Speech by Liam Cosgrave to the General Debate at the United Nations
General Assembly

As this debate proceeds, I think that ordinary people throughout the world are becoming more and more conscious of the terrible dangers which hang over us. During the past six months extraordinary events have followed fast upon each other at a tempo which no one on any side seems able to predict or control. These events appear to be swept along by two great currents. The first current is the movement for freedom which is stirring peoples everywhere throughout the old overseas empires. The second current is the movement for freedom among the peoples which endure the twentieth century form of imperialism under various forms of Soviet domination.

Both of these currents are tremendously powerful because their source is the eternal and insuppressible desire of men and nations for freedom. No one who loves freedom, no one who respects the dignity of man can say that he wishes these movements did not exist. True, the world would be a quieter place if that were the case, but its quietness would be the quietness of the prison or of the grave.

At the same time, it would be folly not to recognize that these movements and the counter-movements to which they give rise may be a source of danger and will test to the uttermost the statesmanship of all who are in positions of power. I refer here not only to those who control the destinies of the great Powers, but to those who rule the small newly-enfranchised States. In both cases, the common interest of us all, the preservation of world peace, enjoins policies of prudence and forbearance.

We are in the presence at the moment of a tragic example of what happens in a dispute where these virtues have not been conspicuously exercised on either side. I refer to the case of Egypt. Egypt is a country for which my country has traditional friendly feelings. Ireland applauded Egypt’s struggle for freedom and rejoiced when it attained full sovereignty. We sympathized profoundly with Egypt in its recent struggle against the superior might of three invaders. We deplored and condemned the Anglo-French attack against Egypt both as a violation of the Charter of the United Nations and as a grave political blunder.

At the same time, one cannot help feeling that this terrible crisis, so heavy with consequences for Egypt and for the world, need never have arisen if the Government of Egypt had used its newly-won sovereignty with greater moderation and realism. The consequences for Egypt of attempting to encompass the destruction of Israel and of nationalizing the Suez Canal Company so abruptly have been extremely grave. I do not mean merely that these acts brought on the Anglo-French attack. I mean that they led to something which may in the long run prove more dangerous to Egypt than was that strange and brief foray. The more dangerous consequence is that Egypt has been brought to rely on Soviet arms and Soviet aid. We do not know exactly to what extent Egypt has yet invoked or is now invoking such aid. Whatever the extent, I hope, and I am sure that most of us in this Assembly hope, that there is yet time for Egypt to draw back from this dangerous involvement. I should like to ask the representative of Egypt, who has pleaded his country’s cause in this Assembly with such dignity and moving eloquence, to note the feelings on this matter of a traditionally friendly and firmly anti-imperialist country.

We feel that Egypt’s new-found friends may be more dangerous to its freedom than were its recent foes. I may perhaps be permitted to cite an example from the history of my own country. There was once an Irish prince who, for reasons affecting his personal prestige and honour, decided to invoke the military aid of friends from across the sea. His friends came very quickly, but it took us more than seven hundred years to induce them to depart again. That prince’s name has gone down in our history as Diarmuid na nGall – Dermot of the Foreigners.¹ That is not the sort of appellation, and not the sort of place in history, that so noteworthy a patriot as President Nasser would wish to earn. I find it hard to believe, therefore, that he – or for that matter his Syrian neighbours – would incur the responsibility of deliberately drawing into their affairs a foreign Power whose terrible record is known to everyone.

As a result of unnecessary provocation, followed by excessive and ill-conceived retaliation, the world is now faced with a menacing crisis in the Middle East. The newly-independent peoples, especially in the Arab world, naturally felt outraged by the Anglo-French action. They felt that it was motivated, in part at least, by a residue of the old imperialist spirit. They felt that it constituted a threat to their own hard-won freedom. In my country, we can easily understand those feelings and, indeed, we share them to a great extent. This action alarmed every small nation and, no doubt, many large ones also; it spread a sense of insecurity throughout the world; it shook the confidence of those in many lands who had considered England and France to be defenders of the rule of law and of the Charter of the United Nations. In this way, it brought about a rift among the free nations, a crack in the defences of peace and freedom, which it will take much time and patience to repair.

