Ecuador

I should first like to extend my congratulations to the President of the United Nations General Assembly at its fifteenth session. Destiny and his own outstanding qualities have called him to preside over an, Assembly which for a number of reasons is of historic importance. First of all, representatives and leaders in the forefront of world politics and diplomacy have come to attend it, and the presence of individuals who represent world public opinion not only strengthens and enhances the prestige of the United Nations; it also means a renewal and a strengthening of the hopes for peace and justice which are inextinguishable in the hearts of human beings everywhere. 48. But the presence of the leaders of world opinion must also have a somewhat deeper significance from the sociological point of view. Why, asks the man in the street, are the leaders, the Heads of the great States attending the fifteenth session of the United Nations General Assembly? Is it a mere propaganda stunt? To place such a construction on it would be a gross over-simplification not in keeping with the prestige of the United Nations and of all the great leaders who have come to attend this session. The sympathetic and thoughtful interpretation placed by the peoples of the world on the great gathering of distinguished personalities at the fifteenth session is that they are tired of trying other methods of negotiation and have decided that the United Nations is the proper forum, the right place in which to try to settle the world’s problems. 49. Until quite recently — and now we are referring to the attempts made outside the United Nations to solve world problems — we of the small and medium sized nations have been observing with concern and alarm the trend towards a revival of the notion of a sort of board of directors to manage world affairs. At this time when international maturity is the mark of great, medium-sized and small States alike, when the legal equality of States is recognized in practice, when all nations feel that they are fully entitled to take part in the conduct, administration and direction of public affairs, the very idea of the world empowering or authorizing certain Powers to direct and manage international affairs is unthinkable. 50. As the representative of a small country, I feel that it is worth Stating from this rostrum that the small and medium-sized countries have a special interest in keeping the banner of the legal equality of States flying, since it is indeed one of the greatest achievements of the twentieth century. The hackneyed distinction so often made between big, medium-sized and small States, industrialized and under-developed States, poor and rich States, cannot and must not affect the rights and obligations set forth in the Charter of the United Nations, nor can it serve as an excuse or argument for a group of States to try to take upon themselves the conduct of international affairs. All States are entitled to participate in the conduct of international affairs and we must all do so in accordance with the authority granted to us and with our responsibilities. 51. This is a historic session also because mankind is now expecting concrete and tangible results. The United Nations must live up to its great responsibilities, and it would be distressing and highly disillusioning if the entire fifteenth session produced only florid speeches and high-sounding statements, all of them lacking the vital element — sincerity — which must be present if at both the individual and the international level, specific and definite results are to be achieved, through sacrifices and compromises on both Sides. How distressing and disillusioning it would be for the world and for the Assembly itself to see the world leaders go away from the session leaving only a wake that fades away as the days and months go by, a trail of mere propaganda, entirely devoid of real content! The prestige of the United Nations and of these great leaders -and guides of world opinion is at Stake at this fifteenth session of the Assembly, and we must speak to them frankly. We must tell all these eminent persons and all the delegations of the countries represented here that the world is being suffocated by the cold war, that winds are already blowing which are the harbingers of tragedy, that it is essential for all of us to join together whole-heartedly in the solution of those problems which are the constant concern of peoples and of nations. 52. The time has come to join forces and make a common resolve to find or initiate the solution of the world’s problems. If a solution is not forthcoming perhaps we shall be too late. More serious still, a sort of pessimism is paralysing peoples' minds and gaining a hold on the citizens of every country; and this pessimism can easily lead to impotence and inaction. 53. This is a historic session because of the degree of frankness, objectivity and realism which the various leaders have shown in putting forward their ideas and thoughts. Here in this meeting there has been talk of the troubles, worries and aspirations of peoples everywhere. I might say that at this fifteenth session of the United Nations General Assembly, the first in which I have had the honour to take part and represent my country, the old white-glove diplomacy has been cast aside and replaced by the diplomacy of the calloused, horny hand, which is more human, more sensitive and more sincere. 