Peru

The representatives of Peru have come here again with the same fears, but with renewed hope. Since the day when our country affixed its signature to the San Francisco Charter, we have seen an increase in the gravity of the problems, which we had largely foreseen for the post-war period; as well as an increase in the fears of peoples before the growing darkness on the horizon of peace. Nevertheless, we have such an ancient love of peace and such a deep-rooted faith in the spiritual and juridical influences which, like guardian angels, accompany humanity on its road into the future, that we continue to cherish the belief that intelligence and feeling, the determining factors in the human conscience, will exert an increasing influence to make our world a safe haven for men to live in harmony and comfort. The love of peace and confidence in the final victory of the human spirit may not be a prerogative of the Latin-American soul, but they are certainly inalterable elements of it. Latin America presents a unique example of the simultaneous rise of many new States to free international life. This circumstance facilitated, and in due course brought about the formation of a collective conscience, making that period of our century-old history the inauguration of our solidarity and marked the raising of a banner to guide the course of our destiny. On that road, we have only the paths of peace and justice to follow. At times we have had long conflicts, but we have always settled them by legal means which are both an honour to our international community and a proof to all humanity that it is possible to live in harmony, and find spiritual and material happiness thereby. We Latin-American States can therefore assert that when we attend these periodical meetings in the interests of moral progress and human aspirations, we do not do so to seek temporary settlements or the strengthening of international advantages by means of clever and subtle formulas; rather our participation represents an impartial and determined contribution to the achievement of the higher aims to which we are entirely devoted. This devotion represents a sincere spiritual need and a continual aspiration toward a moral philosophy inspired by our concept of human destiny. Moreover, the disputes that have been settled in Latin-America by brotherly understanding have been geographically localized and local both in their causes and effects. They have not had, nor have we wished to give them, world-wide significance. We can therefore stand before an assembly of nations free of avowed or concealed interests to satisfy or maintain; free of the broad ambitions of imperialist policy and free of the excesses of over- bearing nationalism. During the last half century we have twice contributed to the victory of our human and international concept of life. Some of our nations contributed the blood and spirit of their sons; all gave unstintingly of the riches of their soil and without recoiling before the economic and spiritual dislocation of their populations. Surely, we may claim the right to raise our voice for the re-establishment of human progress and welfare. The United Nations has not yet done anything to redeem the consequences of our special but effective sacrifice, nor, what is even more important, to further the exploitation of our potential wealth in order to build a stronger structure of peace based on human welfare. In the reconstruction of devastated areas some progress has been made along the road of good, but sometimes sterile intentions. Faithful to their human philosophy, the Latin-American countries have reduced their individual and collective standards of living below the level imposed by the war itself, by contributing to the aid given by UNRRA. But no direct measure has yet been taken to prevent the spread of misery from creating fresh devastation in the future. Such devastation would be even more serious — if that were possible — because although it might not perhaps result in new destruction of existing wealth, it would constitute the annihilation of the physical and intellectual efforts of starving man, blinded by life’s obscure but palpable forces to the love of his neighbour and the light of a better world. I should like to refer to some of the concrete questions of a legal and political character which stand on this Assembly’s road as stumbling blocks to peace. We share the legitimate desire for abolition of the right of veto conferred by the San Francisco Charter on the great Powers which, by this means, and not only by this means, hold a privileged position in the United Nations. The veto was a political necessity for the San Francisco Conference; it had to be embodied in the Charter as a legal principle. Let us not forget that the sound of battle had not yet died away when the Conference took place and the Charter was drafted. It was the great Powers of the United Nations that led the world to victory. It was only fair, in evaluating realistically the compensation for their sacrifices that they did not wish to subject the reward for their tremendous effort to principles or ideals; it was only fair that they should want to reserve their right to direct the restoration of military peace in the battle areas, and the establishment of a universal juridical peace which would leave mankind free to return to its human destiny. All the other States which granted them this right were entitled to expect that its use would be limited to the legitimate and necessarily temporary defence of their positions in connexion with the war and the immediate problems of the post-war period. To concede or establish a right does not assume elimination of the concept of abuse of that right in the future by those enjoying it. If the possibility of abuse of a right is essentially inseparable from the idea of the right itself, there is implied a tacit but effective reservation which opposes the predominance of the right of all to the abuse of an individual right. The great majority of the United Nations have viewed the abuse of the veto right with disgust and anxiety. We have always favoured peaceful and rational settlements, and in 1946 we hoped that the outcry against the use of the veto would have a decisive influence on the actions of those exercising it. Had this been so, there would have been no need for new and heated discussions, and the juridical balance of the world might have been restored. Unfortunately, once again in international history, warnings have proved useless, and now, a short while later, we find ourselves again faced with this problem, which has become acute. Consequently, it has become necessary to regulate and limit the use of the veto so that its continued use in conjunction with a policy inspired by sinister motives shall not forge the chains which impede the progress of peace. We should ask those favouring the unrestricted use of veto if they think that the situation that existed when victory was won should serve indefinitely as a basis of world harmony or if, on the contrary, as we believe, the United Nations should maintain as its high and constant purpose, the establishment of peace for mankind and the legal equality of States, provided that they satisfy in the future those peace-loving qualities advocated by the Charter as a foundation for the international community. Even supposing that there may be persons drunk with power and ambition who desire the maintenance of the present situation, does history teach them nothing nor show them the precarious nature of “great Powers”? Were there not some great Powers on whose empires the sun never set? Were there not others who rose to the highest international rank with a rapidity only exceeded by that of their fall? In spite of our opposition to the abuse constituted by immoderate use of veto, we do not favour extraordinary measures for revising the United Nations Charter. We