When we met in this hall a year ago to open the seventeenth session of the General Assembly, it was in a climate of fear created by the growing number of nuclear explosions and the increase in their power. By that time nuclear bombs equivalent to a total of 390 megatons had been exploded and there was every indication that a continuation of such tests would produce dangerous levels of radio-active fall-out.
78. It was known that nuclear explosions, whether caused by fusion or by fission, produce extremely dangerous ionizing radiations which alter atoms or molecules to create the so-called isotopes such as strontium-90, caesium-137, iodine-131 and carbon-14, and that these cause somatic and genetic disorders. To these isotopes are attributed such ills as leukaemia, bone tumours, damage to the haematopoietic tissues, and glandular disturbances, as well as genetic mutations which may endanger the future of the human race.
79. As we meet again on this occasion, we may say that mankind has freed itself from one of its greatest fears. The Treaty of Moscow, signed on 5 August 1963, which puts an end to the nuclear tests of the three most powerful States, is one of the most important steps the world has ever taken to prevent its wholesale destruction. This is a very encouraging development.
80. We do not regard the agreement as perfect, since it leaves open the possibility of underground tests, which always involve the risk of radio-activity escaping through cracks in the earth’s crust or contaminating underground water which finds its way to the surface. However, the signing of this Treaty, together with the agreement to establish a direct telephone link between Washington and Moscow in order to avoid another great danger —that of war by accident— are steps of great significance. Nevertheless, we are not so optimistic as to believe that we are close to general and complete disarmament, which alone can guarantee absolute and lasting peace.
81. We believe that peace is an active and positive blessing which cannot be confused with mere absence of war. This idea is not mine nor is it a modern one; it was put forward by the utilitarian philosopher Thomas Hobbes when he said: "For Warre, consisteth not in Battell onely, or the act of fighting; but in a tract of time, wherein the Will to contend by Battell is sufficiently known." This seems to be a definition of the cold war formulated two centuries in advance.
82. Realism compels us to recognize that there are dangerous international tensions affecting all the continents of the world. We are bound to recognize the existence of a violent struggle between totally opposed systems of life and of thought, and to acknowledge that as long as these tensions exist and as long as these two systems remain aggressively hostile to each other there will continue to be a danger of war, a war which cannot be kept within the limits of conventional warfare and which will call into play the most powerful weapons of mass destruction.
83. If it is true that the nuclear potential now stockpiled amounts to the equivalent of 25,000 megatons of T.N.T., then it is sufficient to destroy mankind. However, we must also recognize that steps in the direction of a rapprochement between the great Powers are possible. In this connexion I should like to quote the words used by President Kennedy in his statement made in this hall on 20 September: "... I would say to the leaders of the Soviet Union, and to their people, that if either of our countries is to be fully secure, we need a much better weapon than the H-Bomb —a weapon better than ballistic missiles or nuclear submarines— and that better weapon is peaceful co-operation." [1209th meeting, para. 47.] In addition to the two developments already mentioned, there is the possibility of an understanding between the great Powers on the peaceful use of outer space. All of these developments are steps towards progressive disarmament, which can only be based on mutual trust and peaceful co-operation.
84. My Government, believing that it was its duty to make a modest contribution towards the promotion of peace, joined with Brazil, Mexico, Bolivia and Chile in preparing a Declaration [A/5447/Add.1] aimed at preventing Latin America from becoming a nuclearized continent. This Declaration is not a treaty or commitment. It is an appeal to the peaceful conscience of our Latin American peoples to find ways of giving to this initiative, at a future date, the form of a mandatory agreement compatible with our international obligations.
85. It is clear that all steps taken by the great nuclear Powers in the direction of disarmament will free economic resources which can be used to promote the development of areas that are not yet developed. The Minister for Foreign Affairs of Brazil, in his statement of 19 September [1208th meeting], pointed out that if 1 per cent of the economic resources spent annually on armaments —which amount to the almost astronomical sum of $120,000 million— could be released, then $1,200 million would become available per year for the development of vast areas of the earth. The inspired idea of the Secretary-General, U Thant, to devote the present decade to development could thus achieve extraordinary success.
86. The utilization of those economic resources would, moreover, constitute an investment in defence. The conflict of ideologies and ways of life which now divides the world poses no threat to the highly developed States which have broad programmes of social welfare. It is difficult to imagine the United States changing its federal system for a system of the Soviet type, or the United Kingdom drifting happily towards Marxism, whereas the major sources of tension, except for the case of the re-unification of Germany, are found or are likely to be found in areas outside Europe which are economically underdeveloped and whose inhabitants live in poverty.
