The sixth session of the General Assembly of the United Nations refrained from discussing the subject of Korea, in order that a political debate should not interfere with the course of the armistice negotiations, which were to be based solely on humanitarian principles. The lack of agreement among the representatives of the United Command in the armistice negotiations has proved that other factors have influenced the situation, which we have been watching so anxiously, like all the peoples whose only concern and aim is peace. I do not wish to attempt to analyse those factors, because it is not my delegation’s purpose to aggravate the difficulties, or introduce a note of discouragement and disappointment into this debate. What matters now is to make one more effort towards success in the armistice negotiations or, if that is not possible, to provide a true picture of the facts of the situation, without any ambiguity or any attempt at misleading propaganda. It seemed that final agreement had been reached, the only question outstanding being that of the prisoners. The serious problem which arose was that a considerable number of these did not wish to return to the side from which they had come, and this revealed a new and exceptional situation, to which it would have been wrong to apply the ordinary principles, for that would have imposed upon free human beings a fate which they rejected, for reasons or motives of which they alone could be the judges. The fundamental principle in this matter must be respect for the human person and his right to free choice in the matter of his own destiny.
2. One great American country, Mexico, inspired by these ideas and anxious to offer a practical solution, has approached the Unified Command, stating that prisoners are not , a collective mass to be disposed of arbitrarily, and that countries which are prepared to do so should be given the opportunity to receive prisoners who do not wish to return to their countries of origin. It is true that very serious difficulties may arise for many countries — perhaps even for the majority — in adopting the generous attitude which the Mexican proposal invites us to take. In any case the principle of respect for the prisoners’ wishes has been eloquently formulated by a power which represents the feelings of the small and medium-sized countries, whose role is to be the spokesmen of impartial opinion throughout the world. In this spirit, may it not be our duty to use our imagination to find plans which might improve the Mexican proposal or replace it if it is found impracticable? The fate of the prisoners, by virtue of their supreme value as human beings, concerns not only the military authorities and the parties concerned but all mankind.
3. The United Nations, though it is hot a world State, represents and personifies not only a high moral authority for the world but also a high legal and political authority. Exercising this moral authority, the United Nations could declare that prisoners of war who did riot wish to be repatriated were under its protection and safeguard. As a logical consequence of such a declaration, an international commission could he appointed which would include the parties, States which had the confidence of the Assembly and, as a guarantee of greater impartiality, neutral States, not Members of the United Nations, which, by virtue of their culture and their services to peace and humanitarian causes, would by their presence and co-operation lend weight to our noble undertaking.
4. Without making a formal and definite proposal, I leave this point for the Assembly to ponder and act upon in due course. Such a commission, in its wisdom, might perhaps be able to find means of establishing these prisoners in an appropriate zone under the safeguard of rules based on the Charter and the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and incorporating all the relevant provisions of the Geneva Convention of 1949.
5. We invite the representatives of the Soviet Union to consider this or any other suggestions which may be put forward with open-mindedness, and thus give real proof of their peaceful intentions.
6. The Peruvian delegation, interpreting a general desire, presented to the sixth session, of the General Assembly a draft resolution which was adopted [resolution 506 (VI)] by the considerable majority of 43 votes to 8, with 7 abstentions, recommending that the Security Council should consider the applications for membership of the Organization individually, taking into account only the principles of Article 4 of the Charter and the evidence of their peace-loving nature and fulfilment of international obligations. The Assembly, exercising its legitimate prerogative, reminded the Security Council that the admission of new Members was a very important function, It adopted the interpretation of the Charter given by the International Court of Justice, according to which a Member of the United Nations cannot lawfully make its assent to the admission of new Members dependent upon conditions not expressly set forth in Article 4, paragraph 1, of the Charter. It is clear that since the General Assembly adopted the resolution [296 (IV)] founded in law on the advisory opinion to which I have referred, Members of the United Nations may not adduce political reasons of a strictly internal character and purely subjective reasons which contradict opinions they have themselves emitted concerning the conditions governing the admission of new Members to the United Nations.
7. We have never denied the Soviet Union its right to analyse the objective qualities and study the international behaviour of each candidate, and to base its vote upon the security which the candidate country can offer for the fulfilment of its obligations under the Charter. Objections by the USSR related to these objective standards would have to be respected. Rut that does not apply to candidates such as Italy, Portugal, Ireland and certain other countries, for the Soviet Union has recognized them as peace-loving States and has not contested their capacity or fitness for fulfilling the obligations of the Charter. This attitude of the Soviet Union therefore confronts us with a serious legal and philosophical problem, and I ask the Assembly to give its attention to this difficult but most important matter.
8. In legal logic, any decision by a judge, a member of a parliament or any other authority postulates a judgment, and the decision — an act of the will — should follow the judgment — an act of the intellect — as shadow follows substance, as effect follows cause, or as matter follows form. Once the judgment, the intellectual process, has been completed, the ensuing decision must conform to it entirely. To admit that the decision, that is to say, the will, may be separate from the judgment is to grant to the will an extra-legal value, an absolute quality — to assume that the will is entitled to operate above and beyond the law.