54. All the countries represented here have to speak frankly. Problems are not solved by keeping silent about them; nor by hiding them. Problems have to be brought out into the open and laid bare in a dignified, honest and clear manner. 55. Before I begin to analyse briefly the problems which in my delegation’s view weigh most heavily on the conscience of mankind, I should like to say a few words to explain on whose behalf I am speaking. 56. I am speaking on behalf of a small country, that is, small in size, but one whose way of life is democratic, that practises and preaches democracy, a country in which people and Government constitute a unit, in which the representative of the Government expresses the genuine feelings of the people. I am speaking, in fact, of a democratic country which though under-developed, none the less lives by ideals and raises the banner of spiritual values, St is a country which has faith in itself and is confident that it will achieve progress and greatness through the efforts and sacrifices of its own sons. 57. I am speaking as the representative of a country which is proud of its past, which has great confidence in its present and an unshakable faith in its future, I speak for a country which is not and does not feel colonialized, a country which determines the lines of its international policy in accordance with, its national interests, and for which national interests come before continental and world interests. I speak for a country that has entered whole-heartedly upon the process of changing its economic and social structure with a view to abolishing the system of large estates and putting an end to all outmoded methods of production and forms of organization. 58. But at the same time I am speaking on behalf of a country that is making progress in a material sense, while protecting human dignity and the basic principles of social life; a country that respects property and does so on social principles. It is a country that seeks the friendship of all, that wants to trade with everybody without political and ideological distinctions. It is a country which in this continent has rightly earned the title of “apostle” — the apostle of a realistic Pan-Americanism, of justice and law. Even here in the United Nations, Ecuador, small but strong in its convictions, has been a valuable force for moderation, conciliation and self-restraint. 59. Thus, secure in the independence given to it by its people and its status as a sovereign State, my country feels that the most urgent international problems at this time are four in number, and I shall analyse them briefly. They are, first, disarmament; second, the abolition of colonialism; third, the fight against under-development; and lastly, justice, as an essential requirement for peace. 60. The colossal and growing arms race, which has become more complicated recently as a result of technological progress, no longer constitutes a threat to a single nation or a group of nations; it is a threat to the very existence of mankind on this planet. 61. Despite all the declarations and demonstrations of goodwill made by large and medium-sized countries, the truth is that countries continue to make preparations for war and to devote their energies to the manufacture of the means of their own destruction. 62. The arms race, apart from constituting a threat to civilization and to man’s survival on this planet, is a constant and permanent violation of democracy; and this because it prevents the resources of the economy, and technical knowledge itself, from being used to protect democracy, to benefit the individual and to eradicate the social diseases of pain, destitution, poverty; disease and ignorance. The arms race is a threat to man and to the human species, a threat to the ideals we all profess to believe in — file ideals of democratic and civilized society. 63. But up till now it has been held that the arms race is a problem for the great Powers and that we medium-sized and small States have nothing to do with it, notwithstanding the recognized fact that the arms race is obviously a disease, a contagious disease from which not even the small States are immune. 64. And if the arms race is a problem which concerns us all and threatens us all, it is obvious that the disarmament problem cannot and must not be relegated to a group of great Powers, possibly assisted by neutrals. 65. The problem of the arms race is one that concerns all mankind, as represented here in the General Assembly hall; and although it would be ingenuous and childish to imagine that the complex process of disarmament can be dealt with and discussed in all its aspects and details here in an Assembly of ninety-eight nations, yet I cannot imagine what explanation this fifteenth session would be able to give to mankind if all we did was, as on so many other occasions, to pass the problem on to others and set up a small group ostensibly to deal with the disarmament problem. 