87. It is highly significant that these areas are practically all former colonial territories. From an economic point of view, the distinctive feature of colonialism is the exploitation, thanks to the availability of cheap labour, of the wealth of colonial territories. Since all colonialism conceals a submerged racialism, it is based also on the idea of a superiority of the European race —if such a race exists— over the indigenous races, which, except for small minorities, are kept at low cultural levels. Many colonies, on achieving independence, have found themselves faced with a choice. They can either co-operate with their former colonizers and allow them freely to exploit their wealth, or they can take the path of revolution. In the absence of effective assistance from the democracies, the peoples of the under-developed countries are losing their faith in democracy, which is increasingly becoming, for them, a high-sounding but empty phrase.
88. Latin America itself, to which my country belongs, has not escaped this fate. It has always been my personal view that colonialism began in Latin America on the day of its liberation. Spanish rule was not colonial rule, but the extension of European feudalism to America, since Spain considered America to be part of its own territory. Spain did not have industries which required American raw materials, nor did it have surpluses to dispose of in the American market. It engaged in the extraction of precious metals, but it did not create an industrial society in Latin America. Its agricultural production operated on the basis of the feudal "encomienda" system, its industrial production on the basis of handicrafts. From the point of view of economic organization, Latin America was almost entirely divided up into large or small self-sufficient holdings. When Latin America freed itself from Spain, the period of free trade began and in many places this meant the ruin in incipient Latin American industry as the result of the competition of better and cheaper European articles, especially from England, The absence of a capitalist concept prevented industrial development. The physical barriers created by mountains and forests hindered unity and for many years a number of Latin American countries remained semi-colonies, providing raw materials produced with cheap labour, as well as consumers for manufactured goods.
89. This certainly did not occur to an equal degree everywhere in Latin America, which is not a sociological unit in spite of its common history, religion and culture. It was, however, the general rule in those countries which I described on another occasion as " stratified" —that is, having a series of social classes overlying one another like geological strata. It is also true to say that in some countries democratic systems of government were often built on weak feudal socioeconomic bases,
90. I must apologize for having introduced a personal view into a statement of this nature. But I do not think that there will be any disagreement with the view that Latin America is anxious to transform its economic and social system. Virtually all the Latin American countries are at present considering radical reforms of their economy and social structure. Land reform; redistribution of the population in order to settle the more fertile agricultural land; diversification of production to avoid the risk of dependence on a single crop or on the market for a single commodity; irrigation to reclaim arid areas; development of road systems on economic lines, in order to open up the more fertile areas; improvement of methods of cultivation; utilization of hydraulic energy and its transformation into electrical energy; prospecting and surveys to determine geological resources; industrialization based on domestic raw materials, particularly basic industries; systems of low-interest, long-term loans for agriculture and industry —all these needs are obvious, as is also the need for sanitation and public hygiene. A campaign against illiteracy and efforts to transform scholastic education into technical education are necessities recognized by all the Latin American Governments. My Government has prepared a development plan, and I understand that it is to be submitted today to the appropriate international agencies, whose active co-operation is hoped for.
91. I should like now to refer to a subject which is of particular interest to my delegation and will be one of those most vehemently discussed at the present session. I refer to the question of revision of the United Nations Charter.
92. It seems to have become a commonplace to say that the United Nations is a dynamic body and not a static one. However, we must know what is meant by dynamic and what structural changes are required. Some, for example, interpret dynamism to mean strengthening the Security Council, increasing not only its membership but also its functions, a step which, accompanied by the strengthening of the regional organizations, would detract from the importance of the General Assembly. We wish to state that we are totally opposed to this view.
93. We must start from the premise that the United Nations is a dynamic organization because we live in a dynamic world. Our age is dynamic because of the profound changes wrought by technology. We might say that we are in a period of transition between two historical epochs.
94. International life has altered greatly as changes have taken place in the techniques of transport and communication. In the first place, the conquest of the air has made it possible for a jet-propelled aircraft to reach any point of the globe in less than twenty-four hours. In 1906 an aircraft could fly no faster than forty miles an hour and the feat of the Frenchman Blériot, in crossing the English Channel, stirred the whole world. Until well on in our century telecommunications depended on aerial or submarine cables which limited their range. Today the discovery of Hertzian waves and their application by Marconi to communications has led to the internationalization of news reporting. The world has grown smaller and solidarity has increased with the internationalization of human activity. This has given rise to something hitherto unknown in history: the development of a world public opinion which acts as a stimulus to and a brake on world events, in a similar manner to domestic public opinion.
