Foreign Relations of the United States, 1946, Paris Peace Conference: Proceedings, Volume III

CFM Files

Verbatim Record

August 3, 1946, 4 p.m.

C.P.(Plen) 6

President: M. Bidault

The President: I call on Sir Samuel Runganadhan, First Delegate of India.

Sir Samuel Runganadhan (India):

Mr. President: I wish, first of all, to thank you and the Government of the French Republic for the welcome which you have given to us all. There is no doubt that the setting of an international conference has a great effect upon its progress. We have been able to see from the first how well the French Government has used its unrivalled experience in the art of staging an international gathering and its unrivalled gift for hospitality.

I have had experience of this recently, as I came as a delegate to the International Labour Conference, which was held in Paris in October, 1945 at the invitation of the French Government, and I know how, in spite of incredible difficulties, the French Government made the most excellent arrangements for the Conference and extended the most lavish hospitality to its members.

I have listened with great interest to the speeches of the heads of Delegations which have already been delivered before the Conference. We have already heard the clear expression of the principles which underlie the summoning of the Conference and of the ideals and hopes which animate many of the participants in it. The procedure for drafting the treaties already adopted has been attacked and defended, and the views of some Delegations are now known on many of the specific points which will arise. Though there will be important differences of opinion which may be unresolved, and much argument by the way, it is apparent that all Delegations have come to the Conference with the same fundamental determination to shake off the legacy of six terrible years of war and to create the conditions which are most favourable to the maintenance of an enduring peace. This is only the first instalment of peace making. We all have in our minds that we have yet to come to final settlement in regard to Germany, Austria and Japan. Though the time for discussions of these principles has not yet arrived, the way in which this Conference proceeds and the matter of its decisions will have a profound effect on the final and complex processes of liquidation of the Second World War.

It seems to me that the task of the Conference is clear and specific. It has to determine what just compensation shall be paid to those countries and persons who have suffered loss, what territorial changes are required, and what precautions are necessary to prevent a renewal of aggression. We cannot lose sight of the plain fact that the former Governments of the people with whom we are concluding treaties were our enemies and wantonly attacked us, causing us great suffering and great loss. But we must take into account the services rendered to the Allies during the later stages of the war by the people of these countries who threw off the yoke of the rulers who had led them into aggression.

The people of India are not vindictive, and provided that just compensation is made for losses suffered, do not desire to make demands which would prevent impoverished countries from making reasonable economic recovery, and from thereby contributing indirectly to the prosperity of every nation. For the economic condition of every country is interdependent, and poverty or economic dislocation in any one country reacts adversely upon us all. Every sensible man is thinking of this Conference in terms of the future. Though the immediate task is to liquidate the events of the past seven years, the Conference can help materially towards what must be our ultimate goal, namely the co-operation of every country without exception in the paramount task of jointly ensuring the peace of the world.

India does not expect this Conference, with its limited objectives, to produce a blue-print for post-war Europe, nor to compensate the Allied Nations for all the wrongs which they have suffered during the years of war. We, the members of the Indian Delegation, have come to it in a spirit of realistic co-operation, looking directly towards the practical end to be achieved, namely the speedy construction of treaties that will represent the maximum area of agreement among the twenty-one nations deliberating here on an equal footing. Like many of the seventeen nations outside the big four, we cannot entirely approve the methods adopted in drafting the treaties, but such criticisms will largely lose their validity if real weight is given in this Conference, and after its conclusion, to the opinions of the seventeen nations other than the big four. We are as anxious as any Delegation that the expressions of the equality of the twenty-one nations in the making of the treaties which we have heard in this hall should be given practical effect. If this is the policy of all the four great Powers, the other seventeen nations, all of which fought by the side of these Powers to defeat the common enemy, will feel that they have been called to this Conference with the sincere intention that, as Mr. Byrnes, the distinguished representative of the United States of America, has said, those who fought the war should make the peace.

On this principle, India has a very special claim to participate in this Conference. Her armed forces, which before the end of the war amounted to nearly two-and-a-half million men, fought from the first to the last shot in the war in the Mediterranean, by the side of the forces of her Allies. In the early years of supreme difficulty and danger, the Indian Army guarded the frontier of Egypt, it fought desperately in the delaying actions in Greece, and it took a substantial part in the overwhelming defeat of vastly superior enemy forces in Libya and the Italian territories in Africa and in Abyssinia. When the tide began to turn, the Indian Army was in the forefront of the attack from El Alamein, through the campaigns of Libya, Tunisia, Sicily and Italy up to Venice, at a time when India was already fully engaged in the defence of its homeland against the invasion of the Japanese forces.