66. This Assembly has at least one sacred duty which it cannot shirk — to lay down directives, principles, guidance and policy; in short, to establish the philosophy of disarmament, so that later on a small group comprising the nations most deeply concerned in the problem of the arms race can take charge of the details, the technical problem and the problem of negotiation. But in my delegation's view it is the duty of this Assembly to lay down guiding principles so that the approach to the disarmament problem can be a Sound and fruitful one. 67. Disarmament, make no mistake about it, is not merely a technical problem. There has been a tendency recently to emphasize the technical aspect of disarmament. Disarmament is, first and foremost, a question of confidence, a moral issue. There can be no disarmament without confidence — hence we get and shall continue to get the never-ending dispute as to which should come first, disarmament or inspection. This is indicative of a lack of confidence, and just as it would be absurd to speak of disarmament without inspection it is also quite absurd and fantastic to think that inspection must precede disarmament. 68. It is my delegation's view that disarmament should proceed side by side with inspection and control, like the shadow and the body. This should be one of the fundamental principles to emanate from this fifteenth session of the Assembly. But along with the problem of physical disarmament, which is a vast and complex subject, we must also take up and dwell for a moment on the Subject of moral disarmament. 69. Let us remember that at the end of the First World War that great Frenchman Clemenceau spoke very wisely of the disarmament of minds. The negotiators of the League of Nations at that time were not so much concerned with physical disarmament. Their main concern was disarmament in a moral sense; and how can we attack the problem of disarmament whole-heartedly and harbour any real hope of a solution if the very political problems which cause international tension are left untouched and remain in all their acuteness and complexity? 70. The arms race and the cold war are effects, the fundamental causes being the political problems; and if this Assembly does not deal with the political problems, if it thinks they can only be dealt with by summit conferences, it will have failed to do its duty because, as a legislative body representing humanity, it has the obligation to lay down directives and provide guidance for file solution of these political problems. 71. Let us stop deceiving the world; let us not make the masses believe one day that there will be disarmament when the next day we are thinking of inventing new weapons and using them as a threat. To talk of disarmament, to hand the work over to a committee, and meanwhile to let the political problem remain insoluble and to grow more acute and intense, would be to act illogically and irresponsibly. 72. Now I come to the abolition of colonialism. Humanity, which has had to live through this difficult post-war period, has been able to find consolation in observing an occurrence which holds out great promise for the human race and infinite promise for the world Organization. I refer to the process of decolonization that has brought free and sovereign nations into being — and at this point I should like on behalf of my country to welcome the sixteen new States which have become Members of the United Nations. These sixteen new countries, many of them from Africa, will bring to the community of nations the vigour and the potential spiritual qualities of a strong race. These nations will bring new blood, a new spirit, new optimism, new faith to the world Organization. Ecuador welcomes them and is happy that the countries which have now been freed from the colonial yoke are now joining us as Members of the United Nations and will share our responsibilities. 73. No one has the right to speak for Latin America, but in this case may I say — and I believe I am expressing the views of our continent — that Latin America is neither fearful nor distrustful regarding future African development. On the contrary, it hopes that the progress of the African continent will be of direct benefit to the cause of civilization and democracy. It can surely be assumed that countries which have fought for years to free themselves from the colonial yoke are not going to turn round and allow their national sovereignty to be mortgaged. The African countries, by vocation and their instinct for survival, must continue to be, as they are now, bulwarks of democracy. Moreover, the good sense and wisdom of the African leaders give us cause to hope that Africa's policy in the future will be to develop branches of production which will not cause dis-equilibrium and disturbances in Latin America. How can we imagine, for instance, that in their efforts to increase production the African countries will turn to products in which there is at this very time a world surplus? It would be an insult to the perception and wisdom of the African leaders to believe that they are likely to devote their energy and efforts to serving a cause that is already lost, since there is already over-production at the present time. 74. The presence of the New African States also highlights the vitally important role of the United Nations. We all have amoral