Conscious of all that, and deeply deploring it, I hope none the less that we may be forgiven if we urge certain other facts on the attention of those Arab and Asian lands which have been so incensed by the invasion of Egypt that they tend to minimize other dangers. Those peoples should surely not lose sight of the fact that England and France did, after all, heed this Assembly’s resolution for a cease-fire; that they have, at least, begun a withdrawal of their forces from Egypt and that they are pledged to withdraw these forces entirely as soon as the United Nations are in a position to take over. The Governments of England and France, which reacted in this way when they found their action met with general disapproval, are Governments which are accessible, and eventually amenable, to public opinion: public opinion in their own countries and public opinion in the world at large.

A very different and darker picture meets us if we turn to the other political storm centre of the world. In Hungary, the Soviet Union has paid no attention at all to the resolutions of this Assembly. Far from accepting a cease-fire, it used its enormous military power with absolute ruthlessness to crush the Hungarian people. It seems indifferent to the public opinion of the world, and its own public opinion is bewildered and silent, or can only find expression in mysterious and devious ways which baffle our comprehension. Its representatives and its pro-consuls who claim to represent other countries have come to this rostrum day after day and have recited blandly and imperturbably, and at great length, their mendacious version of the events in Hungary. They do not even trouble to make their story plausible because what they rely on is, in reality, not argument, but sheer brute force. I should have thought that the representatives of countries which have undergone imperialist rule would have been the first to recognize Soviet actions and words for what they are, an instance of the colonial method and outlook in its most arrogant and ruthless phase. This is true even in detail. The representative of India, who is learned in history, will recall, for example, one technique of nineteenth century imperialism which we have now seen revived by the Soviet Union representative. That technique was to refute allegations of atrocities by solemnly reading out affirmations from your own local colonial officials that they had seen no such atrocities. The Foreign Minister of the Soviet Union stood at this rostrum the other day and read out dispatches from station-masters who, very naturally, said that they had seen no deportations. They were not free to say anything else. How is it possible not to hear in that reply the authentic accents of the worst kind of colonialism? How is it possible not to recognize in the Soviet Union Government the legitimate heir of the old imperialism at its most aggressive?

It is of tremendous importance for the peace of the world that the true nature of Soviet imperialism should be clearly recognized while there is yet time. There are some encouraging signs that such a recognition is growing; such signs have been visible, indeed, during the present session of this Assembly. But that recognition should now inspire a search for a speedy, just and lasting solution of the Middle East problems. As regards Egypt, it is not enough to affirm that British and French troops should get out. It is also essential to secure that the Soviet Union will not move in. It is surely not in the interest of the Arab peoples, any more than of the rest of the free world, that the power which governs Hungary should install itself in the Middle East. It is surely not in the interest of the Arab peoples, or of humanity as a whole, that the Middle East should become the theatre of an armed conflict between the great Powers. But if these calamities are to be avoided, new attitudes are needed.

I speak here with a certain hesitation, because I do not wish to put my own country forward as endowed with some peculiar intuition into what should be the right solution for all these complex problems. There are many nations represented here which have a much more detailed knowledge of these problems than we can have. But we have a historical background which may, perhaps, qualify us to make a relevant intervention in this matter.

Ireland is unique in that it is the only Western European country which has the long experience of having been treated as a colony – not just of having been temporarily occupied during a war, but of having been governed, during many generations, by a foreign country whose rule our people rejected and strove to shake off. The Foreign Minister of Tunisia² referred to that fact in a very friendly fashion from this rostrum the other day.

Now, a Western country which has undergone foreign rule has, perhaps, a claim to understand something of the psychology of the two sides in the Middle East disputes. I hope, therefore, that, without offence and without presumption, I may address an appeal to both contestants.

