Others followed in that way. There was the Brussels Pact of 1948,1 the North Atlantic Treaty of 1949,2 and the Manila Pact of 1954.3 Now there are the London and Paris Accords of 1954, which bring about the beginning of Western European Union, a union long dreamed of by men of vision and good will but which, until now, has eluded human grasp. Every one of these collective security arrangements embodies the basic principle of the United Nations Charter, a principle which in turn derives from the teachings of all the great religions, that people have the right and the duty to help each other. Every one of these arrangements also gives added security even to the nonparticipants. There is less armament, because multiplication of armament is avoided when the force that protects one is equally at the service of many. Also, the military power and facilities of a coalition tend to become distributed and not within the control of any single nation. In international affairs, as in domestic affairs, the sharing of power is the best safeguard against abuse. Power which is shared among a group of independent, sovereign nations cannot be used effectively unless the participating countries are in accord. Such accord would be totally unattainable except for collective self-defense. Because collective security responds to the needs and highest aspirations of mankind, it has been invoked by many nations. The United States, which in 1914 and again in 1939 sought safety in neutrality, has now learned by that hard experience that security lies in collective action. We believe that the power which we possess ought to be made available for the protection of others, just as we desire the help of others for our own defense. So the United States is today a party to mutual security treaties which bind us collectively with the defense of no less than 44 countries. We are proud to have these multiple ties of trust and confidence. These systems conform to the charter of the United Nations. They carry into effect the charter ideal of fellowship. They operate under the principles of the charter, and they are subject to the influence of this organization. They have attacked no nation; they have threatened no nation; and they thwart no nation that does not covet the land and peoples over which collective security stands guard. 6 7 8 Out of the evolutionary process I describe, much good has come. Speakers who preceded me have referred to encouraging international developments, particularly some of recent months. Wars have been ended in Korea and Indochina; the Austrian State Treaty has been signed; relations between the Soviet Union and Yugoslavia have 1 Infra, pp. 968-971. 2 Infra, pp. 812-815. 3 Infra, pp. 912-916. Infra, pp. 972-989, 1474-1491, 1492-1493. 5 In addition to the treaties cited supra by Secretary Dulles, the United States had concluded security treaties with Australia and New Zealand, China, Japan, Korea, and the Philippines; see infra, pp. 878-880, 945-949, 885-886, 897-898, and 873-875. See the armistice agreement of July 27, 1953; infra, pp. 724-750. improved; the Soviet Union seeks diplomatic and trade relations with the German Federal Republic; and peace talks have begun between the Soviet Union and Japan. These are indeed significant developments. But in our rejoicing, let us not forget why they have occurred or the sequence of events that have brought us where we are. If we forget that, we will have lost the key to a future of peace and prosperity. What has happened is because certain nations backed steadfastly the principles of the United Nations and backed them with a resolve that, if need be, carried with it blood and treasure. Today there is no longer fighting in Korea. But why? The reason is that 16 members responded to the call of the United Nations and fought the aggressor who had struck from the Communist north and almost immediately overran South Korea. After 3 years of bitter fighting, the aggressors were back at, or behind, their point of beginning. The aggression had failed. Then, and only then, did the aggressor accept an armistice and end the killing. It is indeed strange to hear this triumph of collective security now hailed as proof of the peaceloving character of the aggressor and its supporters. If they had had their way, we would today be commemorating the fifth anniversary of the demise of the United Nations. Today there is an armistice in Indochina. It was negotiated a year ago at Geneva. But shortly prior to the Geneva meeting, several members of the United Nations made clear that continuance of the fighting would carry a threat to all of Southeast Asia and require consideration of collective defense within the framework of the United Nations Charter.1 Today there is an Austrian treaty. It is a treaty which could, and should, have been signed years ago. For nearly a decade Austria was deprived of its freedom and its economy was exploited by one of the occupying powers. During this period of travail Austria's courage was sustained by the moral and material succor of friendly powers and by the backing of its hopes by the United Nations. In the long run, that combination prevailed to win a victory for justice. Today Yugoslavia is no longer the target of abuse. An orchestrated threat began in 1948, when Yugoslavia asserted its national independence and broke away from an alien yoke. During the next 7 years Yugoslavia was helped militarily and economically by nations which differed from its Government in almost every respect except for one, namely, the right of Yugoslavia to be a truly independent, sovereign nation. Today the Soviet Union seeks diplomatic and economic relations with the German Federal Republic. That development comes after many years of hostility, during which the Federal Republic was given security and economic support by those who believe in the right of the Germans to have an independent existence under a government of their own choosing. Today there is a possibility of peace between the Soviet Union and Japan. Four years ago, in this same room, 49 nations signed the See infra, pp. 1704-1705 and 2381. Japanese Peace Treaty, a treaty of reconciliation. I recall how, from this very platform, that peace was bitterly assailed and rejected by some. But now, as a result of the treaty of San Francisco, Japan has resumed a place of honor and dignity in the community of nations, so that some nations now seek peaceful relations which 4 years ago they spurned. Throughout all of these events, there runs a common theme, the theme of fellowship. Those who believed in the principles of our charter have helped each other, and in so doing they have helped themselves. Some say that what has happened marks the beginning of an era. I believe that that can be. Certainly the United States, I pledge you, will do all that lies within its power to make it so. But we do not forget, we dare not forget, that some of those who now hail the recent developments are precisely those who sought for years to stop them. It is not unprecedented to see men make a virtue of necessity. Today the necessity for virtue has been created by a stalwart thwarting of efforts to subvert our charter. If we want to see that virtue continue, I suggest that it may be prudent to continue