is always the presumption, but with regard to Israel the presumption has been mercilessly defeated and rebutted. Israel has been condemned by the Security Council and the General Assembly, on more than one occasion and on more than one verdict of lawlessness and aggression, in entire negation of innocence. Again, innocent passage, as far as Israel is concerned, invites paradoxical irony. It is a fact that Arab refugees expelled from their country have not been allowed innocent passage to their homes. Again, the idea of innocent passage is raised in connexion with the Palestine refugees. It is fantastic that for Israel cargo, every argument for innocent passage is advanced, while for Arab refugees, all arguments of innocent passage must be suppressed or denied or ignored. Should we accept such a position, the United Nations would become a chartered organ for cargo, rather than a United Nations organization to uphold human rights and human dignity.
101. Last, but not least, I come to deal with the Palestine problem, a question that has been referred to and dealt with by many representatives in their speeches. On this issue we have a radical approach to place before the Assembly. We must strike at, and not around, the bush. We do not mean to be offensive, but the Palestine problem, which has been described by many delegations as the keg of powder for a global conflict, should not be treated in sugar-coated, and sweet expressions. The Palestine question is the centre of gravity in the whole situation of the Middle East, with its resources, its strategic position and its location in the heart of this troubled world. By this year, the Palestine question enters its second decade since it was first seized by the United Nations. With Israel’s defiance, it was made a decade of fruitless conciliation and fruitless mediation, a decade of mounting tension characterized by military raids, violations of the armistice agreements and breaches of the Charter. These are matters of record in the books of the General Assembly or the Security Council. It is no use denying these facts; they are the facts and we must face them.
102. When the Palestine issue was first brought before the United Nations in 1947, the dispute was between two communities. Later it developed to a regional level, but recently it extended to international horizons. The question may be asked, what is wrong in the whole situation? Answering simply but candidly, the wrong is Israel and Israel is the wrong.
103. Israel was established against the will of the people of the land. Israel was wedged in the sub-continent of the Arab people against their determined refusal. The initial assumption — and I invite the attention of the Assembly now to this initial assumption — upon which the General Assembly recommended the creation of Israel was that partition would separate two conflicting communities. That was the assumption for the partition and the establishment of Israel: a separation of two conflicting communities. Succeeding events have vitiated this assumption. Instead of removing the evil, partition led to evil and conflict, but in greater proportions. In the words of the representative of the United States, while advocating partition before the General Assembly in 1947, the boundary between Israel and the Arab States "will be as friendly as the boundary which runs for three thousand miles between Canada and the United States” [124th meeting]. It is now for the United States and Canada to judge whether the armistice lines between Israel and the Arab States are "as friendly as the boundary which runs for three thousand miles between Canada and the United States”. This was the assumption upon which partition was recommended. This assumption has collapsed mercilessly. We might better recollect the words that fell at that time from the lips of the representative of Canada when he said: "We support this plan with heavy hearts and many misgivings." What great misgivings have we encountered and how heavy are the hearts of the peoples of the world today.
104. We should not fail to remember that the General Assembly resolution on partition, as Mr. Lloyd pointed out, has unified the Eastern and Western blocs in an affirmative vote. Mr. Lloyd has invited the attention of the Assembly to this. Events have proved how ingenious was the vote cast by the East, and how stupid was the vote cast by the West. These are not my words; they are the words of the events that we face at the present moment. In his statement before the Assembly, Mr. Lloyd referred to the policy of the Soviet Union on the Palestine question as one of opportunism; the policy of the Soviet Union hinges, with regard to Palestine, on this pivot, a pivot of opportunism. Well, there should be an opportunity before there is opportunism. We cannot conceive of opportunism unless a state of opportunity exits. I should like to ask; who has provided the opportunity? Who has provided the opportunity for opportunism? The author of an opportunity should not complain of opportunism — here in the General Assembly at least, where people can remember the positions of various delegations. In the effort to support one plan, one solution or other, one cannot stand here before the General Assembly and complain of opportunism. I do not wish to dwell, in one way or the other, on the policy of the Soviet Union with regard to the Palestine question. Whether it is opportunist or not, this is outside the relevant issue as we see it now. But if one stands before the Assembly to complain of opportunism, I think he must come with clean hands. If one delegation has provided an opportunity for another delegation to strike at opportunism, then it is he who is to blame and the complaint must be levelled against him.
105. But the question might be asked, what is the way out? It is no use talking about the past. What is the way out? This is a legitimate question; I think that it must be answered. The answer is very simple — if there is a will to accept the answer and to implement its implications. The journey started on a perilous road at the beginning and proceeded to a perilous destination.
106. I trust that my colleagues realize seriously the gravity of the situation. We are not here just to make eloquent speeches; we are not a debating society. We must realize the gravity of the situation. If the world is to be thrown into a third world war — which God forbid; everybody in the Middle East in the Arab world would lift his hands to the heavens to save the world from a catastrophe, the stage for which is already set in the Middle East — it would not come from the Far East; it would not come from Europe; but it would come from the Middle East, with Palestine as the powder keg.
