El Salvador

A year ago, in this same hall, I had the honour, as representative of El Salvador, to congratulate General Carlos Romulo, representative of the Philippine Republic, upon his election as President of the General Assembly of the United Nations. On that occasion I said, and I now repeat, that in choosing its new President from among its members the General Assembly had carefully taken account, above all else, of his excellent personal qualities. General Romulo, like our present President, Mr. Nasrollah Entezam, representative of Iran, was not chosen because of the military or economic power of the State he represents, but simply because in our debates in this somewhat heated atmosphere of the General Assembly of the United Nations we had come to recognize in him, as we recognize in our present President, the highest qualities of intelligence, experience and equanimity, together with the very essential quality of a high moral stature. 124. Therefore, on behalf of my Government and of the delegation which it is my privilege to head, I wish to extend the most cordial congratulations to our colleague, Mr. Nasrollah Entezam, upon his well merited election to the presidency of the most genuinely democratic organ of the United Nations, the General Assembly, of which all of us are members. At the same time, I should like to congratulate the Assembly itself on its wise choice of a new President to guide it in its labours during this year of most serious problems and indescribable difficulties confronting all free States. 125. In the months which have elapsed since the close of the fourth session of the General Assembly, there have been many events which have completely altered the atmosphere in which we should work. We had become accustomed to heated controversies arising from the divergence of opinion between governments as to the best way to conduct the affairs of the world so that all humanity might maintain peace. We had also become accustomed to the ideological clash between certain governments which believed that peace and freedom were as indivisible as Siamese twins, which cannot live apart, and certain other governments which held a very different view and considered that peace was the outcome of action by force, despite the fact that such action entails the complete suppression of human ideals and freedoms. 126. Those two very different ways of thinking and feeling have naturally produced two opposing political systems whose rivalry in the international field is plainly inevitable. The resulting estrangement between two important groups of nations has given rise to the so-called cold war, a name chosen to distinguish it from those conflicts in which the roar of the cannon drowns the voice of reason. 127. The months which have elapsed since our last session have been sad, they have filled the peoples of the world with anguish and have created an atmosphere of pessimism in which it is very difficult to know what to do to give the peoples what they want: they want only to live quietly in their own homes, profiting from the innumerable resources which nature offers to satisfy material needs and to enable man’s creative spirit to develop fully and to produce new levels of well-being and progress. 128. It is sad to have to recognize that the situation has become much worse in such a short space of time and that the United Nations, which was trying to bring opinions into harmony and to diminish friction, today finds itself engaged in armed conflict and for the first time is using the military force of its Member States to combat aggression and to restore international peace in a region where it has been violently overthrown. Our debates therefore cannot be pursued without taking into account the serious considerations of the present moment, because we all recognize that the primary purpose of the United Nations is the maintenance of peace. 129. When the aggression against the Republic of Korea occurred and while the invading forces from the north rapidly advanced thanks to their heavy military equipment, fifty-three free States gave their complete approval to the resolutions of the Security Council condemning that aggression and requesting all Member States to give military aid to the invaded nation. I wish to recall this incident because of its grave implications. 130. The United Nations number fifty-nine States and some of them certainly ignored the appeal of the Security Council; a more serious fact, however, was that within the small group of dissident States, accusations arose against our Organization on the one occasion when the Security Council had been able to act effectively in defence of peace. 131. In the Council itself, the representative of one of the permanent members asked for the rescission of the resolutions passed and the withdrawal of the forces fighting against aggression. It should be noted that it was precisely the permanent members of the Security Council which, under the United Nations Charter, assumed a responsibility greater than that of the other Members of the Organization in the fundamental task of maintaining peace and preserving world order. It was the insistence of some of the permanent members that created the problem of the veto in the Security Council voting, for it was the establishment in the United Nations Charter of the requirement of unanimity among those five permanent members which we have come to be called the great Powers, as an indispensable condition for the passage of any important Council resolution, particularly resolutions requiring the use of force to stop aggression, which produced the factor that has paralysed the Council and, with the single exception of the case of Korea, prevented it from fulfilling its task of maintaining peace and re-establishing it when it is broken. 132. When the United Nations Conference on International Organization met in San Francisco in 1945, the delegations of many of the materially less powerful States strongly opposed the requirement of unanimity on the part of the five great Powers in Security Council voting. Those delegations most rightly feared that the desired unanimity would become a myth, as did in fact happen. It is a distressing fact, but none the less true, that the spirit of co-operation upon which that unanimity should be based has not since then been in evidence. 133. We well remember how simple was the argument used in favour of the veto. It was considered to be the essential condition imposed by the Soviet Union in return for its acceptance of membership in the system of international co-operation envisaged in the Dumbarton Oaks proposals and previously at Yalta and Teheran. It became obvious that, if that requirement were not accepted, the United Nations Charter would not be adopted, because the representatives of various powerful States would not sign it if the USSR were not to be a party to it. 134. Again, we heard many fine stories about the spirit of co-operation among the great Powers during the Second World War; and that prompted the attractive conclusion that with the coming of peace that spirit would grow even stronger and the world would enjoy complete security, thanks to the excellent understanding which could not fail to continue between the members of the Security Council. 