To the British and French, I would appeal to make an effort at comprehension, to understand that, having done what they have done, they are not in a position to arbitrate in this region; to understand that their continued presence in Egypt is a provocation which may well bring on the very evils which it is intended to avert. As long as they are there, their presence will be a reminder both of a detested colonial past and of a very recent attempt to coerce an Arab country. Their presence there inflames the most dangerous emotions throughout the Arab lands. It supplies the Soviet propaganda machine with excellent and sorely needed ammunition. It gives the most reckless extremists their opening, and it silences the voices of those moderate men who see the new and terrible danger that is hanging over the Middle East. At the same time, it weakens the understanding and the unity which should prevail among the Western Powers in the face of the common and constant threat. For all these reasons, it is vitally important that France and the United Kingdom should implement this General Assembly’s resolutions by withdrawing as promptly as possible.

As for the Egyptians and their friends in the Arab world, I would ask them not to let their understandable resentment blind them to some hard facts which, if ignored, may plunge them and the world into catastrophe. One such fact is that the Suez Canal is not just an Egyptian interest, not just an imperialist interest; it is a world interest. The true users of the Canal are not just the Powers that own the shipping that passes through the Canal – in that connection, the ill-starred Suez Canal Users Association was something of a misnomer. The true users of the Canal are the ordinary men and women everywhere who buy the tea and burn the oil that passes through the Canal. Life will be a little harder for these people as long as the Canal is blocked. Life is harder, for example, in my own country; the Irish people had no say in the events that led to the blocking of the Canal, but now that the Canal is blocked, they have to pay. They pay in the form of increased living costs. I may add that they have no intention of paying again by contributing to the cost of clearance. Representatives of other countries which had no hand in these events have made their position clear in that matter, and my delegation agrees with them. But, in the meantime, the blockage of the Canal sends up the cost of living for a great part of the world’s population.

It is, therefore, urgent that the Canal should be reopened and kept open. I believe that the Egyptian authorities are conscious of the Canal’s importance to the world, not just to a group of colonial Powers, and that they always meant to keep it open. It would not be blocked now had it not been for the rash intervention of France and the United Kingdom.

But the best earnest that the Egyptian authorities can give of their sincerity in this matter is to co-operate now in the rapid clearance of the Canal. It does not help their cause to impede this clearance or to treat the Canal as a sort of hostage in a reprisal policy against France and the United Kingdom. That is a mistaken policy because the Canal is of great importance to many other countries which are friendly to Egypt. On behalf of one such country, I appeal to the Egyptian authorities to reconsider their attitude in this matter and to co-operate in clearing the Canal. In that way, they can best reassure their friends and disarm their enemies; in that way, they can best avert the danger of further intervention in their affairs, from the East as well as from the West; in that way, they can best ensure that the eventual settlement of the status of the Canal will be one that absolutely respects Egyptian sovereignty.

The other grave question which keeps the Middle East in turmoil is, of course, the question of Israel. I can understand the feelings of the Arab world at the way in which the State of Israel came into being. I can understand the passions aroused by the plight of the Arab refugees from Palestine.

I have no wish to take sides or even to purport to mediate in the questions at issue between Israel and its neighbours.

I may say in parenthesis that my delegation’s seat in this Assembly, by the fortune of the alphabet, is between Israel and Iraq, and I sometimes feel that our presence in that place is a small but real Irish contribution to the cause of peace.

Whatever we think of these questions, we must agree that it is in the interests of Israeli, and Arab alike, and of us all, that a settlement should be reached, and quickly. The existence of a state of war, even a nominal state of war, between Israel and its neighbours constitutes a standing invitation for any great Power that wants to intervene. It also furnishes a standing stock of pretexts for such intervention. But, if the state of war is to be ended, Israel’s neighbours, while they press for a just solution of the outstanding problems, must be ready to accept as a fact the existence of Israel and must renounce their projects for the destruction of that country.

Here again I may perhaps venture a comparison with my own country. In Ireland we have also a grave problem; the problem of partition. The great majority of Irish men and women desire their country to be united under its own freely elected government, but, as a result of tactics resembling in some ways those that were taking place in Palestine at about the same time, Ireland was divided, and today six of its counties remain under British rule. We are determined that that situation shall be ended. We are determined that the unity of Ireland shall be achieved, but we are equally determined, as all our leaders have made clear, to achieve that end by peaceful means.