responsibility to help and back the new States which are beginning their independent life. It is the duty of all of us to co-operate with them economically, technically and morally; but the United Nations has just rendered a service to one of those States which transcends technical and administrative co-operation — it has co-operated in order to ensure the State's continued independence. Here the delegation of Ecuador feels that it should reaffirm the position stated in the Security Council by supporting and commending the work of the Secretary-General of the United Nations, for Ecuador, being a small country, is most anxious that each and every one of the organs of the United Nations should be strengthened. As a peace-loving country with faith in justice and law it is especially anxious to see the United Nations gain strength, earn the confidence of public opinion and acquire sufficient power to enable it to translate its principles into practical deeds and living realities. 75. It is a saddening spectacle for the Ecuadorian delegation to see, instead of efforts to make the United Nations more democratic and more liberal — as we trust it will become one day with the abolition of the veto, which the Latin American nations, including Ecuador, have always opposed — attempts actually being made today to create a veto where there was none before, in other words to impede the work of the United Nations. 76. I am sure that this could not be the intention underlying the proposed changes in the structure of the United Nations Secretariat, but I should like, with all due respect, to make one comment: anything which has the effect of hampering or limiting the powers of the United Nations or placing obstacles in the way of its operation can only lead ultimately to one thing: it will make the machinery of peace more difficult to operate. Since peace is the great objective we are all seeking and the goal for which we are all striving, anything which helps the United Nations and its organs to fulfil their task should be most carefully safeguarded and championed by all who are associated with the Organization. 77. The problem of the Congo, which for months now has been a source of worry and concern to us all — indeed in the last few weeks it has completely monopolized world attention — has not only served to emphasize the importance of the United Nations Secretariat; it has also served to define the responsibilities incumbent upon the nations which still hold colonial possessions. Failure to create suitable conditions for the natural evolution towards independence, failure to train personnel to take the lead in this difficult task of creating a nation and making it viable, not only damages the prestige of the metropolitan country; it also harms the international community by endangering the cause of world peace. 78. The lesson we have been given in the Congo recently should make us all think seriously and realize that the birth of a nation to independent life means a difficult labour, but the event must nevertheless always take place in a peaceful manner, with due respect for the rule of law and — in this case particularly — respect for the legitimate right of peoples to self-determination. 79. We must reflect that the case of the Congo has been a matter of conscience for us all, and that it must be Settled with the co-operation and assistance of all countries. 80. I turn now to economic under-development. Our present-day world offers a flagrantly contradictory picture. The rich industrialized nations are growing richer, their reserves are increasing and their peoples' standard of living is rising. What has happened to the under-developed countries in the meantime? What has happened to the nations which need to develop and make headway? hi most cases, these underdeveloped nations have stood still; what is even worse, they are losing their economic and monetary reserves, and in many cases their standard of living is declining. 81. Among the factors conspiring against the underdeveloped nations is one against which we can make no stand: the population explosion. This phenomenon, which is of great concern to sociologists, should be of even greater concern to politicians and statesmen, for it is one of the primary causes of this state of world economic under-development. 82. On the other hand, the formation of economic blocs among the highly industrialized nations is causing apprehension and misgivings among the under-developed countries. In the past we had the notorious Holy Alliance, allegedly formed to defend the colonial interests of the great nations on the American continent. I cannot, will not, must not believe that the formation of these powerful economic blocs in Europe is intended to produce a kind of economic "Holy Alliance” with the object of reducing the under-developed countries of Latin America to colonial status. I have to believe that all these fears that the free movement of goods will be impeded are unwarranted, for Europe must understand that it cannot consider or regard itself as a watertight island of democracy. Democracy needs certain basic elements, and one of the elements fundamental to the maintenance of world democracy is the prosperity, advancement and progress of the 200 million people of Latin America and many millions of Asians and Africans. 