Luxembourg, 1969

115. Madam President, it is a source of satisfaction to

me that the unanimous choice for the exalted office of

President has fallen upon you, whose smiling authority

merely emphasizes the great competence you have acquired

by long familiarity with this hall. My pleasure in greeting

you is all the greater because you are the eminent

representative of a young continent whose problems are

particularly close to my heart. I am convinced that your

appointment is a good omen and fraught with significance

today, the eve of the Second United Nations Development

Decade.

116. At the same time I should like to convey once again

to our Secretary-General, U Thant, an expression of the

confidence that my Government has always shown in him

for his tireless efforts to bring about a permanent understanding

among all peoples so as to eliminate the conflicts

that still threaten international peace and security. I

particularly wish to congratulate him on the report he has

submitted to our Assembly [A/7601 and Add.1], which is

the most complete and lucid analysis possible of the world

situation.

117. As we resume our work it is my duty to pay sincere

homage to the memory of President Arenales, who was

taken from us prematurely by his death a few months ago.

In guiding the Assembly’s debates last year this distinguished

man, now departed, showed objectivity, efficiency

and wisdom. Let us recall the prophetic words he uttered

before the closing of the twenty-third session, summing up

for the last time in a few meaningful phrases the lamentable

and congenital weakness of the United Nations:

“... the evils of this world cannot be cured simply by

negotiated resolutions, but only by the actions of

Governments” [1752nd meeting, para. 483].

118. We have only to analyse the events of the past year

from this point of view to see that we are certainly not

justified in displaying an optimistic attitude. The same

disputes may not have actually grown worse but still claim

the distraught attention of international public opinion.

Unfortunately their persistence has widened the rift separating

the opponents in current conflicts and made the

search for compromise solutions even more precarious. It

seems to us that not until the general atmosphere is

improved will peace and calm be restored to the regions of

the world where fighting is only too often preferred to a

direct, frank and honest dialogue.

119. In the Middle East, above all, the lack of success of

the attempts made so far to find a way out of the impasse

seems to us fraught with serious dangers for the future. All

the unwearying efforts there have been made both by the

Secretary-General’s Special Representative, Mr. Jarring, and

by the four great Powers still have not induced the parties

to comply with the body of directives contained in the

resolution [242 (1967)] adopted nearly two years ago by

the Security Council.

120. Allow me to express here the fear of a small nation

which has put all its trust in the United Nations. Resolutions

adopted in this forum should never at any cost remain

dead letters. If they are not respected by the parties, the

United Nations may lose its role of guarantor of the peace.

How can we understand and a fortiori explain or even

justify the conduct of countries which, while calling upon

the authority of the United Nations to ensure respect for

what they consider their legitimate rights and to put an end

to a dispute, deliberately refuse to implement and respect a

resolution adopted unanimously by the Security Council of

the United Nations?

121. Similarly, I cannot accept the idea that Member

countries of our Organization should after so many years

still stubbornly refuse to recognize a State that has been

admitted to full membership of our Organization by an

overwhelming majority. It is perfectly possible to disapprove

of a choice; but to go on indefinitely disputing a

historical fact seems to us unreasonable. In our opinion, to

dispute a majority decision of the United Nations is

equivalent to disputing the authority, not to say the value,

of the Organization to which we all belong; and this seems

to us even more regrettable.

122. In this instance the lost time clearly does not word in

favour of peace. To escape from the present vicious circle it

will in any case be necessary eventually to renounce for

good and all the acquisition of any territory by force and to

recognize in practical terms the political independence and

territorial integrity of all the established States in the

Middle East. Inflexibility met only with. intransigence

would inevitably entail suffering for those who live in that

part of the world.

123. Daily experience also shows us ever more clearly that

the repeated use of force, the progressive escalation of

violence and repeated declarations of intransigence only stir

up passions and emotions even further, strengthen the

position of extremists of every kind and.threaten to wrest

control of the situation from the responsible political

leaders.

124. It is my duty to condemn the terrorist activities

which are increasing in “third countries” not involved in

the conflict. How do the leaders of these movements dare

to hope that they will win over public opinion to their

cause by outrages and acts of piracy in countries which

have always argued for a peaceful settlement of the

dispute?

125. We fully endorse what the Secretary-General has said

on this subject in his annual report [A/7601, chap. I,

sect. D.1]. Not only should these acts of terrorism and

piracy — what else can I call them? — be formally condemned

by our Organization, but each Member country should

undertake to apply severe sanctions against the authors of

such crimes and, above all, should refuse to derive the

slightest advantage, either direct or indirect, from such acts

of piracy.