We are proud of our record in the war and we are fully determined to be as active in the cause of peace as in the cause of victory.

It is natural that each country should consider the treaties from two aspects, for we are all equally interested in securing the general peace, and in each treaty there are many aspects which will affect the whole world, irrespective of geography. Those of us, however, who have special ties with the regions affected must also consider with particular care the regional aspects of the treaties. India has had age-long ties, both economic and cultural, with the East African coast. She is vitally interested in the stability of the Mediterranean and Red Sea area and in the disposition of the Italian Colonies. The lives of many of her citizens have been lost on the soil of Africa in this war. The feeling of the people of India is strongly against the continuance of any form of colonial exploitation, and it would be a bitter blow to them if the arrangements made for the disposition of the territories formerly under Italian rule were not such as they believed to be in accord with justice and human rights, and with the mutual interests of all countries in the region and the countries having close ties with it. India expects that the decision will reflect the real wishes of the people living in these territories, and the commissions to be set up to ascertain those wishes must undertake their task with thoroughness and complete impartiality. Real stability and real prosperity can only be assured in North and East Africa by the establishment of a system which will lead to the earliest possible grant of self-government to these peoples and to the development of their resources for their own defence and their own well-being. Though the means for the establishment of the conditions of peace in each separate area must be considered in relation to the situation of that area, India can never lose sight of the fact that under modern conditions both peace and war are indivisible. Our main object must be to work for a global peace and for the maintenance of the world in equilibrium.

India has, and will always have, a strongly internationalist outlook. Her population and resources, her great size and her strategic position at the crossroads of Asia will always impose upon her a great responsibility for the maintenance of peace. That responsibility she will discharge actively and sincerely, in the interests of the peace of the world. I have myself no doubt that the Conference will achieve success in spite of the many complex and controversial subjects with which it has to deal. The world, which is listening to every word spoken in Conference and Commission, expects much of us. May we justify the trust placed in us by all classes of all peoples, and lay the foundations of a lasting peace.

M. C. Tsaldaris (Greece)—Interpretation—I am happy to be able to convey to the eminent representatives of the twenty-one nations that have been invited to take part in the work of this conference, the cordial greetings of the Government and of the people of Greece.

The holding of this assembly in Paris gives us particular grounds for confidence and hope. In this, the capital of a great and noble country, whose friendship has become for Greece a genuine tradition, we have all learned to find the home of every generous ideal, and I have no doubt that this influence will make itself felt in the conduct of our work.

Shaken to her foundations by the terrible tempest which struck the world, Greece is fully aware of the advantages to be gained by a speedy re-establishment of peace. Her economic restoration depends on it to a very great extent. Similarly, a return to normal conditions in the social, political and moral order is possible only within the framework of a general pacification. I can, therefore, give you here the assurance that Greece will lend her fullest support to ensure the success of this conference and will consider it a particular honour to contribute to this end to the limit of her powers.

At the meetings of the committees to which the various sections of the Peace Treaties have been referred, the Greek Delegation will formulate its observations in a constructive spirit, in the hope that it will, while defending its own national interests, be able to contribute at the same time the re-establishment of an equitable and, for that very reason, lasting peace.

I will, therefore, restrict myself today to describing in outline the general position of my country in relation to the different problems raised by the draft treaties submitted for our examination.

A general review of these extraordinarily complex problems is necessary not only for the sake of clarity and logic, but also and above all because of the interdependence of the questions with which we shall have to deal and because of our legitimate concern to assure to our countries respect for their vital interests.

Before the problem of Bulgaria and Italy, there is for us the problem of Greece. It is to this that, before entering upon the examination of the draft treaties, we consider it our duty to draw your attention.

During the conflict just ended, Greece is conscious of having done her duty to the full. Without hesitating, she repulsed with indignation the Italian and Albanian aggressors, even though the invasion was launched at a time when the military situation appeared to justify the hopes of the Axis. Six months later, after a grim struggle against an infinitely more powerful enemy, she just as unflinchingly opposed the Germans and the Bulgars who had come to join the Italians and Albanians. The struggle seemed hopeless; yet, true to the dictates of honour, we accepted it in the hope that we were contributing to the final triumph of the cause of the United Nations. May I be allowed to recall here the magnificent feats of arms of the valiant British, Australian, New Zealand and Indian forces who shed their blood at our side. The memory of these brave men will for ever be engraved in the hearts of the Greek people.