83. Trade discrimination and the reduction and hampering of commerce does not promote democracy; in fact, it forms a barrier to understanding between the peoples and thus impedes the general advance of civilization, the relaxation of tension and the transformation and moral disarmament of men's minds. The fears of Latin America are based on genuine suspicion of these economic groups which have been established in Europe under the name of Common Market or Outer Seven, and it is our fervent hope that the interests of Latin America will be borne in mind, for Latin America is an essential factor in the maintenance of democracy and freedom in Europe. 84. While I am on the subject of under-development, may I refer to the realistic and practical way in which Latin America is facing this problem. We all know that until recently “Pan-Americanism" was nothing but a high-sounding phrase. You all know that for years and years the people of Latin America had lived on words. We were intoxicated with oratory while Pan-Americanism remained just a commonplace of polite conversation. But today, thanks to Brazilian sensibility, thanks to the skill and nobility of Brazil, we have a new policy and a new philosophy of Pan-Americanism, a philosophy of Pan-Americanism embodied in Operation Pan-America. 85. The political solidarity of the hemisphere has been referred to and proclaimed by us on many occasions; but it was a frail, forlorn plant, for it lacked the support of economic solidarity, and the central or key idea of Operation Pan-America is precisely that political solidarity should go hand in hand with economic solidarity. Thus we have a new process and a new doctrine in motion, a doctrine which began in November 1958 and is already yielding concrete and positive results. 86. Operation Pan-America is a joint programme, a multilateral programme, to combat economic underdevelopment, and it is divided into a number of sections, such as public and private investment, the question of protection for commodity prices, the battle against illiteracy and disease, and the co-ordination of technical assistance. 87. Operation Pan-America has already borne fruit; we already have in operation our Inter-American Development Bank, the first regional experiment with a bank whose capital consists of contributions from all the countries and whose aim is the development and encouragement of each and every one of the member countries. A few weeks ago, at the Bogota Conference, Operation Pan-America received new impetus from the "programme for social development" drawn up by the United States. In Bogota we were extremely pleased, and it is worth while to welcome most warmly, in the United Nations, this change of United States international policy towards Latin America. We Latin Americans had grown used to hearing only of the Marshall Plan and the millions that had been spent on the timely reconstruction of Europe. We Latin Americans were hoping too that the hour would come when we should not be left alone and when economic solidarity would fight against the effects of economic under-development. Today poverty, ignorance and destitution are not local but universal diseases, common diseases which must be tackled in common and under a joint programme; and it was just such a plan of social development that the United States laid before the Conference of Bogota. 88. Thus, we countries of Latin America are entitled to say at this fifteenth session of the General Assembly that Pan-Americanism has entered a dynamic phase which holds out great promise and it is to be hoped that with the help of Operation Pan-America, which we all support, carried out in good faith and sincerity in a joint effort, we Latin American countries shall be able to fight more vigorously and more effectively against the evils of economic under-development. 89. Of course, we must now wait for Europe's reply; we Latin American countries must ask the highly industrialized Powers of other continents what their reaction will be to the efforts of the Latin American countries to fight against and overcome the consequences of economic under-development, the classic enemy of the democratic stability of our Institutions. 90. A stable and honourable peace can only come out of justice. Whenever we look back over the history of the world, the theory is confirmed that injustice, plunder and encroachment upon the freedom and integrity of nations have always sown the seeds of strife. I would go so far as to say that the history of wars is nothing more than the history of injustice; and just as Bolivar once said in one of his great declarations "Without justice, the Republic cannot exist", so we too can say: "Without justice, peace and international friendship cannot exist". 91. At this historic moment, the peoples of the world are demanding justice, justice within their frontiers, within continents and throughout the world. 92. The Governments of today, the democratic Governments, have breathed in the air of justice demanded by the people, and this is why in each of our countries and in each of our continents we are witnessing profound changes initiated by Governments in the social and economic spheres. This is being done in order to secure justice, to wipe out privilege and patronage, and political, racial and economic discrimination.' 