May I be permitted, first of all, to extend to Sir Leslie Munro, on behalf of the Government and delegation of Lebanon, as well as on my own personal behalf, our sincere congratulations on his election to the presidency of the twelfth session of the General Assembly. As I had occasion to state before, we know this session, in so far as it depends upon him, will prove a great success. The practically unanimous vote with which he has been elected assures him the necessary sense of authority and support for the wise and fruitful guidance of Our proceedings. Such wisdom and such fruitful intent are, we know, in Sir Leslie's nature. I want to assure him again that he can count on our unstinting support and co-operation to the end.
2. Two new Members have joined the United Nations this year, Ghana last March and the Federation of Malaya at the beginning of this session. My country extends its heartiest congratulations to the peoples of Ghana and Malaya upon their attainment of national independence. Empiricism, as taught by Locke and his successors, may not be the best philosophy; but for their empirical wisdom in dealing with dependent peoples in these and many previous instances the British are among the teachers of the world. We rejoice as much for the exercise of this wisdom as for the benefit it has conferred upon its worthy beneficiaries. We do not doubt that the political and cultural equipment of these two new Members, one in West Africa and one in South-East Asia, will make unique contributions to the functioning of our Organization.
3. Two new nations now hold their destiny in their hands, and the cause of peace and concord is advanced by so much. We pray that all peoples everywhere may attain or regain their freedom; then will the same cause of peace and concord, in so far as it is served by national freedom, be advanced to the utmost.
4. The general debate at the beginning of each session can be indifferently looked upon as a general discussion on the Secretary-General's annual report or on the agenda for the session, or as a series of statements of policy by the Governments of Member States on the basic international issues preoccupying their minds. The general tone of the session is thereby determined and the basic framework of possibility set. In the war of giants the limits of the possible and impossible in national policy are carefully delineated for the eyes of the world to see, and the smaller nations are afforded a chance to air their views, to set forth their concerns, and even to strike a posture with respect to the war of giants itself.
5. What do I want? What can I do? Where do I stand vis-a-vis others? These are the three questions which each of us has to face at the beginning of each session. And as we pause for a moment to engage in this process of self-searching here at the United Nations, we come closest to the realization of a genuine world community. For, as we speak in the presence of one another, we are all acutely conscious not only of our problems, not only of our rights, not only of our rightful aspirations, but also of the bearing of others upon us, of the essential limitations imposed upon these problems, rights and aspirations by our membership in the world community. It is then as we develop the habit of seeing ourselves as organic parts of a whole, and as we act in accordance with this mode of seeing, that the community aspect of our association gradually comes into its own.
6. The Prime Minister of Canada expressed the hope [683rd meeting] that this session, after its conclusion, would merit the title of "the Disarmament Assembly". This is a worthy hope, for the breathless arms race into which the world is plunged, and therefore the problem of disarmament, are the crux of the question of peace.
7. Hardly a representative has spoken who has not referred to the urgency of this matter. Besides the Prime Minister of Canada, statements of the deepest concern were made, among others, by Mr. Dulles, Mr. Gromyko, Mr. Lloyd, and Mr. Georges-Picot, all representing countries which are members of the Sub-Committee of the Disarmament Commission. These five nations have had, concretely, directly and continuously, for several years now, to wrestle with this problem on behalf of the world community, and they constitute the Sub-Committee of the Disarmament Commission, which is only the Security Council turned into a committee of the whole, plus Canada, to deal with the question of disarmament.
8. When, therefore, no agreement supervenes in that Sub-Committee, and when every member thereof expresses his deep concern over this fact as well as his alarm at the unabated arms race, then the rest of us must realize that we are face to face with something exceedingly serious and ultimate. No matter how insignificant we might be from the point of view of arms and therefore of disarmament, no matter how preoccupied we might otherwise be with our internal economic or political or even security problems, the challenge of the question of disarmament hits us all with almost equal hardness.
9. The climate of frustration and dread which failure in this field spreads throughout the world affects us all. A nuclear holocaust would pulverize to smithereens big and small alike. Some sections of the globe, such as the Middle East, could become principal battlefields in a nuclear war. The Prime Minister of Canada estimates that the world is spending some $85,000 million per year on arms; if agreement is reached on disarmament, and half or one-fourth or even one-tenth of this amount is saved and turned to the just development of the under-developed countries, think of how much then all of us will benefit. For all these reasons, we are all radically implicated in this question and we must each do our little bit in at least sharing the responsibility of thinking about it.
