The present session of the General Assembly of the United Nations imparts a note of hope and encouragement in the anguished moments in which we live today. The reason for this is that the General Assembly represents the conscience of the world, and its decisions are the embodiment of that conscience in the effort to solve the problems which concern all peoples. Without deep reflection on these problems, we can never arrive at organic solutions capable of harmonizing national interests and of promoting the general welfare. Hence the importance of the General Assembly, which must be considered the central organ of the United Nations, and to which all other agencies are related.
While the other organs deal with fragmentary aspects of the problems, the General Assembly keeps watch and ward in order that all its agencies may function properly. It is the only organ in the system in which all the Member nations participate. It is the great forum to which are brought all questions that interest the international community. For this reason, the Charter does not set limits to its competence; on the contrary, it defines it in the broadest possible terms so that all subjects that affect international relations may be included within its jurisdiction.
In order that the United Nations may achieve its purpose, it is essential that world public opinion be formed with a perfect understanding of its objectives and the conditions requisite for their achievement; public opinion must support its action and impose respect for it. Without the support of world public opinion, the United Nations can never become a reality. The General Assembly, with its facilities for broadcasting ideas, is the organ that is pre-eminently equipped to create this world-wide public opinion.
In a world characterized by the extreme interdependence of people drawn into contact by the multiplicity of means of communication, both in the material sphere and in that of ideas, the absence of a forum like this Assembly could only lead to confusion and to conflicts arising from the lack of an instrument of conciliation and of synthetization by free discussion and decisions taken in common. In so far as the General Assembly exercises the salutary function of forming public opinion, many of the problems which now beset us will disappear and give place to areas of agreement between nations, thus intensifying international collaboration.
The second session of the General Assembly meets at a moment that is truly “existential”; a moment of forceful contradictions affecting the destinies of peoples; a time of stress and confusion of values, such as always precedes the dawn of a new period in history. All civilizations have passed through identical epochs before attaining superior forms of consciousness. It might be said that the spirit, in its upward quest, resorts to negation and to opposition as a propellant toward the higher goal.
Discouragement is not admissible, therefore, because it is precisely in periods of doubt and strain, such as the present, that man reveals the immense potentialities of his spirit in overcoming apparently impassable obstacles and attaining a broader conception of freedom.
If, on the one hand, our world is tragically overshadowed by antagonisms and contradictions, its vast horizons, on die other hand, offer wide vistas of progress and improvement. The present generation utilizes extremely advanced technical methods; application of these methods can create a high standard of living throughout all regions of the world and eliminate misery and poverty. This technical progress already permits us to envisage the advent of a new mankind, highly civilized as we are, but forming, as it were, a single body endowed with a broader conscience and more receptive to the realization of all the aims of the human race. In order that this aspiration be gradually attained, existing antagonisms have only to be conciliated. If the United Nations succeeds in carrying out this task, the most dangerous turning point of our time will have been passed and we may look to the future with the confidence of the traveller who has reached the top of an arduous mountain path and views at last an unlimited reach of smiling plain.
I need say no more to emphasize the importance of this second session of the General Assembly. Our discussions and the decisions we take must be of a nature to lead us to an ample conciliation of existing antagonisms, or, at least, to the preparation of the ground for such conciliation.
The Brazilian delegation, whose membership represents a true cross-section of the democratic forces of our country, is determined to use all its efforts to bring to the work of this second session of the General Assembly the contribution of the liberal and democratic ideas on which our national life is based. Conciliation is the essential trait of the Brazilian people; it can be explained by the geographic and historic development of the country. The record of our participation in international life is precisely one of conciliating opposing influences and ideas with the purpose of promoting progress in international, relations through persuasion. That is why Brazil, throughout its history, has always been one of the most ardent advocates of arbitration and other means for the pacific settlement of disputes.
International collaboration presupposes not only the existence of an adequate instrument to set in motion the numerous forms of collective activity, but also a minimum of agreement between the various nations on fundamental questions, such as the nature of international relations and the relations between the individual and the community. In other words, collaboration is conditional upon a certain degree of spiritual unity among the nations. When that unity is lacking and the divergencies of opinion on fundamental questions are accentuated even to the point of appearing irreconcilable, the work of co-operation becomes precarious if not impossible. Such is, essentially, the present situation. The ideological struggle remains unabated by reconciliation, and a middle term has not yet been found that can promote agreement and common action in all fields of human endeavour. Under these conditions, all the efforts toward co-operation are nullified, no matter how perfect the instrument intended for this purpose.
In our consideration at this General Assembly of the difficulties of the distressful moment in which we are living, those difficulties which relate to divergencies of principle should be differentiated from those which bear upon the imperfections of the instrument. If we lose sight of this essential distinction we shall run the risk of mistaking effect for cause and become unable to direct our efforts properly to the removal of the real causes which hinder the work of international collaboration and the re-establishment of peace throughout the world.
The United Nations is an instrument wielded by sovereign nations that voluntarily accept certain restrictions to their freedom of action, with a view to advantages accruing from co-operation. As an instrument of voluntary co-operation, the Charter incontestably reveals certain defects which may be corrected either by revision or through the adoption of certain practices which the States may agree upon.
The voting procedure, which requires unanimity of the five permanent members of the Security Council for decisions on matters of substance, constitutes, without any doubt, a serious obstacle to the pacific settlement of disputes and renders impossible any action intended to guarantee security whenever such action is opposed by a great Power or even by a State that has the support of a great Power.