9. We have a Charter and therefore a standard. Within the spirit of the Charter and by the application of this standard, the Soviet Union has recognized that certain countries possess the qualifications for admission to the United Nations; but then, at the time of voting, it invokes an arbitrary power, a power above and beyond the Charter, and says: I have the power to annul by the veto the very rights which I have recognized. We cannot accept this philosophical monstrosity, which combines a flagrant violation of the Charter, disregard of the advisory opinion of the Court, and a refusal to accept the interpretation of the Charter given by an overwhelming majority of the Assembly. Our question is this; can the veto have an extra-legal and an anti-legal nature? Was that the veto we approved at San Francisco? I maintain that the unanimity rule which we accepted at San Francisco, as a compulsory concession to save the Charter, did not invest the veto with this privilege, this absolute and inconceivable right, to violate or paralyse the Charter. The speeches made at San Francisco by those who opposed the veto in the general — the very general — discussions, turned the proposed liberum veto into the obligation to seek unanimity, to find agreed solutions whereby the antagonisms resulting from opposing points of view would be overcome. If solutions were not found after they had been sought in complete good faith, the proper course was to take note of the conflict between equally lawful alternatives. I draw the Assembly’s attention to this essential point. The disagreements made manifest by the rule of unanimity of the great Powers, and which might rightfully paralyse a decision, must take the form of legitimate alternatives, none of which involved a violation of the Charter. Otherwise the Charter signed at San Francisco would have been an illogical and monstrous document, because it would have given a single Power not only the right to paralyse the will of the majority, but also the more serious right completely to nullify the provisions of the Charter and turn it into a scrap of paper.
10. It will be said that this conception of the lawfulness of the veto is incompatible with the very idea of the veto. To be sure, it is incompatible with the idea of the veto as developed by the USSR and with the use that Power wishes to make of the veto; but it is incompatible neither with the letter of the Charter nor, above all, with the background of the discussion on this important matter, nor, I might add — and I shall prove this when the occasion arises — with the precedent established by the Assembly in approving the resolution [377 (V)] entitled “Uniting for peace”, which for all practical purposes precludes or annuls a veto intended to paralyse the supreme function of the United Nations, that of chastising aggression. A veto intended to paralyse the Assembly’s essential function of admitting new Members may be set aside and annulled in the same way.
11. I am well aware that the Charter can be modified only in accordance with the principles which the Charter itself has laid down. What is now needed is to prevent an unduly broad and wrongful interpretation of the veto. We merely ask whether a use of the veto in flagrant violation of the Charter is admissible. That is the question which the Assembly has to decide. We have given the Security Council a final opportunity to apply strictly the principles of the Charter within the official interpretation given by the Assembly on the basis of the authorized opinion of the Court. In view of the rebellion of the USSR against this lawful interpretation given by the Assembly, that body has a perfect right to judge, appraise and examine the voting in the Security Council, and to consider whether or not there has been the majority required for the function which that organ has to fulfil in respect of the admission of new Members.
12. It will be objected that the Assembly has no power to interpret she Charter. I should like to ask this question: if the Assembly has no power to interpret the Charter, what other method of interpretation do we possess ?. The Security Council is an organ intended to perform specific tasks entrusted to it by the signatories to the Charter. Are not all the signatories to the Charter represented in the Assembly, together with the countries which have subsequently acceded to it? The dilemma with which we are confronted is a very clear one: either we forego any interpretation in the face of the present difficulties, and announce that in certain cases the Charter cannot be applied, that the Charter is useless, that the Charter is, inoperative, thus paralysing international-life in one of its most interesting aspects, namely, the achievement of the ideal or universality; or we agree that there is a body which is able, after consulting the principal judicial organ of the United Nations, to interpret the Charter, and that this body is the Assembly. The Assembly's renunciation of any right to interpret the Charter would constitute the capitis diminutio maxima of this institution, decreed by itself; it would be an inconceivable abdication, a case of spontaneous amputation contrary to nature, an admission of legal impotence contravening the letter and the spirit of the Charter and the dictates of the conscience of mankind. The Peruvian delegation reserves the right to present in due course a proposal to enable the Assembly to resolve this grave problem which is compromising our effectiveness and our prestige throughout the world.
13. By way of compensation for the tragedy of suffering and blood brought about by the war in Asia, we have had an eloquent proof of deep human solidarity. Not only through the shortening of distances by technical means but also, and much more, through the intensity and universality of human feeling, the distant war in Korea has had profound repercussions, not only in Asia but also in the western countries and here in America. There has been a general realization that we live in a single world in which good and evil are not to be found in one area or in one form alone, but are shared by the whole of humanity. This is a psychological and moral factor of incalculable moment. It was in that spirit that the United Nations voted unanimously — for one cannot take into account the exception represented by the satellites of the Soviet Union — for the condemnation of aggression, and have repeatedly expressed their desire for a cessation of hostilities and peace. This unity has constituted an element whose importance it will be possible to assess only in better historical perspective. But as life goes on, and when events are complicated, such unity is relaxed and jeopardized. It is not for me to investigate here the circumstances conspiring against unity; I must point out, however, that the effectiveness of the United Nations in dealing with the problems before it and its prestige depend on the careful maintenance of this unity. The Western Powers, the American peoples, the nations of Asia, Africa and Oceania must march together in agreement, because this agreement is the basis of our existence, indeed, of our salvation. I do not believe that there are abysmal divergences or insoluble difficulties between the Western Powers and the peoples who have passed from colonial status to freedom with the help, approval and support of those very Powers.