10. Mr. Gromyko in his speech on 20 September made the following statement: "... the negotiations [concerning disarmament] that have been in progress in the United Nations for over ten years have proved fruitless... Is there actually one less atomic bomb in the world today…? No, we are all fully aware that such weapons are constantly increasing in number and in destructive power. Were any international agreements concluded which have given the world one less division, one less regiment or one less soldier? No, no such agreement as yet exists." [681st meeting, para. 94].
11. When I heard this statement, I at once remembered an almost identical statement made by the representative of the United States three years before. Addressing the First Committee on 12 October 1954, on the subject of disarmament, the representative of the United States, Mr. Wadsworth, said: "The First Committee of the General Assembly is entering its ninth year of activity and its ninth year of hard work on the stubborn problem of disarmament. All these years of discussion have not brought forth a single agreement to scrap one gun or tank or bomb or to discharge one soldier. People all over the world, who know little of world politics, know this disheartening fact, yet it is in response to their will to peace that we continue to seek a solution." [687th meeting, para. 15]
12. I am not suggesting that Mr. Gromyko plagiarized Mr. Wadsworth in this reflection; I have quoted these statements only to show that in their wistful moments the two major Powers come to the same sense of futility about disarmament. And yet the United Nations may not sink into despair, for as Mr. Casey, the Foreign Minister of Australia, told us the other day, [687th meeting] "in dealing with a matter of such far-reaching... importance, despair is something that none of us can allow ourselves to entertain". No nation would dare let history convict it of responsibility for the failure of the disarmament talks.
13. Nor is this the only identity of view that the thoughtful student of this question perceives. Nothing is more striking in the literature of this subject than that both sides express throughout the same thoughts and often express them in the same language.
14. Thus both disclaim any intention of rearming for aggressive war. Both say they are rearming only for defence. Both emphasize that they most certainly want to disarm. Both say that agreement on disarmament would be possible if only the other side were more reasonable and less selfish. Each says it took a step but that the other took no step or took the wrong step. Both seem to be speaking of "partial steps in the field of disarmament" or of "a partial or first-stage agreement". Both seem to be coming closer together on the question of testing. Both seem to be coming closer together on the question of aerial photography. Both recognize the decisive danger of surprise attack. Both say they are sacrificing and taking risks in putting forward their proposals. Both want control provided it be "real and practicable". Both say that any disarmament that has occurred has been voluntary and unilateral on their part. Both accuse the other of engaging in propaganda and of not really wanting to come to grips with this problem. Both appeal to the United Nations to put "the weight of its influence" behind this matter. Both stress the question of distrust.
15. When Mr. Dulles says [680th meeting] that certain Governments are "subject to moral and religious restraints" and therefore are likely to exercise self-restraint, while the Soviet Government, he says, is not subject to moral and religious restraints, Mr. Gromyko retorts [681st meeting] that "there is not a single social group in the Soviet Union, which to any extent whatsoever could be interested in war or could hope to draw any advantage from war", implying, of course that such interested "social groups" abound in the West.
16. When Mr. Dulles warns f680th meeting] that "if the Soviet Union rejects inspection against surprise attack, if it rejects a world-wide system to end the production of fissionable material for weapons purposes,...then we doubt that it is prudent to forego efforts to make nuclear weapons into discriminating defensive weapons", Mr. Gromyko retorts [681st meeting] by warning that he wants "to make it absolutely clear that as long as the United States, the United Kingdom and other members of the North Atlantic Treaty Organization persist in evading an agreement on disarmament and in refusing to outlaw atomic and hydrogen weapons...the Soviet Union...will take all the necessary steps to protect its security".
17. Finally, both say that the quest for disarmament must go on whatever the disappointments and difficulties.
18. Is all this striking similarity of thought and even of expression accidental? It could be, but the more probable explanation is to be sought in the possibility that both sides are endeavouring to give expression to the same underlying reality. In the field of arms and disarmament one is dealing with certain basic truths as to war and defence that are to a large extent independent of ideologies, forms of government and social systems. The disengagement of these independent basic truths is a task by itself. I entitle the system of these truths "the calculus of disarmament".
