Since we signed the United Nations Charter at San Francisco, the Assembly has never begun a session in a more difficult atmosphere. We cannot conceal the fact that the world situation is tense and that relations between the five great Powers have deteriorated with the passage of time. The apparent harmony which prevailed at San Francisco and London in 1945 and 1946 began to show signs of deterioration in 1947; there were serious divergencies of opinion in 1948, definite antagonism in 1949, and at the beginning of the fifth session of the Assembly in 1950, the situation can hardly be called encouraging.
133. After the anguish caused by the Second World War, hope was aroused by the establishment of the United Nations and with it came the illusion that mankind had fought its last war. Unfortunately, the confidence of mankind in this Organization was excessive. People believed that it was going to be the immediate panacea for all the ills of the world. When it became evident that the Organization was not as effective and strong as had been hoped, there was disillusionment as to its real value as a power to solve serious international problems and maintain peace.
134. Unfortunately, this attitude of world public opinion is partly justified. We cannot deny that on many occasions, after lengthy speeches, bitter debates, serious mutual accusations and the production of vast quantities of papers and documents, problems have remained without any final solution. Seeing this, the peoples of the world have been inclined to consider their rulers incompetent or, at least, to think that the United Nations is incapable of solving world conflicts and freeing humanity from the scourge of war.
135. The right of veto has contributed greatly to this state of affairs, because abuse of the veto has frequently served to paralyse the action of the Security Council.
136. In that respect, Cuba has a clear conscience. It not only fought against the veto with all its might at San Francisco, but Cuba and Colombia were the only nations which voted against its acceptance. We have always felt that the veto is a privilege liable to provoke friction and to impede the efficient functioning of the United Nations. We were told that the veto was essential in order to maintain unity among the great Powers since, by using the veto, each of these Powers could prevent action from being taken against its will, thereby eliminating any cause of friction or discord. Furthermore, we were solemnly informed that the veto would be used with moderation and that its use would be limited to cases of exceptional gravity.
137. Cuba, however, continued to fight against it, because as we then said, the veto would simply bring about a negative unity, a unity for inaction, instead of that positive unity for action which is exactly what is needed for the maintenance of peace. We also maintained that the veto might prevent the fulfilment of the fundamental aim of the United Nations, which is to prevent war, since, if one country were to attack another, a veto by one of the permanent members of the Security Council would be sufficient to prevent the United Nations from intervening and putting an end to the conflict.
138. Alas, time has shown that we were right. Not only has the veto failed to preserve unity among the great Powers, but on the contrary, on forty-five occasions it has frustrated action by the Council. What is even more serious, it might have paralysed that action completely in the case of Korea, which is the most serious issue which has as yet faced the United Nations.
139. If the Council’s resolutions of 25 and 27 June had been vetoed, what would the situation in Korea be today? There could have been no intervention in the name of the United Nations against this brutal and unjustified aggression by North Korea, and South Korea would have been completely subjected to the rule of the invaders. Or else there would have been intervention of all kinds, but at the risk of charges of a violation, if not of the spirit, at least of the letter of the Charter. The energetic and liberating action of the Security Council in this case was made possible only by the fact that the nation which might have vetoed those decisions, was at the time absent from the Security Council through its own choice.
140. This shows that so long as there is a veto, the United Nations cannot fully discharge its function of maintaining peace. That is why guarantees against war have on occasion been sought outside its framework, as in the case of the North Atlantic Treaty, for which there would have been no reason if the Organization had completely fulfilled the hopes placed upon it.
141. Now, after five years, almost all the Members are convinced of what we maintained in San Francisco; that it is essential to remove the difficulties caused by the veto if we wish the United Nations to achieve its aims. As it has done from the beginning, Cuba will favour any measure to eliminate the veto or at least to lessen its pernicious results. Thus, the action of the United Nations, the only instrument which can save humanity from the horrors of a new war, will be strengthened.
142. If we look back on the history of the Organization, we see that most progressive actions have originated in the General Assembly. That is the most representative and democratic organ, because it includes representatives of all the Members and because agreements are there adopted by a majority of votes and there is no right of veto. We must therefore consider strengthening its powers in order to enable it to intervene more effectively in the solution of world problems,
143. However, the picture is not all unfavourable so far as the United Nations is concerned. In the first place, as has been stated, although international policy is not completely formed “by” the United Nations, it is formed “in” the United Nations. That proves that, despite all, the Organization is the centre of international relations and must become the directing principle in the life of the world.