You now know, after all that has since come to light, how much our resistance contributed to the issue of the great battles in Russia and the Near East, which at that time were deciding the destinies of the world. And, when military operations proper came to an end, we continued the struggle in the occupied towns and in the free mountains, thus exposing our people to the most hideous reprisals by the enemy and to unavoidable internal repercussions which this struggle inevitably entailed.

By offering up our country, however, as a sacrifice to the success of the cause of the United Nations, we accepted in advance one of the most appalling catastrophes which have befallen the Greek nation in the course of its history. Nowhere else did the results of military operations and of enemy occupation affect in so large a measure a country’s existence. Our economy, already deficient before the war because of its peculiar structure, the country’s demographic situation and the effects of four previous wars within one generation, did not possess material reserves to enable it to meet this new conflict. Seven months’ desperate struggle against enemy aggression ended by totally exhausting it. Thus, contrary to what happened to other more fortunate countries, the occupation and the drainage of national resources were imposed upon a country already bled white by the cumulative effect of these circumstances peculiar to Greece. But the evil did not end there. Greece was in fact the only occupied country whose sad distinction it was to be exploited by the occupying powers without regard to any economic principle. She was not considered worthy of rational exploitation. She was not only looted of the product of her labour; she was above all ruined in her resources, and no attempt was made to maintain her productive capacity. A variety of reasons explains this attitude on the part of the enemy: the poverty of the economic equipment of the country, her geographic position and the maintenance of large forces of occupation, guerrilla resistance and the fact, finally, of having been the last country to be occupied in its entirety, at a time when the lack of technical personnel was already making itself felt on the enemy. To all this, were added the effects of an occupation by four enemies which economically dislocated the country by depriving it for four years of its markets and sources of internal supply.

Thus, without any regard for the maintenance of Greece’s economic life, the conquerors adopted a programme of unbounded inflation as a means of spoliation. While, between the years 1939 and 1944, the monetary circulation in Belgium, France, Denmark, Czechoslovakia and other occupied countries, reached double or treble the pre-war level, Greece during this same period witnessed an increase 360 times its pre-war standard.

Greece is one of the countries which sustained the greatest losses in relation to their national revenue. The loss in human life, amounting to 558,000 dead out of 7 million inhabitants, is also one of the greatest suffered by any member of the United Nations. The younger generation was decimated, and the very existence of the Greek Nation was threatened. The Greek nation would have perished but for the assistance we received from our allies and friends and particularly from Canada, which was made possible thanks to the relaxation of the blockade regulations in favour of Greece.

After having gone through these frightful sacrifices and trials, few of you could reproach us for allowing ourselves to be influenced by feelings of bitterness. Having witnessed in the course of our recent history the weakness inherent in extremist solutions as well as the dreadful turns of fortune for those guilty of having asked for too much and of having obtained too much, we reject this transient glory. We would not be true representatives of the Greek nation here, if we had not drawn inspiration from the eternal wisdom which the Athenians claimed to be theirs, when, through their ambassadors, they informed Sparta that they were ready “to show themselves more generous than the forces they had at their disposal permitted them to be”.

Our claim will consequently not be formulated in a spirit of harshness or revengefulness. What we ask of you is dictated solely by a sense of justice, which we could not ignore without belying the principles for which we have all fought and without compromising the fundamental interests of our countries.

It is solely on these grounds that Greece submits the following demands:

Reparation of the material damage inflicted upon the country by her invaders. An eternal principle of Law is here involved. But it is also unfortunately certain that, after having had her economy totally destroyed, Greece cannot for the present undertake by her own efforts the rehabilitation of her productive capacity. The help so generously provided by the United Nations through U.N.R.R.A., substantial though it has been, unfortunately represents only temporary emergency aid. It has given life and hope to millions of human beings, and as such it has been gratefully welcomed by all our people. But it affects only to a very small degree the programme of economic reconstruction that will allow us to restore by our own efforts the economic stability of our country. It would be entirely inadmissible for Greece to be left at the end of this war, crippled and ruined, with her productive powers completely dislocated and dependent upon the support of her allies, while former enemies, such as Bulgaria or Italy, retain in great measure their industrial, agricultural and maritime equipment, thanks to which they are re-establishing their economic systems.

Greece asks that the terms of the Peace Treaties should impose jointly upon these two countries, as well as upon Germany, the obligation to help, by contributions of capital and services and other economic facilities, in the restoration of Greece to her pre-war status.