19. The delegation of Lebanon has always dared to think about this matter despite its remoteness from our capabilities. Whether in the General Assembly or in the Disarmament Commission, when we were members of the Security Council we always played an active and, we would hope, a constructive part in the debate. As one listens with attention to what has been said on this question, and as one grounds oneself in the literature of disarmament, which is a very vast literature, a compact system of principles soon begins to emerge in one's mind. One is then gradually led to elaborate what one might call the calculus of disarmament. By this phrase I do not mean a systematic array of statistics as to armies, arms and armaments, and as to their relative capabilities and possible development. Such an array is very useful, and the intelligence of the great Powers is doubtless engaged day and night in securing dependable data for its compilation. But what I mean is the clear enunciation of those fundamental principles which determine every real international effort at finding an honest system of disarmament.
20. I therefore submit that the following set of principles constitutes a preliminary sketch of the calculus of disarmament: (i) No nation is going to disarm unilaterally; that is, no nation will disarm beyond what it considers proper for its security and safety. (ii) Security is something relative: you can be secure or insecure at about any level of armament or disarmament, depending on your relative strength with respect to others, (iii) The possibility of disarmament arises from the relativity of security. (iv) There are manifold dimensions of defence and security: expanse of territory, military alliances, technological capacity, economic capacity, distance from the possible enemy, bases abroad, types and qualities of weapons, the exclusive possession of some deterrent, national cohesiveness, the depth and truth of ideological conviction, a sense of mission. (v) What complicates the calculation of the limits of security is the fact that some of these dimensions of defence are incommensurate with others; for instance, there is no common unit of measurement between expanse of territory and types of weapons used. (vi) There are so many dimensions to the present technological revolution, and in every such dimension the revolution is moving at such a pace, that it is exceedingly difficult, if not virtually impossible, to have a fixed frame of reference within which to plan for disarmament. For you may have left out one apparently minor dimension which would, by its sudden and rapid development, nullify all the advantages of other agreements. (vii) Only the exclusive possession of someone certain and ultimate weapon can level out and nullify all the other dimensions of defence. (viii) The technological attainments of both the Soviet and Western blocs are such today that it does not appear probable that any one ultimate deterrent can long remain the exclusive possession of one or the other bloc. (ix) For the more or less short span during which one side may in fact enjoy superiority in some one ultimate and certain weapon, the other side will be in mortal danger. (x) But since the temporarily superior side cannot, owing to its certain ignorance, under present-day international relations, of the real state of affairs with the other side, be really sure of its superiority, this mortal danger is after all not so very dangerous. (xi) In a stalemate where the deterrent is believed equal on both sides and where, therefore, neither side can rationally will a general war, the struggle passes almost entirely to the economic, political and ideological fields. (xii) Under such conditions, he wins in the struggle who can effect such economic, ideological or political changes in his favour in the contested areas as can be swiftly and, if possible, immediately brought under the protection of the stalemate. (xiii) Under a stalemate the impossibility or improbability of an all-out life-or-death general war does not exclude, and sometimes even encourages, limited war or wars with conventional weapons. (xiv) A nation's estimation of what is proper for its security and safety depends on its knowledge or supposed knowledge of the actual capabilities of others. (xv) Inspection on a reciprocally equal basis is of the essence of such knowledge. (xvi) It follows that without such inspection yielding such knowledge no nation will take any chances with its security, and therefore the process of disarmament cannot be started. (xvii) In a situation of radical mistrust no nation will reveal, whether by inspection or by other means, its military secrets, and therefore in such a situation a dependable knowledge of the actual capabilities of others cannot be attained. (xviii) It follows that in a situation of radical mistrust the process of disarmament cannot be started and the arms race must go on.
21. This is something of a preliminary, and certainly also incomplete, sketch of what I have called "the calculus of disarmament". If this system is true in its content and rigorous in its formulation, then many practical results may be deduced from it. I shall not here pause to work out these deductions, for that belongs more to the work of the First Committee when it examines disarmament. We shall then take part in the appraisal of the proposals put forward by the Soviet Union, by India, by Japan, by the United States, and by others in the light of the calculus we have just set forth. In this connexion, the definitions given by Mr. Lloyd [685th meeting] of the diverse areas in which there has been a narrowing down of differences appear to us to be of great importance for future deliberations on this subject.