I am quite sure that, if we had decided to pursue a policy of violence in this matter, help and encouragement from a certain quarter would not be lacking. Communists in many countries – in Britain itself not least – have loudly declared their sympathy with Ireland’s demand for unity. We know well what that sympathy means. It means that they hope to profit by our problem in order to make mischief. They hope to exploit one more source of division in the free world. We do not want their sympathy any more than we want their guns. We do not want any form of assistance from them at all. We know that to invite such assistance would be to bring down on our people untold miseries and horrors.

We did not need the terrible example of Hungary to show us what to expect. We knew it already. We know that if we obtained Irish unity with Soviet support what kind of unity that would be. We do not want to see the day when the representative of an Ireland united but enslaved would have to speak at this tribune as the unfortunate man who calls himself the representative of Hungary has had to speak during these last days.

I would respectfully ask the representatives of the Arab countries to consider whether the same line of reasoning may not be to some extent applicable to their own case. People who solve a problem with Communist aid are apt to find that the solution is very much worse than the problem was.

It is a source of very great satisfaction to all of us that the United Nations has been able to play a useful part in this menacing crisis. It may not be too much to say that, were it not for the United Nations, humanity might today be plunged into the horrors of a third world war. This Assembly’s resolution for a cease-fire in Egypt was heeded by the Powers concerned, and the immediate danger of a general conflict receded. Some people have asserted that this Assembly serves no useful purpose. I do not see how, in the face of these recent facts, anyone can continue to hold that position. Not only has the United Nations managed to bring about a cease-fire but it is now helping to ensure the departure of the invaders and thus to create the first condition for a lasting peace.

The United Nations police force, created under the able and imaginative guidance of the Secretary-General, may prove to be a turning point in the history of the Middle East and of the world. We all hope so, and we hope that this device of a multi-nation police force, implementing a resolution of this Assembly, may prove its worth in other critical areas. I do not, of course, refer to situations in which a large-scale military effort may be required, as in Korea, but to situations calling for a limited police action.

However, it is difficult for certain countries, even when they would like to give effect to a resolution of the Assembly, to participate in such actions at short notice. There are sometimes legal, as well as administrative, difficulties to be overcome. I should like to support the suggestion, which has been made before in this Assembly in a different context and which some representatives have raised again in the present debate, that Member countries might consider placing some units of their defence forces on such a footing that they could quickly co-operate in an action of this kind. There would, of course, be no obligation on any Member to supply such a contingent, but it would be useful if Members generally were in a position to do so in cases where their Governments wished to act following a resolution of this Assembly.

In the case of the Egyptian crisis, the record of the United Nations is so far a favourable and encouraging one. As we all know, there are other problems, other critical areas, which give us no such evidence of progress or achievement. I must say that, when I looked down the long agenda of this eleventh session of the Assembly and compared it with the agendas and with the records of previous sessions, I became depressed. For a moment I had a vision of this Organisation as a kind of political Sargasso Sea to which all the unsolved problems of the world seemed to drift, there to revolve forever in a whirlpool of unheeded resolutions. Unfair and distorted though such a vision may be, it does nonetheless evoke a real danger.

A debate in this Assembly is no solution to a problem. At the very most, such a debate can do no more than apply a certain moral pressure, the effects of which will be felt in later negotiations between the parties to the dispute. I do not underestimate the potentialities of such moral pressure – it can in certain situations be a very powerful influence indeed – but it has its limitations. One is that, if the same matter is debated here year after year, with no result except reiterated and fruitless resolutions, the moral authority of this Assembly suffers not only in relation to that matter but generally.

Another and more important limitation to the power of moral pressure is that, the more outrageously a Member State behaves and the more it deserves the moral condemnation of this Assembly, the less attention it is likely to pay to any kind of moral pressure at all. Because of that fact, this Assembly sometimes appears more apt to put pressure on countries that pay some heed to its resolutions than to consider the most flagrantly evil actions of powers which seem impervious to public opinion.

If Egypt comes to our mind when we think about the potentialities of the United Nations for good, the name of another country rises unbidden when we are forced to contemplate the tragic limitations of this Assembly’s influence. The shadow of Hungary lies over this debate. We have not been able to save Hungary. We have not been able to check the deportations that still continue there. We have not even been allowed to send observers.