93. A start has been made in establishing justice within frontiers, and this internal justice will inevitably have repercussions on international justice. Yet, what good, I wonder, will all this internal justice do? What purpose would be served by the internal justice for which all our peoples are yearning if the notorious international injustices were to remain intact and unassailable? In the last analysis, to speak of justice is to speak of the supreme cause of solidarity among nations. 94. Having mentioned the word "solidarity", may I take this opportunity, solely in the interests of promoting that regional solidarity which is so much sought after by all peoples, enhancing international awareness, and helping to increase the knowledge of the problems that are a danger to general peace, to give from this world forum a short, factual and dispassionate account of a problem which is troubling one people, which is threatening the future of one people. This is a problem which is bound to touch the juridical sensibility of the world, for it concerns a people who believe that the time of force, of threats and of coercion has gone, irretrievably, from the world and given place to another far more permanent and tangible force: the force of conciliation, of equity, of constructive harmony and mutual co-operation. 95. This America, of which we are so proud, is juridically built up on certain immutable principles which constitute the pride of the civilized world. In this America of ours we have doctrines and principles which have by now been assimilated and incorporated in the United Nations and the legal organizations established throughout the world. 96. Aggression confers no rights. Aggression must be rejected. Wars of conquest are no, justification whatever for territorial acquisition. These are the basic principles upon which the edifice of inter-Americanism has been constructed. 97. We have proclaimed on many occasions in our charters and documents that international problems must be solved on the basis of negotiations directed towards peaceful and legal solutions. Yet, in the midst of this great edifice, amid the vast columns of jurisprudence evidenced by charters and conferences, amid stacks of declarations, we discover that here in America there is a problem which is wounding the sensibilities of a whole people, jeopardizing the future of a whole people and undermining Pan-Americanism. 98. May I quote here a few words to which I listened yesterday with great sympathy and great enthusiasm. The President-Elect of Uruguay said: "This doctrine decrees that any act of aggression whether from inside or outside the continent, against any American State, shall be considered an act of aggression against the entire continent” [875th meeting, para. 24], On the basis of the same doctrine, I would say that injustice towards one country and detraction from the rights and fundamental guarantees which are inherent in a country’s sovereignty constitute an attack, not on one particular country, but on a whole continent. 99. Let me go on to the facts of the matter and make an unequivocal act of faith: it has been said that international problems should not be referred to in the United Nations General Assembly hall, because we are not here to trouble the peace of the world’s conscience. It has been said that it is better for problems to be kept hidden and hushed up; but the diplomacy of Ecuador today believes that the General Assembly is precisely the place for the world to learn the facts, believes that problems should be stated and exposed, dispassionately, clearly and temperately, but at the same time quite realistically. And since I believe that I have the same right as any other representative of any other country to state here the anxieties, aspirations and woes of the peoples of the world, I too will recount my tale of woe though without sighs and tears. It has been said that one does not seek justice on one’s knees. I will disclose my troubles not because I hope for anything concrete or definitive from the Assembly, but simply in order to inform international opinion, to awaken the public conscience and to fulfil an elementary duty as a member of this Assembly. 100. In 1829 a treaty was signed which definitively, clearly and categorically established the frontier between my country and the neighbouring country to the south, Peru. This solemn treaty, the fruit of the Marshal of Ayacucho’s magnanimity, for the first time gave Peru access to the Amazon. This solemn, flawless treaty finally settled the old frontier question between the two countries. I shall not weary the Assembly by relating all the attempts made from 1829 to the present, to solve the problem. What problem? That created by the fact that the neighbouring country to the south crossed the Amazon, broke the treaty and continued to advance into the Amazonian region of Ecuador. All the attempts, all the negotiations carried out in an endeavour to find a mutually acceptable solution to this problem after the treaty of 1829 failed. And so the American countries came together in 1938, in the beautiful