22. The dialectic of mistrust exerts a special fascination upon our mind, because it is the most important thing in this whole field. I shall therefore pause for a moment to consider this theme in its relation to what is known as "peaceful coexistence”.
23. I believe it is a matter of record that I was the first in the United Nations to inquire into the possibility of real peaceful coexistence and to set forth what I considered to be the objective conditions of this possibility. This was in November 1950 [310th meeting], in response to an important speech by the late Mr. Vyshinsky [309th meeting]. War, disarmament, confidence between the nations, peaceful coexistence — these are related topics. We have just seen that without a minimum of confidence between the nations, the arms race will go on.
24. Nor is it difficult to show that trust is not a matter of words or even of general conduct, but of fundamental convictions. No matter how pleasant your words and actions might be, I cannot trust you if I know that you hold radically negative views about my being. I have no assurance that by your pleasantness you are not merely biding your time to destroy me.
25. Trust, then, is a function of ideology. When your idea of history, of society, of government, of law, of man, of truth, of the good life, and of the ultimate things, is diametrically opposed to mine, we may then "coexist” side by side with one another, but pray how may this coexistence be called "peaceful" in a world that has so magically shrunk?
26. Does this mean that ideology will not change and that the pall of mistrust has settled upon us for good? Not at all. The hard facts of life will change everything, including that hardest of things, ideology and doctrine. But until this change has really occurred, and until there is some compatibility in fundamental matters, fear and mistrust will continue to plague the hearts of men.
27. A man may honestly believe that international war is not inevitable. But what about internal national war? What if he foments internal trouble in other countries by supporting subversive parties aiming at the forcible overthrow of the established order? It is this possibility that generates mistrust and stands in the way of progress in disarmament.
28. I take "peaceful coexistence" to mean that I agree not to attack you from without and you agree not to attack me from without. But supposing you subvert me or I subvert you or both of us subvert each other from within, where then is this "peaceful coexistence"? Is it not rather a warring coexistence? And what if one of us precisely by his -ideas of man and man’s freedom, lays himself mere open to subversion from within? Would not then the doctrine of peaceful coexistence put him at a great disadvantage? And while this disadvantage cannot and should not be overcome by war, is it not clear that the only way to meet it is by strengthening oneself in every way possible, including rearmament, against subversion?
29. There must, then, be some equality — not only in arms and armaments, not only in the form, let us say, of the atomic stalemate — but in the openness or closedness to outside influence and in the degree to which the Governments interfere or do not interfere in the thinking and acting of their citizens, before any real peaceful coexistence is possible. In short, without some measure of freedom both with respect to others and as between the government and the governed, there is no genuine peaceful coexistence. We thus see that freedom, as conditioning not only human dignity and human welfare, but the very possibility of peace itself, is the most dynamic principle that there is.
30. The United Nations programme of technical assistance is of considerable interest to the delegation of Lebanon. Resolution 52 (I) was the first resolution of the General Assembly on this subject, and it was sponsored by the delegation of Lebanon. Eleven years ago, when we first wanted to place this item on the agenda of the General Assembly, we were met by skepticism and resistance practically from all sides, but today technical assistance is one of the thriving activities of the Organization of which we may all be justly proud.
31. Explaining the purpose of our proposal, the head of our delegation, Mr. Chamoun, who is now President of our Republic, told the General Committee, in November 1946 [25th meeting], that what we had in mind "was the emergence of the United Nations from the stage of theoretical recommendations into that of practical implementation" by being able to supply Member States, upon application, with the desired economic, scientific and cultural assistance.
32. We pointed out that the under-developed countries, left to themselves, would require a long time to attain full development, and that "such a delay was dangerous because those countries constituted areas where outside influences strove to assert themselves at the risk of creating international friction". We told the sceptics that a war was more likely to be caused by problems arising in the Near East than elsewhere in the world, and it was for that reason, among others, that we felt "that the development of the under-developed areas, which were subject to various types of pressure and penetration, was one of the most urgent problems facing the United Nations". These are words we said in this Assembly eleven years ago. There is no need to comment upon the strange relevance of those words to the situation in the Near East.
33. Two items touching upon this subject come to us today from the Economic and Social Council. The first relates to the creation of a Special United Nations Fund for Economic Development (SUNFED); the second reports on the United Nations programme of technical assistance for 1956.