14. We Latin-American nations are in a peculiar situation. We are united with the Western Powers by the same conception of life, the same conception of justice and the same unflinching attachment to liberty. We are united with the peoples of other continents by the fraternity which springs from the fact that we had preceded them op the path of independence, and by the economic situation, which calls for our further development and for the achievement of our independence and full individuality in this field. We are thus in a good position to act as a sort of living link between the old Europe, which is once more reviving and asserting itself, uniting and becoming an integral whole amid our applause and our hopes,, and the peoples who, like ourselves, are anxious to see the full accomplishment of their destiny. We are confident that a united Europe will pursue its defensive policy as part of a wide and generous international co-operation; and we say to our brothers in Asia, Africa and Oceania who have followed us on the road to freedom that in the United Nations and in a broad co-operation with us they have full scope for achieving their aspirations and for making possible a common understanding with the European countries; and that any other policy would divert them from what is clearly their destiny and would launch them upon courses that would endanger not only their economic resources but also their own political independence.
15. Various delegations have eloquently presented here the staggering figures, arrived at by authorized technical commissions, depicting for us the poverty in which the majority of the inhabitants of this planet live. This accurate and impressive picture makes us think of the immense riches expended or destroyed in the two world wars and of those that have to be employed in avoiding a third war. The calculations of eminent economists have shown that the capital consumed in the last wars would have been sufficient to transform the economic face of the world. Today we are further than ever from the economic interpretation of history, which attributes the tragedy of war to mere economic, or commercial interests. Peace furthers not only the moral interests of humanity but also its actual profit, its actual material well-being. War has always had psychological causes. Man’s greatness lies in culture, and his supreme misfortune is the will to power, the overmastering usurpation described in immortal terms by St. Augustine in The City of God. This spirit of overmastering usurpation has exploited the infinite capacity of the masses for absorbing myths and for suffering oppression.
16. Peoples who are both the victims of illusion and oppressed, have inevitable pursued the disastrous course of endeavouring to impose their illusions and their oppression to other peoples. That is the sad lessen of history. The efforts of the creators of science, who have not only enabled us to control nature but have also taught us the immense value of truth as against myth and illusion, have been of no avail. The noble doctrines of the founders of religions, all of whom have preached the brotherhood of man, have been powerless. These two bright aspects of human history have been overshadowed, as by an ever-present menace, deepening and spreading day by day, by the will to power. The philosophy of culture leads us to a pessimistic conclusion; and yet we ask: can we not hope that truth which is modest, verifiable, progressive and relative, which seeks and comprehends the views of others and desires their co-operation, will overcome the fitful, hallucinatory, infectious gleam of myth and utopia? Can we not hope that the sense of human brotherhood which must have been stimulated by the sorrows, anxieties and anguish that are suffered today by all the peoples of the earth alike, will prevail and restrain or quench the thirst for domination and the invincible passion for power of the inters of certain States? But I do not wish to conclude these sincere remarks upon a note of philosophic pessimism.
17. I know that the students of Marxist philosophy have discovered that its essence lies in the ideal or dream of the complete disappearance of the State in an earthly paradise, that this goal can be reached only by passing through an arduous stage in which all the powers of the present State, which covers every aspect of human life, are strengthened, and that only after the destruction of the so-called exploiting class in the country concerned and in other countries will it be possible to attain to the ideal of a free mankind with the complete elimination of the State. That conception leads logically to universal war, through universal revolution.
18. Today, however, contrary to the conclusions of students of Marxist philosophy, the most highly placed persons of the USSR have affirmed at the Moscow Congress the possibility of the coexistence of capitalism and communism, and here, from this very rostrum, the eminent representative of the Soviet Union has, with his customary eloquence, referred to and endorsed [383rd meeting] this idea of possible coexistence, supporting it with quotations from his masters, Stalin and Lenin. Let us hope that these declarations will prevail over the pessimistic conclusions of the students of Marxist philosophy to which I have just referred. In all impartiality, let us bear in mind the favourable factors that exist: the realism — which I recognize and have always recognized — demonstrated by the leaders of the Soviet Union on more than one occasion and their full appreciation of all the factors in determining their course of action. The leaders of the Soviet Union today realize that the West is able, alert and determined to defend itself and that a war would not be a triumphal march, but the beginning of universal destruction.
19. There is another factor which we must also bear in mind: the Russian people have behind them more than a thousand years of Christian tradition which cannot be obliterated by any regime, however great its political influence; and we cherish the hope that this deal of understanding, peace and brotherhood may inspire broad sections of the Russian people, coinciding with the realistic policy which their leaders must now pursue. In any case, we shall not close our ears or our hearts to any sincere initiative for peace or any opportunity for agreement.