what has produced it. Steadfastness to principle and sacrifice for principle are the proven price of the good that we have won. It would be reckless to expect further good at any lesser price. To achieve peace with justice, peace with sovereignty for nations great and small, peace with respect for human beings without regard to class, will require sustaining the effort, the sacrifice, the solidarity which has brought us where we are today. Much has been accomplished, but more, much more, remains. There exists the problem of German unification. For 10 years part of Germany has been severed from the rest. That unnatural division of a great people constitutes a grave injustice. It is an evil which cannot be indefinitely prolonged without breeding more evil to plague the world. In Eastern Europe are nations, many with a long and proud record of national existence, which are in servitude. They were liberated from one despotism only to be subjected to another, in violation of solemn international undertakings. In Asia there is a Chinese Communist regime which became an aggressor in Korea, for which it stands condemned by the United Nations. It promoted aggression in Indochina and has used force and the threat of force to support its ambitions in the Taiwan area. Recent developments, including the influence of the Bandung conference, suggest that the immediate threat of war may have receded. 5 1 Infra, pp. 425-440. 2 See infra, pp. 2608-2609. See infra, pp. 2370-2371. 4 See infra, pp. 2481-2510. The Afro-Asian conference held at Bandung, Indonesia, Apr. 18-24, 1955; for the Final Communiqué of the conference, see infra, pp. 2344-2352. Let us pray that this is so. But the situation in Asia remains one that cannot be regarded with equanimity. Also, we cannot forget the existence of that apparatus known as international communism. It constitutes a worldwide conspiracy to bring into power a form of government which never in any country, at any time, was freely chosen by the people and which destroys the reality of independence. At Caracas last year the Organization of American States found that the activities of international communism constituted alien intervention in the internal affairs of nations and were a threat to international peace and security. This threat should end. Finally, there is the urgent problem of limiting the crushing burden of armaments. For many years the United States and its friends have sought to find ways to carry out the mandate of the charter to reduce the diversion for armaments of the world's human and economic resources. Nearly a decade ago the United States made a proposal to internationalize atomic energy. This, if accepted, would have prevented the present competitive production of these weapons of awesome destructive power. 2 This unprecedented proposal was made at a time when the United States was sole possessor of this weapon. It was rejected. This proposal was subsequently followed up by new proposals for the control and regulation of armaments and the establishment of an international organ to supervise an honest disarmament program. These proposals too were spurned. But the Soviet Union recently indicated that it might be prepared seriously to consider the initiative which had been taken months before by other members of the United Nations Disarmament Subcommittee. Let us hope that these indications can be translated into concrete action making possible limitations of armament which are in fact dependable and not a fraud. These are some of the problems that confront us as we face the future. They are problems which cannot be met if we shut our eyes to them, or if we are weak, confused, or divided. They are problems that can be met if we are faithful to the principles of our charter, if we work collectively to achieve their application, and if we are prepared to labor and sacrifice for the future as we have in the past. The United States asks no nation to do what it is not prepared to do itself. Any nation that bases its actions and attitudes in international affairs on the principles of the charter will receive the wholehearted cooperation of the United States. Admittedly the problems we face are not easy to solve, and they will not be quickly solved. There is room for many honest differences of opinion. But the existence of hard, unsolved problems need not itself be a source of danger and hostility if the nations will bring to the common task the spirit of our charter. 1 Res. XCIII of Mar. 28, 1954; infra, pp. 1300-1302. See Bernard Baruch's statement of June 14, 1946; A Decade of American Foreign Policy, pp. 1079–1087. See the proposals submitted May 10, 1955, by the Soviet representative on the Subcommittee of the U.N. Disarmament Commission; the Department of State Bulletin, May 30, 1955, pp. 900-905. There is one extremely simple method of bringing an end to what is called the "cold war"-observe the charter of the United Nations; refrain from the use of force or the threat of force in international relations and from the support and direction of subversion against the institutions of other countries. To bring the cold war to an end, seven points are not needed; 1 this one is sufficient. 1 It is in that spirit that we go to Geneva, and we hope to find that spirit shared. If so, we can find there new procedures, or at least develop a new impetus, which will help to solve some of these vast and stubborn problems that still confront us. We shall not, at Geneva, assume to act as a world directorate with the right to determine the destinies of others. Good solutions do not come from such a mood. We shall seek to find procedures such that all nations directly concerned can fully assert whatever rights and views they have. In other words, we shall try to carry into the Geneva conference the spirit which has been generated by this commemorative gathering of 60 nations. The sentiments which have been here expressed can inspire new strength, new determination, and a new spirit of fidelity to the principles of the United Nations founders. In conclusion, I can do no better than to cite the pledge made here last Monday by the President of the United States: "We, with the rest of the world, know that a nation's vision of peace cannot be attained through any race in armaments. The munitions of peace are justice, honesty, mutual understanding, and respect for others. "So believing and so motivated, the United States will leave no stone unturned to work for peace. We shall reject no method, however novel, that holds out any hope, however faint, for a just and lasting peace." " 2 Entering the Second Decade 65. ADDRESS BY THE SECRETARY OF STATE BEFORE THE GENERAL ASSEMBLY, SEPTEMBER 22, 19553 It is always a pleasure for me to return to this great Assemblythis center for harmonizing the actions of nations. My pleasure today is especial. Not only will this session round out a decade of United Nations effort, but there are welcome signs that the second decade may in fact be more harmonious than was the first. Surely it is in our power to make it so. 1 For the "seven points," see Vyacheslav M. Molotov's address of June 22, 1955; New York Times, June 23, 1955. 2 Address of June 20, 1955; supra. Department of State Bulletin, Oct. 3, 1955, pp. 523–529. |