34. We shall support the establishment of SUNFED, but of course we have an open mind concerning any other proposal that could be shown to accomplish the same ends better. Despite the tensions of the world, perhaps even because of these tensions, the United Nations, by keeping the interest of the whole in mind, remains the best agency to help in carrying out certain urgently needed schemes of development in some areas of the world. We may submit concrete proposals concerning certain projects to be financed through voluntary contributions on an experimental basis pending full operation of the Fund.
35. The Technical Assistance Board is to be congratulated on its thriving operations. In 1956, 103 countries and territories received aid; $25,300,000 were spent on direct field operations; 2,346 experts were used and 2,128 fellowships were granted; and all this volume of activity was made possible by cooperation with seven specialized agencies and with contributions from 77 countries. I think this is a most impressive record of international economic cooperation under the aegis of the United Nations.
36. This is an age of "peaceful competition". The word "peaceful" here means only the absence of actual shooting. The question arises: Who shall win in this world-wide competition? On the negative side, he will not lose who knows how best to defend himself. That is the problem of armaments and disarmament. But on the positive side, that system will win, that way of life will commend itself to the allegiance of men, which can really and objectively enable the underdeveloped countries, both through the potency and truth of its ideas and through the magnanimity and manner of its co-operation, to overcome the existential sense of injustice at being behind the others, at being handicapped, perhaps artificially, with respect to them, at being excluded from the company of the strong and free, in short, at being unjustly deprived of a fair opportunity of contributing to the peaceful arts of civilization.
37. It is the sense of unnatural and therefore unnecessary injustice that makes one rebel against heaven and earth; it is when one is wounded to the quick in one's personal dignity that, in order to reaffirm one's honour, one is prepared to risk one's life.
38. That outlook, then, which contains within itself, both in theory and in practice, the fulness of the dignity of man, will in the end both claim and retain the allegiance of the human heart. The ultimate regulative principle hovering over and determining all our deliberations is therefore this: remove every manmade injustice; affirm the justice of nature; and, because through our mind and heart we transcend even nature, try to remove the injustice that may have been caused by nature itself. It is not the fear of war but the oneness of man, the fundamental equality of the children of men, that is at the base of every attempt at international organization. There is peace, then, only through the affirmation and transcendence of the justice of nature.
39. I come now to the problems of the Middle East. From the first day of this general debate, the Middle East moved to the forefront of United Nations attention. One of the deepest formulations of the question of the Middle East is to say that the area appears to be eternally engaged in "he struggle to assert an independent, integral and proper will of its own, in the face of overwhelming forces coveting, needing and converging upon it from all sides.
40. Conditions in our sister State, Syria, have given concern to some Governments. This situation has produced a state of tension in our area and has been the object of our constant preoccupation.
41. Lebanon is tied to Syria by the closest possible ties. What grieves our Syrian brethren grieves us, and what makes them rejoice rejoices us. There are exceedingly few countries in the world that are as closely related on one another — culturally, economically and from the point of view of our common destiny — as are Syria and Lebanon. It is difficult to imagine peace and stability in the Near East without the deepest understanding and the truest co-operation between Lebanon and Syria.
42. While pursuing an independent policy of its own, Lebanon feels the deepest sense of solidarity with Syria and will do everything in its power to prevent any harm from being done to it. Lebanon and Syria being bound by the charter of the League of Arab States and by the Arab joint defence pact, Lebanon will always instantly come to the support of Syria if it is attacked.