126. Who in this hall could still fail to recognize the scale

of the problems, particularly that of the Palestinian

refugees? In our view our efforts should not be aimed

solely at establishing a cease-fire, ensuring the recognition

of frontiers of reopening the Suez Canal, but should also

tackle the actual causes of the unrest and trouble. We

believe that we can attain this goal only by solving the

unavoidable problem of the Palestinian refugees; and to do

this it seems to us essential to establish direct communication

with their authorized and properly-qualified spokesmen.

127. Even if today the antagonisms are too greatly

exacerbated, even if there obviously seems no longer any

prospect of the dialogue so long desired between Israel and

the Arab States, even in the face of our Organization’s

inability to enforce respect for its resolution of 1967, we

still hope that the parties will rely upon the good offices of

the great Powers.

128. It seems to us that the four great Powers are in

absolute duty bound to persevere in the course which they

have sketched for themselves by tirelessly continuing their

efforts to bring about a rapprochement of the points of view

which still divide the opposing parties so deeply. They must

not impose a ready-made solution from outside, but must

none the less make moves that. will restore calm in that

troubled area. We fully endorse what the Belgian Minister

for Foreign Affairs said on this point [7765th meeting],

and we are bound to be gratified to note that on this

occasion the four great Powers, which enjoy special rights

in the United Nations, are also assuming special responsibilities.

We hope that through their mediation, even without

direct contacts—which we still hope for as keenly as ever—,

at least an indirect confrontation of the various parties will

begin.

129. For its own part the United Nations, whose observer

groups have often in the past fulfilled their delicate

missions with competence and dedication, could by its

presence again substantially help to bring back a state of

appeasement and thus eventually facilitate the establishment

of a just and lasting peace. Let the success of the

practical measures taken to restore peace in Cyprus be an

example to us in the future. To give the peace-making

machinery — now maintained by voluntary contributions — a

solid institutional and financial basis, and to make of it an

effective and undisputed instrument immune from last-minute

improvisations, seems to me one of our most important goals.

130. With the same anxiety as they feel for the Middle

East, the peoples of the whole world impatiently await the

end of the bloody battles which continue to ravage

Viet-Nam. Public opinion has followed with close attention

the negotiations which were finally started last year in Paris

and which then seemed to express a true and sincere desire

to end the war as quickly as possible. The continuation of

the conflict is an imminent danger to world peace, not to

speak of the terrible loss of human life, goods and resources

that it entails. It is impossible to hide a feeling of regret and

disappointment when faced with the fact. that so far these

talks do not seem to have led to any real progress. It

therefore remains to be hoped that the positive gestures

that have been made repeatedly by the United States

Government will meet with a real response, and that both

sides will agree to give the people of Viet-Nam complete

freedom to decide their own fate, safe from intimidation

and from threats of overt or covert intervention from abroad.

131. For my part, I regret that the recent efforts of the

Government of the United States have not been appreciated

equally at their true worth by all Member States and that,

on the contrary, certain States have responded to them

only by casting doubt on their intentions. It is no good

claiming that these efforts are in fact only concessions

distilled drop by drop, gestures of appeasement and

understanding meted out too sparingly. We think that, on

the contrary, each and every one of us should express the

wish that small steps or gestures on one side might be met

by an equal number of moves on the other, thus making

possible a gradual advance towards a comprehensive and

final solution.

132. Although it is not for our Organization to deal with a

crisis which under the terms of the Charter is exclusively

within the jurisdiction of one Member State, we cannot

refrain indefinitely from expressing our concern at the

progress of the civil war which has been raging for more

than two years in Nigeria. True, the Nigerian war is an

African war, and the duty to end it is therefore in the first

instance our African friends’. But, to judge by the latest

events in that part of the world, our hope of a settlement of

this fratricidal confrontation within the African continent

is receding into the remote future and we recall mankind’s

darkest hours.

133. Last year from the same rostrum Mr. Debré, speaking

for France, laid particular stress on the right of peoples to

self-determination. He asked our African friends what they

themselves intended to do in regard to the principle of

self-determination, and reminded them of what Europeans

had learnt from long and painful experience. He said:

“Intolerance can exist among brothers too” [1683rd

meeting, para. 79]. I invite this Assembly to consider — now

that one of the fundamental principles of our Charter is at

stake, not that a settlement seems unlikely save by violence

and the inaction and silence of the nations make us mere

anguished spectators of the appalling slaughter of a whole

people — whether the United Nations is not in duty bound,

if it is not to fail in its mission, to take up the problem,

remove it from its present setting and impose a solution

that will be just for all?