144. It must further be given credit for positive successes in Greece, Iran, Indonesia, the Italian colonies and other political spheres, and for such notable work in the economic field as the studies of full employment, technical assistance to under-developed areas, and the economic and social progress of the peoples of Non- Self-Governing Territories. Above all, the case of Korea is decisive proof of how much the United Nations might achieve if it was not hindered by the veto, of what might be hoped if its action could be carried out without the difficulties which have so far beset it.
145. The events in Korea are very grievous, but they have served to show that the United Nations is not a body buried under a mountain of documents and discussions, but a dynamic entity capable, when necessary, of direct and impartial action. The swift protection extended to Southern Korea, which has prevented its absorption by the invaders and which makes us hope that it will be completely freed and unified in the near future, has restored the confidence of the small nations in the Organization and in its ability to save them from war and from the ambitious and imperialistic action of other nations. The lives, which the soldiers of the United Nations — to whom we express our admiration, gratitude and respect — are now offering in the fighting in Korea, are consolidating the United Nations as an instrument for the peace and progress of all peoples.
146. In our opinion, this war constitutes an event of historic proportions. It has shown that the United Nations Charter is not an academic document which may be flouted with impunity, but that behind it there is the will of most peoples to maintain at all costs the principles enshrined in it. It will serve not only to renew the faith of all nations, great and small, in the Organization, but also and, above all, it will serve as a warning to any possible transgressors that their efforts will be in vain and that the proper course is for all to try to collaborate in good faith for the benefit of mankind.
147. At this moment we are facing a new armaments race. The symptom is alarming because history shows that every armament race ends in a new war. Unfortunately, the ancient Latin saying si vis pacem, para helium (“if you desire peace, prepare for war”) still applies, but it is sad that such a situation should occur only five years after the creation of the United Nations, which was founded precisely in order to prevent wars and to preserve peace. In face of an armaments race, all we can do is to urge all countries, great and small, but especially the great nations, to bear in mind the solemn obligations they undertook at San Francisco and the more solemn responsibilities of all governments to their peoples and to mankind in general to make an effort to find the minimum of agreement necessary to avoid war.
148. A new war would be a cataclysm, and nobody can foresee its consequences. Whoever might be the victor, we may be certain that the whole of mankind would be the loser. It is not impossible to achieve that minimum of agreement if all nations devote themselves in good faith to seeking a solution to the problems, leaving aside nationalistic ambitions and political and doctrinal imperialism. There are many worth-while things waiting to be done; they would contribute to the improvement of the condition of men, raise their moral and material standard of living, and help them to achieve happiness. Such plans, however, cannot be given the attention they need so long as we have to think about the necessity of preparing for war.
149. Democracy is a peaceful system which allows the individual freely to develop his personality and pursue his aims because within that system the State organization is regarded as an instrument to serve men and not as a fetish to which they are mercilessly sacrificed. Experience has shown that the true democracies are opposed to aggressive war because they are repelled by its very nature. We must remember that in order properly to meet war and defend themselves, the democracies must begin by suppressing, even if only temporarily, some of their most cherished principles; and war produces a disturbance which takes a long time to die down. Moreover, as democracy gives the individual a wide range of personal freedom and initiative, man strives to prosper by his own efforts and does not depend upon the action of the State; thus, the State is able to take a more calm and peaceful stand and is not so much subject to the pressure of individual necessity.
150. Furthermore, the essential element in democracy is the individual, and hence the tendency towards a greater recognition and respect of his fundamental rights. This is extremely important because so long as irritating discrimination continues and desires remain unsatisfied, so long as there are injustices which are not righted or legitimate rights which are not recognized, there cannot be that true social peace which is essential to universal peace. It is therefore necessary to act, with all due precautions, for the protection of human rights everywhere because we must indeed not forget that the human element stands over and above nationalisms and political and economic creeds.
151. In accordance with the Preamble of the Charter, the United Nations has solemnly promised mankind to “save succeeding generations from the scourge of war”, to “reaffirm faith in fundamental human rights, in the dignity and worth of the human person”, to “promote social progress and better standards of life in larger freedom.” In order to fulfil those solemn and serious commitments which represent the hope of the world, it is necessary, firstly, to strengthen the action of the United Nations so that it may prevent war wherever it is likely to occur and by whomsoever it may be provoked; and, secondly, to strengthen democracy and the basic rights of man so that he may attain the full dignity which the human being deserves. Then, free from fear and want, he may find his own happiness, and, satisfied with what he has, will not be tempted to seize what belongs to others and provoke war to fulfil his own ambitions. It we fail in this undertaking, the United Nations will have failed. For the sake of mankind that failure must be prevented at all costs.