43. Because the Middle East is of special interest today, it may be useful to indicate very briefly the basic lines of the foreign policy of Lebanon. These basic lines may be summarized as follows: (i) Our action in the international field is in the first instance inspired and guided by our membership of the League of Arab States and of the United Nations. (ii) The Arab world is gradually coming into its own and we form an integral part of it. We shall always work for reason, understanding, moderation and concord, and for bringing the Arab States as closely and as constructively together as possible. We intend to forge special links of amity and co-operation with the emergent Arab States of North Africa. We give wholehearted support to the struggle of the Arabs everywhere, especially in Algeria, for a life of dignity and independence. (iii) We wish to maintain good relations with ,11 friendly States and to improve those relations to the utmost. An important aspect of this policy of friendship is our co-operation with the United States, whereby we receive technical, economic and military assistance which helps us develop and defend ourselves. (iv) Lebanon is primarily a trading country. We have sought and intend to keep on seeking markets for the development of our trade wherever we find them. We have recently developed trade relations with the countries of Eastern Europe in which many of our products have found new markets. We also have plans for internal economic development for which we invite foreign capital on good terms. (v) With respect to Israel, we see eye to eye with our sister Arab States. The rights of the Arabs in Palestine and the plight of the Arab refugees condition practically every situation and every development in the Near East. (vi) We think we have a profound understanding of the Western world. Since we are an integral part of the Arab world, this understanding charges us with great responsibility and opens before us a special opportunity. (vii) In any conflict between the Arab world and the West involving the legitimate rights and aspirations of the Arabs, Lebanon unreservedly ranges itself on the side of the Arabs. We do not believe that the resolution of these conflicts can be facilitated by alliance with communism. In the world struggle between the principles of freedom and of respect for the dignity of the human person on the one hand and the principles of totalitarianism and dialectic materialism on the other, Lebanon unreservedly ranges itself on the side of the free world.
44. These are the seven pillars on which our foreign policy is based. We believe them to be sound and solid. While nothing is absolute in human affairs, we intend nevertheless to remain faithful to the highest demands of truth, justice, freedom and human dignity in any evolution of our foreign policy.
45. I feel I must pay a tribute to the manner in which the United Nations — the Security Council, the General Assembly and the Secretary-General — handled the Suez crisis last year. It was with great rejoicing that we learned of the departure of the invading troops from the soil of our sister Arab State, Egypt. It was with deep satisfaction that we witnessed the resumption of traffic through that vital artery of Intercourse among nations, the Suez Canal. I should like to salute the Secretary-General, Mr. Hammarskjold, for his tireless efforts last autumn and winter in bringing the barque of peace in the Near East to a safe haven.
46. We in Lebanon watch with keen interest the development of the United Nations Emergency Force as an instrument for world peace. The Government and the people of Lebanon have, during the past few months, extended their hospitality to the members of this Force and are doing their utmost to make the stay of these gallant men among us in our mountain resorts as pleasant and relaxing as possible.
47. One cannot speak of the Near East today without also referring to Algeria and Cyprus. My delegation will have occasion to develop fully our point of view on these knotty questions when they come up for debate before the First Committee. At this juncture, I wish only to remark that we are dealing here with two questions involving a cardinal principle of the United Nations, a principle which Lebanon has always faithfully defended and upheld: I mean the principle of equal rights and self-determination of peoples.
46. In the case of Algeria, we are in the presence of an armed conflict which has caused untold suffering, bloodshed and destruction and envenomed the relations between the Arab world on the one hand and France and the West on the other. We trust that the United Nations will handle this extremely delicate problem in an objective and constructive manner leading to a solution that will satisfy the aspirations of the Algerian people to independence and freedom and safeguard the legitimate interests of all the parties concerned.
49. Legal technicalities notwithstanding, the basic issues involved in the Algerian question are fundamentally the same as those encountered in the questions of Tunisia and Morocco. There was a time, not so long ago, when those two problems seemed insurmountable. And yet, today, we are happy to count among us two young and vigorous States whose representatives are proudly playing an active role in the work of the Organization. It is our sincere hope that before long the representatives of a free and sovereign Algeria will be sitting with us, participating in the work of our Organization for the common good of all and shouldering their responsibilities in the promotion of peace and prosperity in North Africa and the world.
50. The Front of National Liberation of Algeria last week issued a statement in which it called for a peaceful, negotiated settlement between it and France. It argues that Morocco and Tunisia should also participate in these negotiations. It quietly says that it is "desirous of avoiding any sterile and bitter debate" at the United Nations and that it is "not seeking a condemnation of France". These appear to me to be wise sentiments.
51. It is our earnest hope that statesmanship and common sense will triumph in the case of Cyprus, a problem which has marred the relations among three close friends and allies. Happily the positions of the parties directly concerned are much closer today than when the question was first placed before the United Nations. It is our hope, therefore, that nothing will be said or done which will nullify the gains already achieved, and that no effort will be spared in surmounting the obstacles which remain in the path of a happy, contented and prosperous Cyprus.
52. The question of Palestine is at the heart of everything. This extremely grave problem has affected every facet of life in the Near East; it has been the major preoccupation of our political, intellectual and spiritual leadership during the past ten years.