In the presence of that tragedy, I do not suppose there is anyone among the delegations of the free world that does not feel a painful sense of inadequacy and failure. We have passed our resolutions condemning these acts, as it was our duty to do, but we cannot feel any elation at that fact, since our resolutions have been treated with contempt.

The best we may feel is that these debates, and especially the Communists’ contributions to them, have done something to enlighten the so-called, non-committed countries about the real nature of the Soviet system. We may feel also that the reaction of this Assembly, and in particular of these non-committed nations, has been noted by the Soviet rulers and may influence them in the future to avoid displays of force against their satellites, and even to make some concessions in order to avoid the open use of force. That may be so – it may even prove in the long run to be of considerable importance – but at present it can bring no aid or comfort to the Hungarian people. The most we have been able to do has been to bring some small measure of relief by sending emergency supplies of food and medicines to Hungary and also by welcoming the refugees.

My own country is playing its part in that work. Our people, who have been very deeply moved by the Hungarian tragedy, have subscribed to a fund, which is still open, the sum of ?57,000 sterling. We have also indicated our willingness to receive up to 1,000 Hungarian refugees, of whom the first groups have now begun to arrive.

Perhaps the best lesson the free nations can draw from the events in Hungary is to resolve that the power which perpetrated such things must not be allowed under any pretext whatever to extend its domain or its influence. I believe that it is in that spirit that the free nations should approach the disputes that exist among themselves. More than that, it is in that spirit, which is necessarily a spirit of conciliation, a spirit of solidarity among the non-Communist people, that the colonial Powers should confront the irresistible movement of the so-called dependent countries towards freedom.

It has been something of a fashion in imperial countries recently to equate independence movements in the colonies with Communism. It is true that Communists always try to exploit such movements, whether in Cyprus or in Algeria or elsewhere. But the real way, the safe way and the sure way, to defeat Communism in these countries is to come to prompt and reasonable terms with the legitimate, national independence movements. The later such a settlement is left, the greater the Communist danger grows. A great legist once expounded an important phase of human history in terms of an evolution from status to contract, from the fixed and unchangeable position of the serf to the position of the free man, bound only by agreements freely negotiated and capable of adjustment. This process of free and responsible negotiation is the life process of liberty, not only for men but for nations. It must be made possible for the peoples who are not yet free to move towards liberty through such freely negotiated agreements. Agreements of this kind are formed steps in the kind of orderly advance by which the transition to freedom can best and most safely be carried out. Through such agreements, for example, after years of struggle, we in Ireland obtained freedom for the greater part of our island. Through such agreements in the future we are confident that we shall obtain the freedom of the entire country. Such a progress in our case, or in any similar case, can be achieved by negotiation based upon reasonable recognition by both sides of their common interest in finding a peaceful solution to their problem.

The debates and resolutions of this Assembly may prepare the way for such negotiations, but they cannot serve as a substitute for them. This Organization is not a super-State. We should not expect it to be a kind of god from the machine which can resolve all problems. It may help to avert disasters when negotiation has failed, but the first duty of responsible men who have to deal with the particular problem is to see that negotiation shall not fail. It is of a crucial importance to the free world that the spirit of moderation, which is essential to successful negotiation, should inform the actions of political men, especially in relation to colonial problems. Moderate statesmen, who act with courage, who are not intimidated by their own extremists, they are wise men who do much to save the free world by making it more fully deserve that name. There is a terrible example from an earlier phase of our civilisation of what can happen when moderate men are coerced against their better judgement into a rash and impetuous course. In ancient Athens, in an evil hour, the counsels of extremists, of jingoists, and of chauvinists – as we should call them now – prevailed, and Athens launched the fatal expedition against Syracuse. The consequence of that expedition was the ruin, not alone of Athens, but of the whole Hellenic world – of civilization itself as it was then known.

It is a sobering thought that the recent Anglo-French adventure in Egypt might quite possibly have had an equivalent result. That thought should incite us not to vain recriminations but to renewed effort under Divine Providence to adjust our differences; – the differences that divide the free world – by rational negotiation in a spirit of Christian charity.