Greece also asks that her territorial security be assured in the future by the incorporation in her territory of Northern Epirus and by a rectification of her frontier with Bulgaria. After the three consecutive aggressions that she has suffered in one generation, she feels justified in claiming these territorial guarantees. They are essential if her people’s feeling of insecurity prompted by the painful memories of the last thirty years, is to be allayed, and if she is to resume her peace-time occupations, confident that she will not be exposed anew to a sudden move by her neighbours. It will not be difficult, I believe, to convince the delegates of the countries represented here, most of which have similar problems to face with regard to Germany and Italy, that our people are living today and will for long continue to live in terror of a new aggression from the northwest and northeast. An odious past for which we certainly are not responsible, will, by the force of circumstances, cast its shadow over the future for many years to come. Germany for the moment does not count; Mussolini’s Empire no longer exists. But, who can foretell today the obscure reactions of the masses in countries which have cherished the illusion of unrestricted power too long to be able to abandon it permanently?

Is it not out of this same concern for security that territorial changes much more far reaching than those claimed by Greece have been accepted in other parts of the Continent? The organisation of collective security, on which just as in 1919, we place our greatest hopes, did not prevent the successive aggressions which we have experienced since 1933, and which brought about the blotting out of entire populations within the space of a few hours.

The progress made by military science, on the other hand, affecting the relative preponderance of defence over attack and vice-versa, has, unfortunately, not yet added to our means of defence a more effective guarantee than that provided by the nature of the terrain. The leaders of many European countries have, since the end of the war, sought such territorial guarantees, which have been granted to them most generously. Greece, for her part, does not demand the annexation of vast territories.

Special reasons support such modest frontier rectifications as Greece claims. Regarding her frontier with Bulgaria, one has only to glance at the map to be convinced of the extreme precariousness of Greece’s position in that region. No serious defence is possible in this part of our national frontier. “It will be obvious”, states Field Marshal Wavell in his official report on operations in Greece, “that against a German attack through Bulgaria, the long narrow strip of Macedonia and Western Thrace would be, in spite of the limited approaches through the mountain ranges to the north, extremely difficult to defend owing to the lack of depth.” The plan of military operations in Greece, worked out by the British G.H.Q., envisaged the establishment of a line of defence much further west of Salonika, along the River Aliakmon. Thus, two of the richest and most thickly populated areas of Greece,—Central and Eastern Macedonia and Greek Thrace,—were to be abandoned to invasion without a blow being struck against the enemy. The course of military operations on the northern borders of Greece in the course of the unforgettable weeks in April 1941 might well have been different, had the Greek troops, instead of defending the southern slopes of the Rhodope ridge, been firmly established only a few miles further north, on the Kresna or the Karlek-Balkan Pass.

Greece finally asks that her north-western frontier, so disgracefully violated during the last war, be made more secure. In doing this, Greece is at the same time seeking redress for an injustice done to her in the past when the Concert of Europe, yielding to the insistence of Austria-Hungary and Italy, ceded Northern Epirus, a province predominantly Greek, to Albania.

This province has been recognised as Greek in character from remote antiquity to the end of the 19th centry. This is not the time to lay before you the “dossier” of historical and ethnographic evidence that proves the Greek character of this region since time immemorial. It is sufficient for me to remind you that, as recently as 1907, Ismail Kemal Bey, the leader of resurgent Albanian nationalism and, shortly afterwards, first premier of independent Albania, recognised in a treaty, signed with G. Theotokis, the prime minister of Greece that the ethnic frontier between Greece and Albania should follow a line beginning west of Monastir and continuing as far as the coast, to the north of Corfu, leaving the whole of Northern Epirus to Greece.

Less than a week ago the Senate of the U.S.A., by a unanimous vote, recognised the Greek character of Northern Epirus and recommended its incorporation in Greece.³⁹

Yet, a policy of denationalisation was systematically carried out. It remains no less true that, immediately after the Balkan Wars, and again when the Peace Treaties of 1919 were being discussed, a series of international acts recognised that Northern Epirus should belong to Greece. Europe at that time yielded, not without regret, first to Austrian and later to Italian pressure, and committed an injustice against an allied country. Greece paid dearly for this injustice. Only yesterday she saw fourteen Albanian battalions ranged against her at the side of the Italian divisions. She saw a contingent of the Albanian Army march past in Athens in the aggressors’ victory parade. She was forced to pay reparations to Albania. I refuse to believe that to-day, after all that has passed on the very borders of Greece and Albania, after so much Greek blood has been shed on this soil, which has for centuries been a cradle of Hellenism, that our allies would wish to confirm this injustice by giving legal recognition to the deeds of oppression and systematic denationalisation pursued by the Albanian leaders.