53. The Palestine tragedy occurred at a time when several of the Arab countries had just emerged from the status of dependence and tutelage to that of sovereign independence and freedom. They had hardly had enough time to make even a start at putting their house in order when they were brutally jolted by the tragedy which unfolded itself in 1947 at the United Nations and during the ensuing months in Palestine. The Arab countries had hardly begun considering placing their relations with their former rulers on new bases of mutual trust when that trust was shattered by the moral and material support which the great Powers extended to militant Zionism for the realization of its dream of a Jewish State in Palestine.
54. The crisis of the Near East is the ref ore to a large extent a crisis of confidence between its people on the one hand and the great Powers on the other, a crisis which has extended in recent times to relations among the Near Eastern States themselves; for there is a curious microcosmic mirroring of the whole world in the Near East.
55. We also witness in the Near East a slow progress in the realization of plans for the economic development and social advancement of its peoples. This phenomenon is to a large extent also due to the preoccupation of Arab leaders with the designs and actions of a militant and aggressive power injected into their midst. It was the constant fear by the Arab States of further Israel acts of aggression and plans for territorial expansion that compelled the Arabs to deflect their resources to defensive matters and that sent the Arab States in search of arms where they could get them and regardless of the cost or the hazard. This armaments race has, of course, flung the doors of the Near East wide open to the so-called "cold war" and, I might add, to the real danger of a hot war.
56. Another important consequence of the Palestine tragedy is that it facilitated the introduction into the Arab world of doctrines and ideologies alien to its cultures and traditions, and anathema to its peoples who are renowned for their deep attachment to religion, which is their most treasured heritage. These alien doctrines and ideologies penetrate and spread rapidly in areas where tension and strife prevail. They thrive on misery, discontent, chaos, bitterness, despair and frustration. What more fertile ground could these doctrines find for their propagation than among the million Arab refugees, destitute, desperate and entirely vulnerable to any and all propaganda which dangles before their eyes the prospects of a better life and of an eventual redress of the wrongs they have suffered?
57. Since 1947, there has been a serious communist penetration in the Middle East. This penetration has not excluded my own country, Lebanon. Without the Palestine tragedy, this penetration would not have occurred so rapidly or so deeply. Some of us foresaw this development from the beginning and publicly warned the West about it. But the tremendous activism of the Communist Party itself, the thirst for an economic and social message throughout the region, and the many mistakes of the West itself in dealing with the Arab world during the past decade, these and other factors have also played an important role in the spread of communism in the Near East.
58. In the face of this exceedingly complex and dangerous situation, compounded as it is of profound disaffection on account of Palestine and of considerable communist infiltration, it is perfectly clear that three things at least are necessary; first, a new and far more determined quest for a just solution of the question of Palestine; secondly, a bold vision whereby the economic and social issues of the Near East are adequately faced; and, thirdly, a bold vision on the part of the West whereby the legitimate national aspirations for freedom and independence of the Arabs everywhere are satisfied.
59. The friendship of the Middle East will go in the future to those who develop a bold, adequate and just vision for the question of Palestine, who understand and can help in the tremendous social and economic revolution which is overtaking us there, who understand and can help the mighty upsurge of Arab nationalism to orient itself into constructive channels, and who can, by their ideas and example, inspire and win the minds and hearts of the rising generation.
60. It is doubtful whether any region of the world has more constantly and more critically engaged the attention of the United Nations since its foundation than the Middle East. At San Francisco I remember very well that the Middle East was present in the minds of us all in connexion with the elaboration of the provisions on trusteeship. The cause of this presence was primarily, of course, the then undecided future of Palestine. At London, the question of the withdrawal of foreign troops from Syria and Lebanon came up before the Security Council, and the first veto in the history of the United Nations was cast on that question by Mr. Vyshinsky. The year 1946 disclosed the conflict over the withdrawal of foreign troops from Iran. The years 1947 and 1948 were the years of Palestine and of the withdrawal of foreign troops from Egyptian territory. Then followed in quick succession Arab refugees, Libya, Tunisia, Morocco, Algeria, the Arab-Israel conflict, the Suez Canal, and, last year, the invasion of Egypt. This year we all feel the question of the Middle East once again hanging ominously over our head.