107. Here is Israel with Zionism behind it to support aggression and expansion. Here is Zionism, that invaded a country, displaced a people, disturbed the peace of a region, and destroyed the loyalty of Jewish citizens to their homelands. Here is an expansionist movement that engineers the establishment of "Great Israel" between the Nile and the Euphrates.
108. Yet, the way out is still open before the General Assembly. To avoid a great catastrophe, the United Nations must reverse the course of action that has brought about this dilemma. We either pull back from the abyss or fall asunder. To accept the de facto situation is resignation and surrender on the part of the United Nations and is not worthy of the Organization. It is with this idea in mind that the United Nations must thrust its way through new avenues.
109. To begin with, the Palestine refugees must be allowed to go back to their homes. Repatriation is their inherent right and one which they are determined to exercise. All plans for resettlement or integration away from their homes have failed, since they were wholly unacceptable.
110. In the second place, Zionism must be outlawed anywhere and everywhere. It is an unlawful movement destroying friendly relations among nations. It is forging an alien allegiance in betrayal of allegiance to the sacred concept of home. All funds of Zionist organizations should pass to charitable, social or educational institutions of the Jewish communities in their respective countries.
111. In the third place, a United Nations agency should be established to facilitate the repatriation of the Israelis to their former homes. Thousands of Israelis, frustrated and deceived as they are, urgently strive to go back to their homelands in Europe and elsewhere, lacking only the means and facilities. To them, Palestine is not their home. They are the victims of the greatest disillusionment ever recorded in the history of mankind. And I am not speaking of abstract contentions or allegations.
112. In July 1957, a United Press correspondent reported from Jerusalem that only recently 80,000 Jews have migrated from Israel to settle abroad for the rest of their lives — 80,000 Israelis leaving Israel to settle abroad for the rest of their lives. Now this is the key to the Palestine problem. Thousands and thousands of Jews in Israel are eager for a chance to pull out of Israel. A United Nations agency for the settlement of these refugees and their reintegration in their former countries is a humanitarian necessity. It is a basic step in the right direction to normalize the situation. Jewish immigration into Palestine has always been one of the main grounds for tension in the Middle East. With the passing of the Nazi and Fascist regimes, Jews in Israel look forward to picking up again their threads in Europe, if only financial facilities could be provided.
113. Here is the chance for the United Nations to help the Jewish masses in Israel to join their families in their countries of origin. Here is the challenge for Jewish organizations to assist in this great human task. It is only the tyranny of Israel which is keeping these people in this concentration camp called Israel. With this plan accepted and put into action, the Holy Land would again be set for serenity and tranquillity. Such a plan stands in need of our highly-talented Secretary-General. With Mr. Hammarskjold lives the whole problem of the Middle East, and his shining name has become part of the history of the Middle East.
114. Thus it becomes clear that we do not propose to throw the Jews into the sea. We wish them a better and happier life in their homelands, where they can settle under United Nations auspices. Those Jews, the legitimate inhabitants of Palestine, who remain in the country can join with their Moslem and Christian fellow-inhabitants in a new life of amity and prosperity, shaping their political future in accordance with the best democratic institutions. Without statehood, the Jews can flourish wherever they may be.
115. As far as the Arab world is concerned, the best I can say are the words uttered in the French National Assembly at the time of the French Revolution: "To the Jews as a nation we grant nothing, to the Jews as men we grant all". In all sincerity the Arabs can now equally reiterate: "To the Jews as a nation we grant nothing, but to the Jews as men, as human beings, as fellow citizens, we grant all".
116. This is the high road to peace not only for Palestine, not only for the Middle East, but also for the whole of mankind. For our part, we pledge ourselves to join with the United Nations in this great task of achieving peace — peace based upon justice — now and for all time to come.
117. I have just a last word to say. The Assembly this year is beclouded with fear and distrust. Cold war hangs in one area, intimidation reigns in another; while armed conflicts are dominating in more than one country. To our deep regret, the questions of disarmament, atomic weapons, nuclear explosions, unsolved as they are, continue to arouse general anxiety throughout the whole world. On the regional level the question of West Irian and the question of Cyprus — two legacies of colonialism — are among the outstanding problems that disturb the minds of freedom-loving peoples. Thus, in general, the world is not at ease and the pendulum of war is swinging on the horizon.
118. But the picture is not entirely gloomy. There is a bright side which should not escape our attention. With us, in this Assembly, are assembled the hope and faith of millions. World public opinion is becoming the greatest invisible force ever known in the long history of the human race. The voice of public opinion lives with us. It speaks not but we hear it in our innermost. All these forces assemble with us, under the flag of the United Nations, to fight a battle common to all and sacred to all. For surely, we are here fighting for liberty against imperialism; struggling for plenty against poverty; striving for knowledge against ignorance. It is a battle aiming at no aggression, at no expansion or domination. It is a battle to banish the danger of war for all time to come — a battle that registers defeat to none, but scores victory for all.