134. Addressing myself more particularly to the African

States, I would ask them whether, in the presence of this

situation and in the absence of a quick solution, and aware

of our responsibilities, they do not consider that they

should lay this problem before the Assembly themselves.

135. As we seek to establish harmony and understanding

among all the members of the international community,

with the aim of bringing about lasting peace and justice to

the world, efforts to promote disarmament are rightly

among our major concerns. Last year the signing by an

impressive number of countries of the Treaty on the

Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons [resolution

2373 (XXII)], although it was a preventive step rather than

a step towards disarmament proper, nevertheless helped to

create a more confident atmosphere among the great

Powers. That Treaty has opened up new opportunities of

ending the atomic arms race. By making clear that they

intend to take effective measures leading to real nuclear

disarmament, the Powers that have the privilege of possessing

atomic weapons can give an adequate answer to the

critics who are still rising up on various sides to oppose

acceptance without reservation of the non-proliferation

Treaty. Such an agreement must, in order to be effective,

become universal as quickly as possible; and we are bound

to.make a rousing and urgent appeal to all Powers to sign

the Treaty.

136. A détente prepared in that way will, in our opinion,

enable the current talks on disarmament to continue with

greater chances of success. The Conference of the Committee

on Disarmament, meeting at Geneva, will then be

better equipped when it comes to answer the appeal

addressed to it by the Assembly at its twenty-third session —

“to make renewed efforts towards achieving substantial

progress in reaching agreement on the question of general

and complete disarmament under effective international

control” [resolution 2454 B (XXIII)].

It will be possible to count on real progress in the various

fields now being studied.

137. Disarmament is not, however, aimed solely at restoring

mutual understanding among countries which have

hitherto been divided into opposing blocs. It should also

release the vast resources now devoted to military activities

and enable them to do good, especially to all the developing

countries.

138. In a world in which the sole guarantee of peace is

often only a precarious and fragile balance of power, we are

bound to give our full support to the proposal that has been

made to us for a conference on European security. We

think, however, that careful preparation is necessary in

order to ensure at least a minimal chance of success; failure

due to lack of preparation would only widen the rift

between East and West. We remain convinced that such an

undertaking, if well prepared, has every chance of leading

to a détente and, in addition, of laying the foundations of

fruitful collaboration. This conference should not be

approached with the premeditated intent of consolidating

the status quo, of further strengthening the yoke in which

the two blocs confine themselves. We think of it as a release

of power that will lead to the solution of painful and

therefore tension-generating problems such as the division

of Germany. I have said that, besides a détente, we must

seek co-operation between the two camps. The participation

of the new States and a closely knit fabric of economic

and cultural relations should restore the unity of our old

continent, obliterate ideological differences, and replace the

evil policy of selfish and protectionist blocs.

139. For about twenty years the world economy has

known a period of unprecedented growth, and never before

this has the process affected so many countries at the same

time. Above all, since the considerable growth in the

number of Members of our Organization, the close interdependence

between industrialized and less-favoured countries

has stood out more clearly than ever. We are becoming

increasingly aware that the world cannot find balance and

calm and overcome the dangers that threaten it while it is

divided into an affluent minority and a majority of

countries lacking adequate resources.

140. We have within this Organization the experience

gained during the first decade devoted to technical assistance

and pre-investment programmes. We have been preparing

ourselves for some time to put the finishing touches

to the strategy that must be followed in the next ten years,

to give a real meaning to world solidarity, and to translate

into reality our acknowledged collective responsibility

towards the least-privileged peoples.

141. One certainty seems clear enough at the outset. It is

that the material resources made available hitherto are far

short of the vast estimated needs. The gap between the rich

and the poor countries is growing. Should we not ask

ourselves from now on whether the method of pooling our

resources that has always been used in the past is still

adequate to the needs of the future? Can simple voluntary

contributions, not based on real contributive capacity, still

give the expected result?

