This meeting of our Assembly is faced with an inescapable fact: the grave tension and the anxiety bordering on despair which were a feature of the time when we condemned the attitude adopted by communist China have gradually decreased and have given place to a measure of calm and a ray of optimism.
61. What are the causes of this change? For a full appraisal of its functions, the Assembly must realize the moral factors at its command. Let me indicate quite dispassionately the various reasons for this change for the better in public opinion, although I am not unduly optimistic, since there has been no change in the points of view expressed nor, unfortunately, has the acrimonious tone of the debates lessened in any degree.
62. We must take account of one decisive factor: the steadfast and heroic resistance which United Nations forces have offered to aggression. We still lack the necessary historical perspective which would enable us to appreciate in its full and admirable significance the resistance of the United Nations to aggression in Korea. That resistance has proved decisively that the United Nations is a living force. We have succeeded in meeting an unexpected attack, by steadfast opposition in the cause of justice and law, and this resistance has prevented war from spreading to other areas included in the plan of aggression, has strengthened the hopes of all nations and, finally, has consolidated the life of our Organization. An interesting feature of this resistance, however, is its nature, moderation and limited character. Resistance was confined to precise objectives. Disregarding schemes and illusions of intensified action, we restricted ourselves to the defence of Korea and withstood the other aggression which followed later, when our task seemed to have come to an end. Such moderation, such limitation of our objectives had the great advantage of winning for us the moral approval of the world and of giving the Asian world proof of the uprightness of our intentions and of the just scope of our purposes.
63. There is another factor which must be borne in mind. The problem of Korea awakened in all nations the conviction, which hitherto perhaps had only been present in latent form, that peace is indivisible and that all the world’s economic, military and moral forces must be mobilized to halt aggression. Giving expression to this universal belief, the United Nations decided to overcome the obstacle of the veto and approved the resolution [377 A (V)] establishing in effect the general mobilization of all nations to combat aggression. This conviction clearly constitutes a highly important moral factor in the interests of peace since, whatever may be said and despite all rhetorical utterances, the indisputable fact remains that mankind is aware today that universal co-operation is essential in order to prevent aggression.
64. In this perhaps rather weighty study which some might think technical rather than diplomatic, I must refer to progress in the technical sphere which has also proved a factor favourable to peace. From what I have been able to note the public has the impression that technical progress affords an opportunity of creating a proper balance between the forces working for peace at less cost, through superiority in the quality of certain weapons rather than through superiority in numbers. This idea leads to another concept of equal value since, instead of an armaments race, which would defeat the very purpose it is intended to achieve, it points to a possibility of reducing armaments to the level required for the defence of each country and the maintenance of internal order.
65. Nuclear energy seems to have passed from the catastrophic to the defensive stage, and we hope it will soon reach its definitive stage, when it will be employed industrially. In any case, the proposal has been made here either for control of atomic energy or for its prohibition. However, inspection is essential to secure either object, In the absence of inspection fully and completely guaranteed, control or prohibition would be a meaningless term.
66. Finally, there is a moral factor : the cold war, the subversive war, the threat of the use of destructive weapons, and a sort of war or pre-war psychosis attended by actual war in various parts of the world. Economic aimlessness and disorganization throughout the world have produced a great weariness, a distressing situation. Among all men, and everywhere there is a yearning for peace and a desire for some course of action which would restore economic and spiritual health to an exhausted, bewildered and irresolute Europe.
67. We are well aware that this peace cannot be achieved by purely verbal or rhetorical efforts. No one believes in the peace offensive which is only aimed at weakening resistance, at impairing the spirit of self-preservation and at hampering the will for justice. There is, however, in all nations — and I might even say also in the Soviet mind, in the common or average man of that vast country — the desire for a real peace based on the readjustment of economic, political and military interests and inspired by the most cordial and human understanding.
68. President Auriol has given expression here [333rd meeting], with that eloquence and distinction which are characteristic of the French language, to that peace which is desired by all peoples of the world and particularly the peoples of Spanish America, with their deep attachment to peace and international justice.
69. We possess here, in spite of the acrimonious and harsh note of our discussions, these moral assets and these moral factors. What must we do? The weight of these moral factors imposes a clear policy upon the United Nations Assembly: in the first place, to combine and focus this longing of all peoples and to make of this rostrum the great instrument, not of the selfish propaganda of any one country but of the desire for peace of the whole world. May this spirit preside also over our discussions in committee and may we renounce strident and contradictory monologues and engage more happily in constructive, harmonious and fruitful conversations.
70. We have affirmed that peace is indivisible and that aggression can only be restrained by universal co-operation. However, we still have to implement these declarations of principle. The Assembly must lay down that its first task is to give effect and practical meaning to the resolution [377 (U] “ Uniting for Peace ” ; each country, according to its economic and political situation, its military strength and military traditions and its geographical position, must assume the obligations incumbent upon it.