and modern city of Lima, and declared: "That the peoples of America have achieved Spiritual unity through the similarity of their republican institutions, their unshakable will for peace, their profound sentiment of humanity and tolerance, and through their absolute adherence to the principles of international law, of the equal sovereignty of States..." The Conference of American States also said: "That it reiterates, as a fundamental principle of the Public Law of America, that the occupation or acquisition of territory or any other modification or territorial or boundary arrangement obtained through conquest by force or by non-pacific means shall not be valid or have legal effect. The pledge of non-recognition of situations arising from the foregoing conditions is an obligation which cannot be avoided either unilaterally or collectively." 101. Thus in 1938, America said that it was a duty not to recognize the acquisition of territory by means of force. Then, to our surprise, only three years after 1938, when the world was shaken by the aggression at Pearl Harbor, when all of us were hastening to help our brothers of the United States to defend democracy against the totalitarian Powers, the small and peaceful country called Ecuador was the victim of aggression, of occupation, of invasion its cities were destroyed and part of its territory was devastated. Why? For committing the sin of being peace-loving, of believing in the rule of law, of believing that international problems, particularly among members of one and the same family, must be solved by calm and peaceful means, and not be perpetrating a Pearl Harbor on America, that is, a Pearl Harbor against Pan-Americanism — which is what the occupation of Ecuadorian territory represented. 102. The world does not know these details, and the world must know them; for I am not indulging in slander — these are facts. Here in the newspapers of the United States, in The New York Times, and I can show you the issues of that newspaper — there are records of the invasion and occupation of Ecuador by Peru in 1941. 103. Of course, the Peruvians were well armed, well trained and well organized, and the Ecuadorians, who had never dreamt of war but had thought only of peace, were defeated. We were not at war,>we had no thought of fighting, and, I want you to know, several provinces of my country were occupied by Peruvian soldiers and our very national existence was endangered by the establishment of a blockade of all its ports. 104. This happened in 1941, after a whole series of declarations opposing the use of force, rejecting aggression and all the consequences following upon aggression. On this basis, with Ecuadorian territory occupied, though my country had neither declared nor provoked war, and had put its faith in the legal elements on which civilized society is founded, with its territory occupied and its cities devastated, my country was compelled to sign a protocol, the notorious 1942 Protocol of Peace, Friendship and Boundaries. This Protocol, quite regardless, provided that Peruvian forces would not leave the territory until fifteen days after the signing of the Protocol, as if to demonstrate and to record for history that Ecuador did not sign the Protocol willingly but was forced to sign it only when the dagger was held at its heart. 105. And now we are faced with a situation and a Protocol which are the product of force, of coercion, of violence; a Protocol which deprives my country of almost half its territory. This Protocol not only deprives my country of 200,000 square kilometres of territory; what makes the case particularly serious is that it is the country which discovered the Amazon, which shed its blood in the Amazon, the blood of colonizers, of discoverers. This country has been hurled from the crest of the cordillera and deprived of all access to the Amazon. This being so, the country in question has come here to tell its story and to explain that the Protocol of Peace, Friendship and Boundaries was not a protocol of peace, nor of friendship, nor of boundaries. It was not a protocol of peace because no protocol based on injustice can be a protocol of peace. As Sanchez de Bustamante said: "Only justice produces real peace. Injustice creates only temporary peace, suspicion and insecurity." 106. As for friendship, what friendship could there be now between countries which in the ordinary course of events ought to be giving each other brotherly aid because they have many things in common, countries which might be furthering the progress of our continent side by side? What friendship can there be where there is flagrant injustice, injustice not against Ecuador alone but against Pan-Americanism and against all the precepts which constitute the foundations of the United Nations? This boundary treaty is not a boundary treaty, because when an attempt was made, to apply the Protocol despite the constant protests of the Ecuadorian people, it was found unworkable and the frontier could not be demarcated in several sections and over a considerable distance. 