142. Moreover, our efforts unquestionably lack sufficient

co-ordination and are not integrated into an over-all

rational scheme. Numerous funds and international

bodies — and I am not thinking only of those directly

responsible to the United Nations — have undertaken the

noble task of promoting economic progress; and many

countries give constant bilateral co-operation. All too often,

however, these efforts are fragmentary and isolated. Even if

they do not actually cancel each other out, those of each

giver are unknown to the others; sometimes they overlap

instead of supporting one another. It is therefore necessary

to try to establish a basic co-ordination that will produce

continuous and well-balanced growth.

143. Moreover, this growth should always be aimed at a

realistic and clearly defined target, so as to avoid expressions

of vague hope lacking any real base or content. To

pursue vain fancies would only arouse false hopes which in

the end would be cruelly disappointing. To be content with

past achievements would not meet the urgent needs that we

now know. Mere retrospection is useful only as a source of

lessons for the future.

144. I would not venture to say that what has been done

so far in the First United Nations Development Decade

boils down to. an admission of insolvency. But we are

forced to recognize that praiseworthy intentions are being

expressed in words rather than deeds. We shall not hesitate

to criticize ourselves first, for no industrialized country is

immune from criticism. We are prepared to join other

countries that are our friends in reconsidering the forms of

assistance we give. It seems to me that we must move

towards a new kind of aid, and abandon the old concept of

bilateral aid for a communal strategy. We are proud,

incidentally, of the good results of the aid programme

launched within the European Economic Community. Here

a group of highly-developed States is giving technical and

financial assistance to another, less affluent group. This

undeniably successful experiment deserves to be extended

in such a way as to give an ever-increasing number of

deprived countries a share in world economic progress.

145. It is true that certain counties have regarded our

assistance somewhat askance, considering that the Community’s

effort might shut the third world into a watertight

compartment or even divide the world into certain geographic

zones of influence. Happily events have proved that

this reproach is undeserved, since the number of countries

receiving our assistance has continued to increase. The

recent negotiations leading to the renewal of the Yaoundé

Convention have shown that the member countries of

the European Economic Community were anxious not to

place any obstacle in the way of an effort towards

generalized world aid. We are ready to co-operate with all

countries in this field, whatever their political or economic

systems, and with all international bodies that desire to end

this great scourge of the twentieth century — under-development.

146. Moreover, in this connexion we should ask ourselves

whether the 1 per cent formula for the developed countries’

contribution to the developing countries’ rise in living level

should be regarded as a limit or a minimum. For my part I

am inclined towards the latter view; for there is a great

danger that the countries whose rate of economic growth is

among the highest in the world may shelter behind that

formula and refuse any aid beyond it.

147. Our Organization has placed great hopes in the

system of generalized preferences. We too endorse this

system but do not think that it will produce all the results

expected. It seems to us much more urgent to do

everything possible to speed the conclusion of world

arrangements, product by product, so as to guarantee a

stable income to the developing countries that export raw

materials.

148. The unprecedented exploit achieved this summer by

the United States astronauts when they set foot on the

moon shows us both what man is capable of when he

directs his efforts with determination towards a specific

goal, and also that there is very little in which we cannot

succeed if we really have the political will to place all the

human and material resources of our time at the service of

an idea, or even an ideal.

149. Already our Governments are considering how we

should celebrate next year the twenty-fifth anniversary of

the signing of the Charter at San Francisco. Rather than

confine ourselves to declarations of intent whose results too

often remain platonic, let us resolutely envisage positive

action directed towards the restoration of peace where it is

still not ensured, the implementation of human rights

wherever they are still flouted, and a redoubling of efforts

to bring about development in a spirit of universal solidarity.

150. And yet, now that the United Nations is preparing to

commemorate its twenty-fifth anniversary and we are

wondering what would be the most suitable way of

celebrating that anniversary, I think above all of the

post-war generation, of the same age as the United Nations,

whose keynote is challenge and participation and whose

members, judging us, are wondering anxiously whether we

shall succeed in guaranteeing world peace during the last

quarter of this century. Would it not be appropriate — and I

think it would — for us to take advantage of this anniversary

to examine ourselves, to do as they are doing; and, looking

at our record, ask ourselves in the light of our experience,

our failures and our successes whether everything should

remain fixed in an unchanging mould; whether this Organization,

born of the chaos and marked by the scars of the

Second World War, and certainly revolutionary in its day,

remains, with its original structure and procedures, best

fitted to prepare for the year 2000 or whether, to prove

ourselves worthy of the founders of 1945 and of their ideal,

we should not strive to do more to adapt ourselves to new

conditions at the dawn of the third millennium of our era?