71. There is another point which is also of great importance; I refer to regional agreements. It is gratifying that the United Kingdom Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, speaking with the authority of that great nation, has set forth in this hall the doctrine of these regional agreements; the North Atlantic Treaty is entirely in keeping with the spirit and the letter of the Charter.
72. The Peruvian delegation recalls with satisfaction that it was the first, in that memorable meeting of 13 April 1943, to defend the rightfulness, the legality and the constitutional meaning of the North Atlantic Treaty. We peoples of Latin America cannot but see with profound satisfaction the reconstitution of Europe. I venture to say from this rostrum that a united America would greet with enthusiasm a united Europe, since in the last analysis Europe, which is the spiritual mother of America, has always been spiritually united. There may have been wars and conflicts; nevertheless, certain general principles of civilization have been upheld.
73. Let me recall now that symbolic tripod referred to in the famous conversation between Renan and Mommsen, in which Germanic, Anglo-Saxon and Latin culture are integrated. The tragedy of the world is precisely due to the fact that this moral and cultural unity of Europe was not accompanied by a unity based on economic co-operation and international harmony. We feel very deeply that the tragedy of the present time is the result of the disruption of the European soul, and consequently that the revival of Europe, the affirmation of Europe, the assertion of its need to live and to play again the part it formerly played in human destinies will furnish the key and, more effectively perhaps than any other factor, provide a solution to the problem.
74. Thus, in the enthusiasm of this profound conviction, I pay homage to the eminent figures of Winston Churchill, who was the first to advocate European unity when the symptoms of this crisis first appeared, and of Robert Schuman, who submitted practical measures to achieve such unity. Germany and Austria must be called upon to play a part in this movement, in the spirit of Leibnitz, Goethe and Kant: of Leibnitz, who proposed to Bossuet — to our Bossuet I hope my French friends will permit me to say — the religious unification of Europe as a basis for a new legal order; of Goethe, whose Germanic vitalism and romanticism bring to us the breath of the latinized and catholic Rhine; and of Kant, who represented the last endeavour to reconcile philosophy with the Christian sentiment of life and who bears the stamp of Christian philosophy in contrast with the dissolvent philosophies that followed, Hegel’s belief in the absolute power of the State and the materialism of Marx.
75. What has the USSR to fear from this unity of Europe, established solely for defence, united solely by moral, intellectual and esthetic factors which always work for peace? If such a glorious and harmonious result were achieved no one would think of denying the Soviet Union a place in that comity of nations. Remember that it was the western countries that discovered the admirable art of Russia and its no less admirable literature. Are we not aware and is it not our duty to proclaim here that, in spite of many difficulties and many conflicts, centuries of Christian culture must continue to influence the Russian mind ?
76. I now turn to a point which is not strictly of a moral and political nature, but rather of a legal character, which I submit to the serious attention of my colleagues. We cannot deny that our Charter suffers from very serious faults. We know only too well that the revision of the Charter is impossible in the light of the Article of which we are all aware. However, even if that is so, the obscure parts of the Charter may be interpreted and, where it is defective, it may be supplemented. Teachers of law know that law is essentially dynamic and that a static and dead concept of law cannot be maintained in view of world events.
77, Our Charter must be interpreted or supplemented in the same way as pretorian law interpreted and supplemented the old Roman Law. We must remedy the defects of the Charter by employing the methods that led to the evolution of Roman Law. The principal fault of the Charter has resided in the veto. That is a fact which must be stated categorically, since an absurd and unacceptable interpretation has been given to the rule of unanimity which we approved in San Francisco. It has been interpreted as giving all the great Powers the privilege of evading the issue or of avoiding the search for a joint solution by taking up at the outset an unyielding attitude or by violating the principles of the Charter, This absolute veto frequently results not in a choice between two legitimate lines of action under the Charter, but in a country adopting a course at variance with the spirit and the letter of that instrument. That is a position we cannot accept. The veto in itself is open to criticism, but the veto interpreted as a method to which a Power may arbitrarily have recourse in order to violate the Charter while actually invoking the Charter itself, is a monstrous thing which must be rejected by all the legal minds of the World.
78, The application of this principle has been clearly demonstrated in the question of the admission of new Members. Three States are awaiting a resolution by the United Nations. Clearly, that resolution has been delayed for reasons that are mainly political, and the political criterion applied to the admission of new Members is bound to call forth a protest from those who, in San Francisco, believed that they had established, not an alliance or a league of countries on the old model, but a universal organization. I ask my colleagues who were present at San Francisco and I even ask those colleagues who represent the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics what it was that we established in San Francisco, Was it a political league in which membership depends on the sympathy or the arbitrary acquiescence of existing members in regard to application for membership? Or did we found an international order ?