have already said that it was certainly not perfect, and would undoubtedly continue to require revision, but we fear that at this critical time in international life the revision of the Charter might provoke new and deeper differences which might endanger the very existence of the United Nations. If we limit ourselves to considering the veto problem as the urgent legal question at the present time, we might contemplate the possibility of replacing it by a form of weighted vote that would give the Powers now enjoying the veto power the assurance that, their views, would have considerable numerical representation in certain ballots. If such ballot required a two-thirds majority vote of the General Assembly, or Security Council as the case might be, but the vote of the great Powers were weighted and represented by a multiple figure, they might have less reason to fear a decisive majority being formed against them. As regards the small States, it is obvious that their opinions on international matters would appear to lose weight arithmetically in the voting, but certainly not more so than under the unrestricted use of the veto by one or a few States. To retain the veto in its present form is, indeed, to accept the subordination of general interests, requirements and aspirations to the domination of nationalistic ambitions. Both the veto and the ambiguous unanimity formula which crippled the League of Nations are far from being an affirmation of independence, unless we wish to return to the former conception of absolute and unlimited sovereignty which is entirely opposed, both in substance and in form, to any international organization. Such an organization implies the limitation of the old, presumptuous absolute rights by a voluntary act, to some extent compromising with them, for the benefit of human life and welfare, which are the reason and purpose of our existence on earth. We took no part in the special Commission dealing with the problem of atomic energy — which hangs over peace like a sword of Damocles — but we can express ourselves generally in favour of the view taken by the United States, which is prepared to relinquish its technical advantages — so cruelly and decisively applied in ending the war in the East — in exchange for effective international control ensuring that the renunciation of these advantages which reinforce its strength does not mean leaving it at the mercy of possible hidden threats in the obscure future. A representative of Peru was a member of the Special Committee on Palestine. In accordance with the dictates of his conscience and wisdom, he subscribed to the majority report without, however, being committed to all its aspects. This will necessarily influence political thought on this subject in my country. We can therefore say that we believe the best solution to be partition of the territory and the establishment of two States in which the opinion of the respective majorities will be essentially respected. But we consider that the State to be constituted for the Jews, in fulfilment of an, old multilateral international promise, should be sufficiently large, within reason, to ensure not only the normal development of the life of the Jews now in Palestine, but also of at least another generation and of the tens of thousands of dispersed or exiled Europeans awaiting the fulfilment of that promise on nearby shores. They cannot be re-absorbed into the social environment from which they have been separated or expelled by hardship, but they can, owing to the special qualities of their race, found new centres of happiness and progress. It is right that we should hold this view, for our own national constitution is based on respect for nationalities and human rights, and because we believe that if the Jews do not find a modest but safe national home, the only result will be postponement of the solution of a problem which time and future events may aggravate. Trusting in the promise of technical aid by the United Nations contained in the relevant resolution of the first session of the Assembly, my Government recommended to the Secretary-General, as he mentioned in Iris report, the establishment of a committee or group of experts to study the effects of the use of coca leaf in the Andes, the causes and economic repercussions of this habit and the possibility of eradicating it. In stating its desires, the Peruvian Government also informed the Secretary-General that it wished to obtain the assistance and opinion of qualified experts to reorganize the control of narcotic drugs throughout our territory. This is more a human than a national problem. For centuries the unusual endurance of the Peruvian native, especially in the Andes region, has been generally attributed to his use of the coca leaf but that habit appears to have psychological effects, We wish assistance in determining scientifically the nature of these effects with the laudable aim of improving the physical and spiritual conditions in which a part of the Peruvian population is living; the health of these people has been, and continues to be, the concern of our scientific institutions and of our Government, and they are carrying out ambitious and practical investigations on this subject. I should like to refer to the initiative taken by the United States for the creation of a subsidiary body of the Assembly which could partially bridge the gaps in the time and activities of the United Nations between the regular sessions of this great body. We consider it an auspicious step towards co-ordinating our common aims and sustaining the direct interest of all the United Nations in the problems with which they are concerned. Moreover, we may frankly state that we look with sympathy on an idea that would result in increasing the influence of the small States in the deliberations, and eventually, in the decisions and in diminishing the occasional privilege of those States which happen to be called upon to play a direct and special part. The Government of Peru supports the efforts to resume the work of codifying international law. Whilst it is true that present problems in this field render it more difficult, it is not less true that the drafting of rules is an objective undertaking likely to strengthen the spirit of peace. In this connexion we are fulfilling what might be called our historic mandate, as the meetings devoted to American solidarity originated and continued to be held in Lima throughout sixty years; the steadfast purpose of these meetings was the legal organization of our continent through international agreements proscribing war, the legal systematization of inter-American relations and the peaceful settlement of disputes. In all the present difficulties of international life, Peru, like the other Latin-American countries, takes an impartial point of view governed by high moral concepts and by our pre-eminently spiritual understanding of life. That is why we see these problems differently from other countries which confuse them with their political interests and their position in the world. We may say that we are indirectly concerned in these matters in so far as the inevitable interdependence of our world and the adherence to great principles and noble doctrines may involve our own national life as they have already done on two terrible occasions. We wish this Assembly and the United Nations to appreciate fully the manner in which the small States are rigorously and conscientiously fulfilling their duty as members of the international community and to believe that we have sufficient awareness of our personal responsibilities, obligations and rights to discern the true interests of nations and individuals, without being influenced by demagogic doctrines of the future or of the past. Our supreme desire is that nations and individuals may live without fear of the resurrection of extinct myths and hallucinatory threats.