Greece insists that her claims on this subject be heard. At the appropriate moment, the Greek Delegation will present before the competent committees the arguments advocating an equitable settlement of a question that cannot continue to remain in abeyance. We all are determined to reestablish peace in a region so sadly afflicted. The state of war existing between Albania and ourselves must come to a natural and just end through the cession of Northern Epirus to Greece.

The war, as I mentioned previously, has not given us a legal title to oppress other peoples. But it has certainly given us all a right to be accorded the justice that is our due, in the widest and deepest sense of that word. And, if this word has a meaning that makes it of capital importance in the lives of peoples, this meaning consists above all in the recognition of a place of honour for those who, in defending the cause of right, have not failed in their duty.

But what a sad travesty of the ideals of justice it would be to grant the advantages of certain rules of diplomatic procedure and their tardy rallying to the cause of Justice to nations guilty of aggression, and so to end by ignoring the legitimate aspirations of their victims.

On the borders of Northern Epirus a wonderful page in the history of the war has been written. The Greek people have sealed the destiny of this region with their blood. By their victories—the first in this long war—they cast the first rays of hope upon a humanity in distress. Is it possible to recognise to-day on some flimsy pretext, the legality of Austrian and Italian diplomatic infiltration towards the Straits of Otranto?

Greece demands the revision of this series of injustices and the incorporation of Northern Epirus into the Mother Country. The restoration of the Dodecanese, decided by the Council of Foreign Ministers, must also be ratified by this conference. The inhabitants of these islands, Greek since most distant times, look forward to their definite union with Greece. The Greek nation demands unity as well as security. At no other period in its history has it awaited with greater confidence the decisions of its Allies. The Greeks are an ancient people, established since remotest antiquity upon the shores of the Aegean and Ionian Seas, which, as has often been said, are much more like a sea surrounded by coasts than a coast surrounded by seas. This people has succeeded in retaining its moral characteristics and its spiritual integrity, in spite of its country’s extremely precarious geographical position.

After having proved, during the decisive years of the war, that she has within herself the dynamic qualities of determination and self-sacrifice, which make nations worthy of their independence, Greece comes to ask you for the means to consolidate this independence and to make her homeland permanently secure. By placing your confidence in the peoples who have justified your hopes during the decisive moments of this struggle, you are building the peace of the world upon the most solid foundations. For, it is precisely those who have known how to sacrifice all for the success of our struggle that are the best qualified to respect the independence and the right of others. Greece, made strong and contented, will become one of the stoutest bastions of peace, on whom you will be able to count in moments of danger.

I am confident that you will justify these hopes. Because, upon the manner in which Greece emerges from this conference, a great part of our common ideal will depend.

M. Manuilsky (Ukraine) (Interpreted into English from the French interpretation)

Mr. President: I take this opportunity to offer sincere thanks to the French people and the French Government, and to you personally, Mr. President, for the hospitality that has been so generously extended to this Conference.

Since the opening of this Conference the various Delegates of all countries, be they great or small, have had opportunities to state the views of their Governments regarding the peace. And that, Sir, is a question on which the Ukrainian Delegation could say a great deal. We feel that the various latent wars which still prevail in various quarters, those latent wars that can be detected in various parts of the world, are not contributing towards the establishment of peace. And all the massive concentration of those who fought against the United Nations, their massive concentration in certain places, is also not a factor calculated to contribute to peace. The resurgence of Fascism here and there in clandestinity is certainly a matter that calls for careful consideration, and it does not correspond to the aims that the Allies proclaimed when they engaged in this war.

All these questions, Mr. President, are centred on the fundamental matter of the establishment of a solid and lasting peace. For, indeed, if a peace is to be solid and lasting the first essential is that it should be just. We must be careful not to repeat the errors of 1919, errors of the Versailles Treaty and all that series of treaties that followed the Versailles Treaty.