79. I am sure that no one who was present at San Francisco could rise in this Assembly and say that we established there a league and not an organization. We established a universal juridical order to which every State should belong by natural law, in the same way as every human being belongs to the civil order by that same natural law.
80. Consequently, States have the right to enter the Organization once they have fulfilled the objective conditions laid down in the Charter of being peace-loving and of accepting their international obligations. The Organization passes a judgment, and does not give an opinion, on these objective conditions; and since the days of Greece and Aristotle’s logic, we know that there is a difference between opinion, which is arbitrary in nature, and judgment, which must be based on definite grounds. We must pass a judgment based on these conditions which are laid down in the Charter.
81. Consequently we cannot recognize any discretionary power, since if we did so we would become a league. On that point the International Court of Justice has endorsed the views of those who upheld the universal character of the Organization. The International Court of Justice has stated that the power of the Assembly and of the Council is not a discretionary power, that it is unrelated to raison d'état, and that it is not a matter of private judgment for which no reason or explanation need be given. It is in fact a regulated power which is exercised in the manner stipulated in the Charter. If that is the case, then, we need to establish a new jurisprudence. We must establish, for the admission of new Members, a new procedure in conformity with the spirit as well as the letter of the Charter. I am not referring to any country in particular, for I look at the Organization from a universal point of view. I refer to the three States that favour the western nations and to those that may favour the Soviet bloc. They must all have the right to backing in their request for admission. Nay, more, they must be invited by the General Assembly to adhere to the peace pacts that have been concluded, and to subscribe to conventions on outstanding international matters, as evidence of their compliance with the provisions of the Charter.
82. Then the General Assembly, being in possession of such documents and in the exercise of its functions under Article 10, would recommend to the Council, in accordance with its duty, the juridical study of the documents submitted. The Council would then have to distinguish between votes cast in accordance with the objective provisions of the Charter and those based on international grounds outside the scope of the Charter.
83. Who then could maintain that a single subjective, personal and arbitrary vote could prevail against the opinion of the majority — the overwhelming majority — based on documentation submitted in accordance with the spirit and letter of the Charter? To admit that such a vote could prevail would be tantamount to enabling a country to exercise a function which, even though exercised by all, would still be null and void, because it would run counter to the spirit and letter of the Charter.
84. How could we call ourselves a universal institution if we exclude Italy, the heir of Rome, which was the supreme master of juridical universality? How could we call ourselves a universal institution if we excluded the Iberian peoples who, heroically and after fantastic voyages, discovered new worlds and founded new countries which are now represented here? How could we call ourselves a universal institution if we excluded Ireland, whose sons are scattered in all parts of the world and who are a source of strength in the field of labour and culture in the United States of America, Canada, Australia, South Africa and New Zealand? Ideals, moral aspirations, and even noble enthusiasm, are here in harmony with the principles of justice.
85. The Peruvian delegation puts forward its proposal boldly and with conviction, and affirms that other attitudes are contrary to the spirit of the San Francisco Conference and to the universal conception of the organization set up at that historical moment.
86. There are other problems which it is not for me to raise here but I say, with a certain anxiety, that the problems with which this Assembly will have to deal, or at least some of them, are difficult in the extreme. I am not afraid of a problem when the conflict is between a principle and a particular interest. The problems that are truly tragic for any thoughtful mind and upright spirit are those in which there is a conflict between two equally valid and worthy principles that, nevertheless, paradoxically find opposing expression in practice.
87. Respect for the sovereignty of States and for self-determination is incontestable; but it is also unquestionable that one of the bases of the United Nations is collective security and that such security is not only a good thing for all, but frequently for the countries that might be particularly affected.
88. I recall an idea expressed by the eminent American statesman, Elihu Root, who said that for every problem, however difficult it be, there is always an underlying solution, not at first apparent, but which has to be found by laborious and patient effort. And when in good faith that solution is found there is neither victor nor vanquished, but only a triumph of truth, justice and equity. Following the thought of so matter-of-fact and practical a man as Root, I would go somewhat further in an ethical sense : nothing is invincible for this magical association of the uprightness which leads us to God and the goodwill and charity which it is our duty to show to all nations and to all men.
89. I am encouraged by the thought that this Assembly is being held in the cultural atmosphere of France. The praises of the French people have been sung here. I shall modestly confine myself to saying that when we feel the difficulties are insuperable, we should turn our minds to the spirit of immortal France, seek its characteristic qualities that have been forged out of its scholastic and Cartesian experiences, and find in them the light and inspiration for the solution of our problems. Thus under God’s protection, under the protection of the mark of humanity and keeping pace with the noble inspirations of the French people, let us work with daring and with faith for a peace based on justice and love.