We are assembled here at a solemn hour for the human race, and the solemnity of the hour is not due to our presence in this hall, but rather to the anxiety and anguish which all the peoples of the world are suffering.
Not even in the midst of the war did the representatives of the nations feel graver responsibilities weighing upon them, for during the conflagration, all peoples, with the exception of those controlled by the nazi-fascist tyrants, though cruelly tried, breathed the air of heroism and made common decisions in harmony and fraternity beneath the sun of liberty.
Now all ideals are being tom to shreds by selfish interests, and with right no longer in the ascendant, as it was when it opposed the aggressors, harmony is not advanced a single step. Its progress is paralysed by disagreements between the Powers in whose hands we have placed a key, an inflexible and all-powerful key — the international veto.
Conceived as a lever of control and as a guarantee for the countries which made the greatest contribution to the common victory, the veto grants those countries an exceptional privilege, and therefore carries with it an exceptional obligation.
We all know what that privilege consists of. The obligation, however, is difficult to define in concrete terms. Nevertheless, it is enough to reflect on the relation which ought to exist between the privilege and the responsibilities inherent in that privilege to realize that the scope of the veto is limited; its limitations become evident in view of the danger that the abuse of the veto may render peace impossible.
Since the San Francisco Conference, certain Governments, including the Government of my own country, have viewed with apprehension the voting system now prevailing in the Security Council. At that time the delegations which pointed out the disadvantages of the veto did not carry their opposition so far as to repudiate it entirely, and they chose to abstain from voting in order to place their objection on record. This was due mainly to their desire to spare no sacrifice in the cause of peace, which — so it was said — would be protected by mutual understanding amongst the Powers.
In some parts of Europe there are still to be found ancient coffers, which guides show to tourists, in which the universities of the sixteenth century kept their funds. The joint effort of seven or eight guards was required to open them, and if even one guard were missing, the coffer could not be opened.
Something of the same kind is happening now in this twentieth century with our international Organization. We know that in it lie real treasures of co-operation and of faith in mankind, entrusted to it at the time it was created by the nations who created it. It is impossible, however, to lay hands on these treasures and utilize them unless the wishes of the Powers coincide. Unfortunately, as their wishes do not always seem to do so, the coffer of peace remains closed, and — not without reason — the nations are in despair; for what lies hidden there, beyond their grasp, is not the exclusive property of a few nations; it is the moral heritage of all mankind.
What are and what may be the consequences if peace remains locked away? The nations will begin, on their own initiative, to seek an incomplete, precarious and false solution of the grave problems afflicting them. Moreover, the United Nations will lose prestige, and outside its framework certain programmes of joint action are being drawn up which, from a strictly legal point of view, may be open to objection, but which are based upon the simple premise that the world must advance. And if the machinery of the United Nations runs counter to the world’s struggle for survival, the world’s needs will finally break down the juridical machinery of our Organization.
Is this breakdown desirable? We maintain and protest with all the strength of our conviction that it is not desirable, and that it would, on the contrary, lead to the greatest of disasters.
I come from a country with a population of more than twenty-two million people, a country whose Government has at its disposal to cover all its administrative expenses — defence, transport, health, ports, agriculture and education — a sum equal to only one dollar a month per inhabitant. And yet its people, the people of Mexico, is a peace-loving people.
A few months ago we had to restrict many of our imports in order not to add to the problems of universal economic insecurity, that of the collapse of our currency, which was devalued some time ago. And yet, we are a peace-loving people.
As a result of our social revolution, Mexico had to pay considerable compensation to various Governments of America and Europe for damages suffered by their nationals in the course of that revolution. On the other hand, now that the war is over, we have not received any assurance that we shall be paid the just compensation to which we are entitled. And yet, we are a peace- loving people.
In 1942 my Government signed an agreement binding all the signatories not to conclude separate peace treaties with the enemy. Despite that commitment, our representatives, like those of so many other nations, were denied even the right to take part in the conferences held to consider the basis of such treaties. And yet, the people of Mexico is a peace-loving people.
In enumerating all these facts which, in other circumstances, I might use as a basis for denouncing the state of affairs prevailing in the post-war world, I have no intention of reviving old grievances or of indulging in recriminations. No, such is not my intention. I wish rather to show that when there is a real desire for peace and when there is à desire to establish it on a permanent basis, there are many selfish interests which have to be set aside by each nation, and there is no valid excuse for the failure of the great Powers to restrain their desire for domination at a time when the others wait in silence.
Among the delegations to this Assembly there are representatives of the Governments which participated in the Rio de Janeiro Conference. There the republics of the western hemisphere affirmed their determination to co-operate for the maintenance of peace and security in the New World.
I had the honour of taking part in those debates, and I may tell you frankly that, despite the gloom and suspicion which seem to hang over our Organization, the deepest desire of the American States was at all times to-strengthen the structure of the United Nations by bringing the terms of the treaty which they signed in Brazil into conformity with the obligations assumed at San Francisco, and by endeavouring to endow the regional body of this continent with such facilities as would most adequately serve the cause of our Charter.
That loyalty to the principles of the United Nations demonstrates our faith in the solidarity of the human race, a faith which we do not wish to lose and which no one has the right to lose.
We have already gone through one experiment — at Geneva. The various countries undermined the very foundations of the League of Nations by demanding and accepting the rule of unanimity as a primary condition; essentially, that too was a veto, although it was democratic in nature since it was within the reach of all.