There is one condition to a lasting peace and that is that there shall be a just solution of territorial disputes. That frontiers should be so determined that they shall not cut across the living bodies of nations. And in this way we see an instance in the problems relating to the Julian March and to Trieste. The draft prepared by the Foreign Ministers of the great Powers proposes the internationalisation of Trieste and of the neighbouring territory. The Ukrainian Delegation is most keenly interested in the success of this Conference and is, for that reason, prepared to support that proposal. We feel, nevertheless, that we must offer certain observations with reference to it. The Julian March, with which the decisions of the Foreign Ministers dealt, forms, it must be remembered, a unit, an economic and historical unit, and yet that unit is to be divided artificially into three different zones, one of which would go to Italy, one to Yugoslavia, whilst the third zone would be internationalized. Italy would get a strip that goes along the Adriatic and that would include a population of 66,000 Slovenes as against 21,000 Italians. That, surely, cannot be said to correspond to the ethnic principle that has so frequently been acclaimed. The town of Gorizia would be torn from the north of the Julian March, of which it has always been the administrative and economic centre, and despite the fact that its population has always, in the main, been Slovene. The loss of Trieste would of certainty be a very serious matter. Trieste has always been a part of the Julian March. The result would be that Yugoslavia would have to seek other outlets to the sea, and that would be disastrous to Trieste and, indeed, to the whole of the Julian March. It has been said that a majority of the people of the surrounding region are Italian, but the centre, the economic and politic centre is what must be taken chiefly into account, as that involves the whole region. It is the centre of a whole region where the majority is Slovene and Croat. There are many examples of ethnic frontiers that have been determined with reference to the whole region surrounding a particular centre.

For example, in the case of Memel. There the question was settled by the Allies taking into account the fact that the population of the city was in majority German, nevertheless this city was given to Lithuania because the surrounding region was ethnically Lithuanian. If Trieste be internationalized, undoubtedly grave questions will arise for consideration. Moreover, there is a zone 680 square K.M. of which the population in that surrounding zone is, in great majority, Slovene, and if the proposals laid before the Conference are accepted by the Conference, then it is certain that serious considerations will arise in this connexion. The whole question of the future political and economic relations between Trieste and Yugoslavia calls for careful consideration. If those questions are to be satisfactorily settled, then attention should be directed towards the establishment of a customs union between Trieste and Yugoslavia. The establishment of such a union would facilitate commercial relations with the Balkans and with central Europe. Trieste would be able to send her goods to Yugoslavia. It must be remembered also that the chief railway between Trieste and Central Europe, which formerly carried 93 per cent, of the goods traffic, passes through Yugoslavian territory. There are, therefore, solid arguments for joint administration, and that joint administration should extend also to postal and telegram matters. Further, there should be a single currency for Trieste and for Yugoslavia. In this case, the example of Danzig and Poland might be followed with regard to diplomatic representation. Just as Poland diplomatically represented Danzig, so Yugoslavia should represent Trieste in international affairs. In this way, it would be possible to avoid a further fragmentation of the Balkans and that would be a contribution towards the re-construction of that part of Europe, and would provide a solid basis for its future development.

We, in the Ukraine, feel the warmest sympathy for the Yugoslav claims. We understand their desire to re-unite all Yugoslavian territories within the Yugoslav family. We know a great deal about invasions—we have long seen much of our territory and our population under the domination of Germans, Hungarians, Roumanians and other invaders. By enormous efforts, at the cost of great sacrifice and with the aid of the U.S.S.R. the Ukraine finally succeeded in achieving its unity and in that way we are able to appreciate the value of our historical fraternal agreement with the U.S.S.R. This settlement has been possible thanks to the fraternal nature of the relations existing between the Soviet Union and the Polish Republic. Moreover, the Soviet Union has concluded an agreement with Czechoslovakia and has thereby settled the south Carpathian-Ukraine problem. We understand all aspirations to ensure the rights of peoples. We understand the necessity for settling these frontier problems, for settling them peacefully, for otherwise they so frequently become the cause of war. So much blood has been shed for centuries, so much blood was shed above all in the last war, with the result that we realize more keenly than ever that rivalry between countries who should be united by friendly relations profits only the aggressor. The friendship between Slav nations is a friendship that has been sealed in battle and sealed with the blood that has been shed. What we need is solid peace in Eastern Europe, and that would become an essential factor in universal peace.

These are matters that must be borne in mind by all who are concerned with building up the solid and lasting peace that is the desire of this Conference to attain. We cannot fail to remember that during one quarter of a century there were four invasions of the Ukraine by foreigners. Therefore we have a real understanding of desires for solidarity. We can respect the aspirations of those people who have suffered losses and who have been called upon to make a great sacrifice. We understand and sympathize because we, too, have passed through the same trials. In the Ukraine 2,035,000 houses were destroyed. We had 2,000,000 casualties. The damage that we suffered could be counted at 285,000,000 roubles, and in the face of those figures we can see how very slight, how little count are reparations that might be expected. We put our faith in the strength and in the help of the Soviet Union. And we have always linked our destinies with all those who stand against aggression. We have always faithfully carried out our undertakings. We hope that this Conference will realize the hopes that are being placed in it by the whole world.

As Stalin said, no nations, no armies wish for war, but all wish for peace, for a solid and lasting peace.