The veto, let it be said in passing, was not contemplated initially as a negative element to permit any of the great Powers to oppose decisions of the Security Council. It was intended rather as a positive factor and as an element of balance to ensure solidarity among the great Powers, which bear the greatest responsibilities for the maintenance of peace. It was believed at Yalta that the rule of unanimity, judiciously applied to important decisions by the great Powers, would serve to maintain solidarity among them in order that world peace be ensured. This solidarity among the great Powers did not materialize, however, and as a result of differences among them, the veto has been transformed into a negative instrument which is frustrating all efforts of the Security Council towards peace. It has been employed indiscriminately as a means of frustrating methods of pacific settlement and preventing the admission of new Members into the Organization.
For these reasons we are in favour of the adoption of practical means which will lead to discipline in the use of the veto.
The United Nations certainly does not constitute a perfect mechanism. It contains flaws which must eventually be corrected in order to ensure greater efficiency. We must not forget, however, that no matter how perfect it may become, it will still remain a mechanism which can only be used, effectively if the nations continue to strive sincerely to take advantage of all its facilities. Despite its faults, the United Nations is an admirable instrument for collaboration between peoples. But the will to use it properly is divided and action becomes impossible.
What has just been said means therefore that the veto is an effect rather than a cause. It is but the reflection of the deep antagonism which divides the world over the conception of life and civilization and even over the actual destiny of man. Until this antagonism is resolved — and this can only be through the acceptance of a formula broad enough to reconcile the two contradictory conceptions so as to reinstate confidence and collaboration — we cannot place too much trust in mere changes in the mechanism.
Among the defects of the Charter to which I have referred, one of the most obvious was the non-acceptance at San Francisco of the principle of compulsory jurisdiction by the International Court of Justice in the various types of dispute dealt with in Article 36 of the Statute. This principle satisfied the demands of universal juridical conscience; this was proved by the acceptance by many States of the optional clause. If compulsory resort to the Court had been written into the Charter, a powerful instrument would be in our hands today for the promotion of the pacific settlement of disputes. The absence of such a provision relegated the International Court of Justice to a secondary role when it should actually have become one of the most important organs of the Organization.
The Charter contains potentialities in the field of security which have not yet been explored. Article 10 authorized the Assembly to discuss any questions or any matters within the scope of the Charter or relating to the powers and functions of any organs provided for in the Charter, as well as to make recommendations on any subject, except as provided in Article 12.
The broad terms in which the powers of the Assembly are defined leave no doubt as to its competence in matters of the peaceful settlement of disputes, even regardless of the precise definitions introduced by Articles 11 and 35 which expressly establish the competence of the General Assembly to consider general principles of co-operation in the maintenance of international peace and security, and to consider specifically any situation or dispute.
It is permissible, therefore, to affirm that in matters of the peaceful settlement of disputes the General Assembly has the same powers as the Security Council: in both cases, the power to make recommendations. The supremacy of the Security Council in this matter resides only in the provisions of Article 12 prohibiting the Assembly from making recommendations on a dispute or situation in respect of which the Council is exercising the functions attributed to it by the Charter. The power of the Assembly to bring any questions to the attention of the Security Council, and conversely the right of the Council to refer any matter to the General Assembly for recommendation, and the fact that the Member States can submit any dispute or situation to the consideration of the General Assembly, with the single exception prescribed by Article 12, demonstrates clearly that the Charter vests in the Assembly an important function in matters of security, second only to that which is attributed to the Security Council. There is every advantage, therefore, in this function of the General Assembly being exercised fully, thus completing the action of the Council.
If it is true, on the one hand, that the Assembly is precluded from entering into the plan of action reserved for the Council, it is no less true on the other hand that it represents even more than the Council the power of world public opinion, and that its recommendations carry an indubitable prestige. We must therefore mobilize this moral force which represents the will of fifty-five nations gathered together at this Assembly, with a view to making effective the aims of the Charter, of ensuring peace and security as primal conditions for the development of international collaboration.
The rules laid down for the General Assembly by the San Francisco Conference were even more judicious than those governing the Security Council. While the latter contain exaggerated concessions to the might of the great Powers, giving preponderance to power politics, those of the General Assembly represent on the whole the victory of persuasion over force. The Assembly is the essentially democratic organ of the United Nations; in its decisions the democratic rule of the majority is respected. Its action is bound to increase in importance since persuasion and not force is the only element capable of organizing the world.
We must confess, therefore, that the United Nations has not succeeded in achieving the main objective for which it was created: ensuring security and peace. The results in this field are almost nil. The international armed force, which should be the keystone of the system of security, has not yet been organized, nor has an agreement been reached between the Powers in regard to making disarmament a reality. A tragic insecurity weighs upon the world and is translated into manifold forms of fear, rendering collaboration impossible in other fields.
The treaty of mutual assistance recently concluded in Rio de Janeiro among the countries of the American continent represents the only optimistic note in the otherwise sterile effort to organize security. This treaty is based on the principles of the Charter which favour legitimate collective regional defence as a complement to general collective security.
However, the present crisis is not a crisis of the United Nations alone, but a world-wide crisis. It is a crisis of human conscience which finds itself divided and incapable of rising to a higher plane where its internal contradictions can be reconciled. It is also a crisis of freedom. History has shown that whenever man has succeeded in overcoming the contingencies of his former burdens, and achieving liberty, he has felt alone and lost, and his first reaction has always been one of dread of his conquest.
While progress in science and technique has opened new horizons for the freedom of man, the very vastness of the outlook instils a sense of isolation and fear into his heart. But fear is dispelled and superseded in time by man’s effort to reconcile freedom with the security of the individual. In this effort lies his salvation.