When we embarked upon the second great experiment of our time, we did not commit the error of the Treaty of Versailles. We did away with the unanimity rule; but although unanimity was apparently proscribed, we took the reins out of the hands of the small States and reluctantly placed them in the hands of the great Powers.
By rejecting the principle of absolute unanimity, often so difficult to obtain, we thought it possible to secure the unanimity of those countries most likely to come into opposition with one another. It is not surprising, therefore, that at the very first General Assembly of the United Nations a movement was started, in which Mexico participated, for the clearer definition of the scope of the veto.
As a result, the General Assembly adopted a resolution urging the members of the Security Council to use the veto with such discretion as was necessary to avoid impeding the primary functions of the Organization.
The timidity of the resolution did not match the vehemence of the criticisms; and that is really not surprising; The operation of our system is so complicated that it requires extreme prudence on the part of any who are desirous of altering it without giving rise to irreparable schisms.
The veto was born of the war itself, as an additional guarantee of security for those who, having greater resources and consequently greater power, ought also to bear greater responsibility.
The precariousness of the peace we now enjoy makes it inadvisable to attempt to overcome the opposition all at once, but every year the Assembly must endeavour to advance along the road to equality. If the great Powers persist in maintaining the veto right granted to them by our Charter, it will be well to examine, in a peaceful atmosphere devoid of prejudice, the practical means of limiting the use of that privilege. We must realize that the clamour against the rule of unanimity will increase in intensity as events prove that it does not create a real bond between the States and that its use only aggravates their differences, since, far from averting dangers, the veto paralyses the regulating action of the Security Council.
Established for the purpose of organizing peace, the United Nations is still waiting for the great Powers to supply it with the raw material for its work: peace itself.
A peace treaty has been signed with only one of the three main enemies of the democracies, and that on terms which have caused some Foreign Offices already to consider the possibility of its revision. As regards the other two, circumstances have not made it possible for us to overcome the difficulties of which we are aware.
There was a ray of hope when, at the last Assembly, the United Nations dealt with the problem of disarmament. That hope soon died. For how could we have confidence in military disarmament unless it were accompanied by moral disarmament? And how can these two types of disarmament prosper together in an uncertain world, in which an attempt is being made to formulate a universal policy by the use of nationalist systems and methods?
Our diplomatic language is to some extent the language of our era, but our actions are still very similar to those which strewed the tragic paths of history with millions of corpses.
We speak of the welfare of man at a time when man is torn between the two opposing forces of juridical and cultural internationalism on the one hand, and political and economic nationalism on the other.
In the opinion of my country, that is the cause of all our difficulties and the root of all our problems.
Unless we consolidate the United Nations, all our efforts will again come to naught and, by losing the peace, we shall also have lost the war.
But if we hope to consolidate our Organization, we shall have to correct many mistakes, overcome much pride, and relinquish many of our advantages. That means that we shall have to adopt a policy of sincere international equality.
making our liberties real, abolishing exclusive policies and confessing unreservedly that we would be deceiving the peoples of the worm if, after having raised the banner of universality, we continue to destroy that universality by sophistries born of the most sterile nationalism.
In this connexion, I must stress the necessity of giving the principal organs of the United Nations the same direction as we have tried to give to its dependent specialized agencies — UNESCO, the United Nations Food and Agriculture Organization and the World Health Organization. What are the objectives of these agencies? To establish and strengthen peace by creating an atmosphere of peace, either, like UNESCO, by freeing man from ignorance through education and the emancipating power of knowledge; or, like the FAO, by freeing him from hunger through a substantial increase in production, or again, like the World Health Organization, by freeing him from illness through the co-operation of all our countries in the field of public health.
No one questions the noble aims of the agencies I have mentioned, but how will they be able to carry on their activities in a world which demands that children work for peace, that the undernourished be patient and that the invalids show goodwill, while in the economic and political fields, a new and horrible conflict is being - insidiously prepared?
If we want the peoples of the world to have confidence in the work of those agencies, let us begin by asserting, in our political and economic councils, that same spirit of understanding, tolerance and mutual aid which inspired their establishment.
Permit me, as the representative of a State which is not a great Power, to exhort you to consider the urgent necessity of preventing discord from undermining the stability of this Organization. Perhaps because my country is not an economic or military Power, you may be ready to believe that it expresses, at least in part, the feeling of the majority, of that majority which placed in the United Nations its greatest hope and its most fervent conviction.
Let us recall the atmosphere that prevailed at the birth of the organization which today invites us to consider its anxieties and its travail. Even before victory was won, the San Francisco Charter gave many nations an exalted feeling of forthcoming triumph. How could men and States who proved themselves fit to master themselves by subjecting selfish interests to mutual understanding and the general welfare, fail to master the enemy?
It is by the fulfilment of that duty to win the peace for the whole world — and to win it through mastery over themselves — that we shall recognize the truly great men of our time. Let us help them to gain that mastery so that they may fulfil their role of supreme guardians of the peace, a role incumbent upon them as arbiters of the war.
But let us warn them that time is short; that the world is suffering; that the sovereignty of States must always yield precedence to the sovereignty of human suffering, and that the United Nations will be saved only if it is determined to be the true expression of the solidarity of mankind, of all the men of the earth.