M. Spaak (Belgium): (interpretation):

Mr. President: In a gathering such as this the twentieth speaker, however careful he may be and however greatly he may wish to do so, cannot avoid the danger of saying, and doubtless saying less well, what previous speakers have already said before him with force, emotion and sincerity.

Like all those who have preceded me, I feel the importance of our task, the weight of our responsibilities and the imperative and absolute necessity that we should bring our work to a successful conclusion. Like all those who have preceded me, I know that all the hopes of the whole world are to-day centred in this hall, and that those who have struggled and suffered and those who have earned the reward of peace, tranquillity and the happiness that peace alone can ensure are watching us, listening to us and judging us.

You may be sure, therefore, that my collaborators and I mean, in taking part in your discussions, to contribute thereto with all our experience and all our good will. I should like, before laying a few considerations before you, to say how glad I am that this Conference is meeting in Paris—Paris, through God’s grace spared by the war, Paris, which is being reborn and towards which we feel all the greater affection because we have for so long been cut off from it, Paris in which all the graces and all the virtues of France are so splendidly brought together.

Every day, before coming here to exchange our views, we ought to take a morning stroll along the river, through the gardens and squares with their unmatched and faultless beauty, casting glances of never-lessening admiration on the palaces, and then peace, the just and lasting peace that we desire, would soon be made if we could only succeed in shaping our minds in the model of so much charm, so much balance and so fine a sense of proportion.

Belgium is less directly concerned with the treaties that are being discussed to-day than she will be in the early future, when the time comes to determine the fate of Germany, but she realizes that the methods applied now and the procedure adopted now will doubtless constitute precedents. She must, therefore, show herself vigilant.

A satirical paper said the other day that the Allies were meeting in the Luxembourg to make peace between themselves. Let us not be completely indifferent to pleasantries of this kind—there is always some element of truth in the bantering criticisms of the crowd, and we often find in such criticisms at least the echo of what the peoples are thinking of us and of our methods.

The present Conference will no doubt be the decisive test during which the relationships of the great Powers as between themselves will be determined, and also the no less important relationships of the great Powers with the other Powers.

So far as relations of the great Powers as between themselves are concerned, it may at first sight seem out of keeping that I should think it helpful to give my views on this matter. Nevertheless, everyone must, on reflection, recognize that so many things are dependent on those relations that it is natural that I should feel concerned about them. Once more, with so many others, I reassert that the peace of the world depends on a good understanding between the great Powers and that, consequently, it is the duty of all, not only to wish for it, but to contribute towards it so far as they are able to do so.

May we venture to ask the great Powers themselves, whose meetings and discussions we follow with interest and sometimes with anxiety, may we ask them to show, one towards another mutual confidence, a real comprehension of our psychology and their interests and to waive all out of date notions of prestige which, in spite of their futility, have so often disturbed international relations. But we, we who are not the great Powers, we who are the others, we have many requests to address to them.

I firmly believe that medium-sized and small nations have rights that must be respected. I believe that they have their part to play and that that part may be a beneficent one. It would not be entirely a paradox to maintain that the less interests one has in the world the greater is one’s impartiality in forming an opinion on any disputes that may break out.

Mindful of the teachings of reality, however, I am prepared to recognize that complete equality between States is chimerical, and would even be an injustice. Accordingly, I do not oppose the idea that the great Powers should be given certain guarantees and even certain privileges, but I wonder whether the path on which we have entered has not in some cases led to a lack of proportion, and whether the essential balance between rights and duties has, in fact, been found.

The great Powers meet together amongst themselves, they prepare treaties without consulting us. They attempt to impose upon us rules of voting which, in practice, would prevent us from securing acceptance for our views. They place us before the painful dilemma of accepting—sometimes against our own judgment—what they have drawn up or else destroying an agreement that has been achieved only with difficulty, and then, finally, having thus handicapped us, they ask us to make them a few recommendations. Is it surprising, then, that we should sometimes see revolts break out?

Whatever criticisms may be levelled at what has happened in the past, however, it is towards the future that we must turn and it is in the future that the real dangers lie. I have no hesitation in saying that if the recommendations which the Conference is to suggest to the Council of Foreign Ministers were to be regarded by them as a dead letter, or even if they were not to be taken into very serious consideration, the whole framework of the procedure that has been devised would collapse and it would become useless to pursue what everyone would, in conscience, be bound to consider as a comedy lacking in grandeur and devoid of reason.