107. Today, Ecuador has raised a cry of protest and is proclaiming to the world — without asking anyone,s consent, because Ecuador is a free and independent country and acts in accordance with the dictates of its own conscience and the rules of inter-American law — that it cannot respect an invalid protocol which is the consequence of force, of occupation, of coercion, of pressure. Now we are told that we are violating the international legal order because we are apparently attacking the sanctity of treaties. My delegation must tell this Assembly that the sanctity of treaties should apply to valid treaties, such as the Treaty of 1829, but the principle of the sanctity of treaties cannot be applied to these which have been concluded without the consent of the parties and in violation of the fundamental principles of law and of the Charter of the Organization of American States. 108. My country could not remain silent on this problem and it was right that, in speaking here and giving our views on the problems troubling the world, specific reference should be made to this problem in the heart of America. Fortunately for us, there are four countries — the United States, Argentina, Brazil and Chile — which, as guardians of the peace and executors of a moral obligation arising out of the Organization of American States and out of their duties as impartial, brotherly States, have hitherto been entrusted with the responsibility of guaranteeing the celebrated Protocol of 1942. 109. I wish to take this opportunity to state publicly our gratitude to the countries which have assumed responsibility for this guarantee, a guarantee not of a country nor of a worthless piece of paper but of the maintenance of international peace, solidarity and justice. 110. We in Ecuador believe, and with some justification, that these problems must first be solved on a regional basis, but since our country is also a Member of the United Nations, it was our duty to state the case here, clearly and simply. 111. I have been faithful to the historical facts. I have not referred to other details in the Charter of the Organization of American States because I did not Wish to weary you or to insult your intelligence. 112. In a word, Ecuador wishes to say to the world: because we were peaceful and because we trusted in law and the rule of law — and we shall continue to trust in them — we were invaded, we were occupied, and a large part of our territory was devastated. Under these circumstances we signed a protocol, a so-called Protocol of Peace, Friendship and Boundaries, which did not make peace, cannot foster friendship, and was unable to establish boundaries; a protocol which constitutes only a wound, a deep and throbbing wound, in the heart of the Ecuadorian people; a protocol which is contrary to Pan-Americanism. And here it is America as a whole which is threatened. 113. The United Nations may say, “Let us see what Pan-Americanism will do in a case such as the one presented in the United Nations today”. In due course my country will take the legal steps appropriate to the circumstances. For the time being, it has confined itself to proclaiming the invalidity of the Protocol, hoping and trusting that international influences and legal sensibility in America and throughout the world will find an appropriate way to achieve a just and peaceful solution. 114. Peoples do not die. The principles of justice may often be flouted and the charters men write violated. But peoples do not die, particularly peoples who have faith in their destiny. 115. My country will go forward, despite the injustices of which it has been the victim, raising the banner of justice and seeking conciliation. We shall not indulge in hatred or revenge. My country calls only for conciliation, justice and equity, and no one will silence us. Neither legal sophistry nor the threat implicit in the troops now concentrated along neighbouring frontiers will silence us. To meet force — as the United Nations has proclaimed — we have justice and equity. While there exists a flag like that of the United Nations, countries like ours will have a right to speak, and we shall speak, with conviction, with strength and with feeling. While there is a flag which blazons forth justice and freedom, countries like ours will have a right to bring their troubles and their problems here. This is Ecuador’s contribution to the fifteenth session of the General Assembly: to make known the existence of a problem, a situation of conflict which presents a threat to our very existence as a nation. 116. We want to settle the problem in such a way that the Amazon will not be a source of discord or a barrier of hatred but a channel which will lead to the transformation of that whole area and unite and bind together all the peoples of that part of America. 117. There are many problems before the United Nations General Assembly. Today, this is not another problem for the United Nations; it is another world problem, another problem for inter-Americanism. 118. I do not think I have been lacking in loyalty to the United Nations, or have carried out a "diplomatic Pearl Harbor", by coming here to disturb this peaceful atmosphere. Only saints can hide their pain, silence their griefs and hide realities. I am not a saint but a diplomat, and it is my duty to say that I neither hide griefs nor keep silence about injustices. Injustices must be revealed when the goal is justice.