95. We believe that the United Nations is the medium for the expression of this new phenomenon and that the principle of universality, based on the equality of nations large and small, should be increasingly reaffirmed. However, we do not think that the time has yet come for reviewing the Charter in accordance with the provisions of Article 109. We feel rather that, for the time being, we should envisage only a partial revision as provided for under Article 108, with a view to increasing the membership of the Councils.
96. A revision of this kind would not entail such problems as might arise from a general review of the Charter and would obviate the development of regional conflicts within the Organization between friendly States and regions which have many common problems to face.
97. One of the problems —leaving aside the common war against under-development— is the struggle against all forms of colonialism. We realize that great progress has been made in this field. In 1914, the crucial year in which the First World War began, the British Empire, with its dominions and colonies, covered nearly a quarter of the world's land areas and included nearly a quarter of mankind. French Africa covered 4 million square miles and had approximately 30 million inhabitants. In addition to Portugal and Belgium, which held large areas, Germany had also built up a colonial empire. Africa had been fragmented and the great Powers ruled over enormous areas in Asia, consolidated at the same time their American colonial possessions, which we regard as an affront to our democratic system. The part played by the United Nations in the liberation of colonies cannot be denied. Nearly all the States which have entered the Organization since 1945 were formerly under colonial rule.
98. We must not forget, however, that there are still sixty-six territories whose peoples have not yet attained a full measure of self-government. The indigenous populations of Southern Rhodesia and of the Republic of South Africa are, of course, subjected to what used to be called apartheid and is now, in an elegant euphemism, known as "separate development". Portugal, too, rigidly maintains the view that its African territories are part of the metropolitan country, in contradiction with resolutions of the General assembly. In addition, the Republic of South Africa is refusing to restore self-government to Southwest Africa in spite of the decisions of the International Court of Justice.
99. In the United Nations, my country has pursued a consistent policy of opposition to all forms of colonialism and racial discrimination. At a time when colonialism maintained that Chapter XI of the Charter was no more than a declaration, without binding force, Ecuador upheld the principle of the indivisibility and unity of the Charter. When an attempt was made to establish clear criteria regarding Non-Self-Governing Territories, Ecuador gave firm support to the factors which must determine self-government. When the Assembly sought to establish the conditions in which an administering Power is obliged to supply the information provided for in Article 73 of the Charter, Ecuador upheld the view which was most favourable to colonial emancipation.
100. With regard to racial discrimination, it fell to me in 1953 —when there was still vacillation and indecision in many quarters— to express in the Special Political Committee [14th meeting] my country's rejection of apartheid and of the attempt to shelter behind Article 2, paragraph 7. We maintained at that time that the Charter is a treaty and, as such, restricts the sovereignty of signatory States in all matters which they have placed under international jurisdiction by a free contractual act. Today, we should like to register our approval of the work of the Special Committee presided over by the representative of Guinea, Mr. Diallo Telli, with the wise assistance of the representative of Costa Rica, Mr. Volio Jiménez,
101. I stated at that time, in 1953, and I repeat today, that my country is the outcome of a blending of races. The immortal contribution of Spain was to treat every man —whether white, Negro or Indian— as a soul to be saved —and the recognition that every man is the equal of other men whatever the colour of his skin. We are keeping this tradition alive,
102. Latin America cannot forget the contributions made by Africans in its struggles for freedom. Without the support of Pétion, the head of a Republic set up in a part of Haiti, Simón Bolívar would not have been able to return in triumph to Venezuela. In Jamaica he found a warm welcome and it was there that he wrote that essential page of American history, which is known as the Jamaica Charter. Many of Bolivar's great generals were of African origin. There were men of African origin among the troops which came from the Rio de la Plata to Lima on a liberating mission, and Ansina, the faithful friend of Artigas during his long exile on Paraguayan soil, was of African stock. We would be betraying the essential meaning of our democracy and of our history if we failed to condemn every form of racial discrimination.
103. I should like to conclude by placing on record my delegation's appreciation of the objective, careful and firm manner in which Secretary-General U Thant has tackled world problems, and the tact he has shown in solving them. For his contribution to international peace and security he deserves the gratitude of all mankind, and I believe that this Organization is the true representative of mankind.