Accordingly, I am convinced that the most important statement made here so far is the one in which Mr. Byrnes promised, on behalf of the United States of America, to support any recommendations that might be backed by a two-thirds majority. If only the other great Powers, in addition to their promise that there shall be free and full discussion, would give such an undertaking, it seems to me that the atmosphere would immediately become clearer, and that our work would start under fortunate auspices. There is no reason why the great Powers should distrust us.

We are not endeavouring here to impose any measures, or even any opinions, through more or less numerous coalitions. We are seeking, in common, the best ways of establishing a just and lasting peace. If we try to gain acceptance for our views, it is not under the constraint of snap majorities, but by the process of persuasion founded on the force of our arguments, and the justice of our cause and the best possible adaptation of the means we propose to the object we seek to achieve. We each of us try to secure the greatest possible number of supporters for the opinions we express and our ideal remains the attainment of unanimity through conviction.

Let us allow ideas to be freely expressed. Let us allow them to act through the force and the influence of their own merits. In that way we shall create an atmosphere of freedom in which no one will feel himself forced and constrained, but which will, on the contrary, with good faith and in good will, favour the drawing up of an international instrument in which all legitimate interests will be respected and fitted in so as to construct a stable and permanent edifice that shall shelter the peace of the future.

General Theron (South Africa)—Mr. President and fellow delegates:

I am happy to associate the South African Delegation with much of what preceding speakers in this Conference have so eloquently stated. We feel that at this late stage there is little that we wish to add to what has already been said. In particular, the South African Delegation want to join in thanking our Hosts, the French Government, for their gracious hospitality; many of us in South Africa bear French names, and we who have the honour to represent our country here, are indeed proud to see, with our own eyes, how splendidly, glorious France has resurrected herself since her liberation, after her agony of 1940 and the blighting years of Nazi occupation.

I would also say, on behalf of the South African Delegation, that we have no territorial claims, we demand no reparations for ourselves, nor do we ask for a single ship from the Italian Navy. We seek only to help. We welcome the assurances which have been given so far, that the sincerely proffered contributions by the small powers at this Conference, will be given that consideration and weight, to which their service and sacrifices in our common cause have entitled them. We are deeply conscious of our responsibilities no less to the peoples of the world than to our own, and are only anxious again to do our duty in this fateful hour for humanity.

Gentlemen, may I recall that South Africa entered voluntarily into this war; we did not wait to be attacked: when Nazi and Fascist aggression battered at the gates, first of Poland and then of France, we unhesitantly ranged ourselves with the forces that stood for Freedom. Our troops, all of whom were volunteers, traversed Africa in their crusade against Fascism and then joined in the pursuit of Nazism to the foot of the Alps.

The Union of South Africa asks that the spirit of the principles of the Atlantic and United Nations Charters should be made to live in these Peace Treaties: that we do not pay mere lip service to the Four Freedoms, but that the Nations assembled here, who have subscribed to that fundamental human document, (the UNO Charter), shall ensure that those guiding principles shall endure, and be translated into a way of Life, and Hope, for all humanity.

We raise our voice in pleading that the Charter shall prevail in adjusting the relations of man to his kind. Our own country is not without experience of the blessed fruits of magnanimity. Within the memory of most of us, the greater part of our country, too, was devastated during three years of bitter war, but magnanimity prevailed: the victor aided the vanquished; we rebuilt from the ashes, and the leaders of the Boer people ranged themselves twelve years later alongside their former enemy in Freedom’s fight. Generals Botha and Smuts pleaded here 27 years ago, that magnanimity be shown. At the conclusion of the Versailles Conference, General Botha wrote, “The justice of God will be applied in fairness to all people under the sun, and we shall perservere in our prayers that this may be done in a peaceloving and Christian spirit. Today I remember May 31st, 1902, Vereeniging Day”.

My Prime Minister, Field Marshal Smuts, under whom I had the privilege to serve during the Versailles Peace Conference, and as whose deputy I have the honour to address you to-day, most deeply regrets that pressure of other heavy duties has so far delayed his being here at this Conference. It is his deep wish and prayer that the peace treaties under consideration, may be written in the spirit of the words of General Botha, which I have quoted, and thereby may contribute to bring to a wartorn world, whose civilisation is still in grave peril, the future blessings of stability, progress, and world peace.

President—The general discussion is now closed. The Conference will be able to devote itself to completing the work in the Commission on Procedure.

As it is impossible to foretell at present how long that work will take, I hope the Conference will leave it to its Provisional President to convene it at the appropriate moment.

No objections? The meeting stands adjourned.

39. Senate Resolution 82, approved July 29, 1946; for text, see footnote 33, p. 102.