61. Is all this an accident? Why should the United Nations be so engrossed with the theme of the Middle East? There must be some underlying causes which explain this preoccupation. I shall very briefly indicate some of the more important of these ultimate phenomena which explain why every year so far we have been fastening upon the Middle East.
62. The first underlying phenomenon is the impact of the West. Ever since Napoleon's adventure in Egypt a century and a half ago, Western economic, social, political, educational and even philosophical ideas have been penetrating the Middle East. When foreign political domination finally supervened, a twofold reaction set in: the domination had to be shaken off and people began to dig deep in their own native soil for alternative ideas to those borrowed from the West. The result has been a marked enhancement of the nationalist sense. The presence of the West in the Middle East has been lately riddled by the dependence of European industry upon Middle Eastern oil. The Middle Eastern situation, then, is to be partly understood as a native reaction to Western influence.
63. There is also the recent impact of the Russian-Communist-Soviet world. All three components are important. For, even prior to communism, Russia made itself felt partly through its conflicts with the Ottoman empire, partly through its great literature, especially Tolstoy, partly through its missions and schools, partly through the Greek Orthodox Church. Communism brought in its own challenge to a region where economic, social and political conditions were very similar to those of ancient Russia and where the situation therefore was over-ripe for some revolutionary change. The Soviet impact is the demand that if somebody outside the region is to have a voice in or about the affairs of the region, then the Soviet Union is entitled to share in that voice. This threefold impact challenges and therefore transforms both the impact of the West and the native culture, and that is one reason why the Middle East has been so conspicuously before the United Nations all these years.
64. The rise of Israel is at the heart of everything. Until the Arab-Israel conflict is resolved on the basis of justice, the United Nations will not be unseized of the Middle East. And he who has no real answer for this issue, no vision of how justice may be established there, will only fumble and muddle through in the Middle East.
65. Arab nationalism is another ultimate phenomenon. This nationalism was there prior to Israel and would have developed without Israel, but Israel has helped to sharpen it considerably. The Arabs have a most glorious history, and this history haunts us all. There is a rapidly maturing self-consciousness among the Arabs that they are one people, that they must draw closer together, that they are entitled to the good life, the life of dignity and freedom, that they have a common destiny, and that just as they were something in the past so their possibilities are great in the future. And the more the masses awaken, the more they demand a share in this new, good Arab life. Thus, whatever form it takes, Arab nationalism carries with it an urge for social justice. And however we organize ourselves with respect to one another in the Arab world, one and all we refuse to be treated in any other way than as free, equal and independent in relation to the outside world. Without their consent, nay, without their free choice, no one can lord it, over the Arabs again.
66. Finally, there is the new sense of fellowship between the Asian and African peoples. The Middle East discovered, even prior to Bandung, that it belonged to a larger whole; Bandung helped only to put a final seal upon that discovery. Acting in concert with Asia and Africa, the Middle East has won many a victory in the United Nations, especially in North Africa. The sense of fellowship between the Asian and African peoples is therefore more than a mystical sense of kinship; it has achieved and bids fair to continue to achieve practical results.
67. To the question, then, why has the Middle East been so strangely before the United Nations all these years, the final answer is to be found in the complex response of the Middle East to the manifold challenge of the West, in the Russian-Communist-Soviet impact, in the challenge of Israel, in the rise of Arab nationalism, and in the new fellowship of Asia and Africa. We have been taking up the question of the Middle East in bits and pieces every year, and I have deemed it worth while, at least for the sake of those who crave for a deeper understanding, to take a few minutes of the time of the General Assembly in order to set forth the deeper causes. If we wish to reconstruct the whole, if we care for a synoptic view of things, if we are not afraid of the vision of the truth, then let us ponder tenderly, profoundly, courageously, wonderingly these five things.
68. Compared to past sessions, we witness this year an evident mood of ease and relaxation. But behind this relaxed mood lurk great danger and great uncertainty. Fundamental division, disagreement and distrust continue to stalk the earth. What will then save us? Only a due recognition of our own limitations, both personal and national; only the open mind that seeks the truth wherever it is; only some firm knowledge of what is right and what is good; only the patience that lives on hope and on faith; only the love that loves others as ourselves; only the active affirmation of the oneness of mankind; in short, only the return to the ultimate spiritual verities. And who will give us these things whereby division, disagreement and distrust will begin to thaw away among the children of men? I believe only the living God in His infinite compassion and grace.