135. Although that illusion seemed almost childish to the delegations of the small States, as the major wars which have shaken the world have been the result of rivalries between the powerful States, they did not wish to be held responsible for the failure of the San Francisco Conference, for that failure would have prevented the formation of the United Nations Organization. Therefore most of them abstained from voting on this point, thus by their non-resistance making possible the birth of the Organization, with all its inherent defects. 136. There is no doubt that at that time the small States had much more political foresight than the great Powers, though I do not mention this in order to congratulate myself, much less to blame anyone. 137. I merely wish to make some observations which may be of use in the future. It is not true to say that the only reason for the requirement of unanimity among the great Powers in the voting procedure of the Security Council was the desire to obtain the co-operation of the Soviet Union at all costs and at any sacrifice. There was something which was never mentioned, not even informally, but which was present in the thoughts of all who really studied the matter. The Soviet Union might, of course, have had special reasons for fearing that other rival Powers, with their great influence in the world, would succeed in dominating the young United Nations Organization; but those other Powers also had reasons of their own for defending the veto. 138. Those reasons were based on another fear, possibly also shared by the USSR, namely, that if the proposed unanimity was dispensed with and if the votes of all members, permanent or otherwise, had equal weight in the Security Council, as is the case in the General Assembly, this might place the control of the United Nations, and hence of the fate of the world, in the hands of the materially less powerful States which form an overwhelming majority in our Organization. However, the development of events during the past five years, since the middle of 1945, has made it abundantly clear, whether it be in the case of Greece or China or Korea, that the small nations always support good causes, because it is in defending the fundamental principles of the United Nations, such as the equality of rights of States, self-determination and non-intervention, that the materially less powerful States most effectively safeguard their own political stability. 139. Of the fifty-three nations that have announced their support of the Security Council resolutions condemning aggression against the Republic of Korea, the majority are small, peace-loving States, ready to fulfil their international obligations as Members of the United Nations. It is greatly to be hoped that this lesson will prove a fruitful one for the powerful States, particularly the five permanent members of the Security Council, so that when the Charter is revised, as it one day must be, the harmful privilege of the veto will be withdrawn and democratic principles will be followed in determining the rights of States Members and the structure of all United Nations organs. 140. Let us now return to the problem of Korea. It is distressing to have to note that all the world’s concern with this problem turns upon the attitude of the USSR Government, which, in contrast to so many others that have supported the Security Council resolutions, persistently condemns them as illegal and even supports the aggression by demanding the withdrawal from Korea of the United Nations forces which are assisting the invaded Republic. 141. We are accustomed by now to the lack of co-operation shown in previous cases and even to the Soviet Union’s boycott of important recommendations of the General Assembly, such as those which established the United Nations Special Committee on the Balkans, intended to help Greece against foreign intervention, or the United Nations Commission on Korea, established to help restore the country’s unity and organize it as a free State. But at that time we had not foreseen, and did not wish to predict, that the Soviet Union itself would come to the aid of the aggressor and would make other efforts to nullify the effects of the enforcement measures which the United Nations has been compelled to undertake to re-establish peace. We cannot but openly condemn this attitude on the part of the USSR, because it endangers the very existence of our international Organization. 142. An overwhelming majority of the delegations here is convinced that if the Soviet Union refrained, even now, after all that has already happened, from giving its moral support to the aggressor forces, and for this purpose announced its approval of the Security Council resolutions, the present conflict in Korea would come to an end and in a very short time. 143. The United Nations has two aspects. In the first place, it has the primary function of maintaining and re-establishing peace; secondly, it has the function, which is also very important, of organizing international co-operation for the advancement of the highest interests of humanity, such as the fundamental human rights with which God has endowed man, and the improvement of the standard of living of the peoples. 144. In this speech I shall deal only with the first aspect, that is, with the United Nations in its primary function of maintaining peace. In that respect, the United Nations is a defensive alliance against aggression and against any threat to international peace, with the very special characteristic that the protection offered by that alliance is also extended to non-member States because our Organization, since its very foundation, has always sought to become universal in character. That explains why protection is now offered to the Republic of Korea, which is not a Member of the United Nations. 145. We must recognize that the Security Council acted in the case of Korea with relative effectiveness although there were notable deficiencies. 146. It is unpleasant, however, to have to note that the temporary absence of the representative of the Soviet Union from the Security Council was the sole reason which enabled the Council to adopt its resolutions of 25 and 27 June 1950 condemning the aggression committed against the Republic of Korea and calling upon States Members of the United Nations to offer military assistance to the invaded nation. 147. The return of the USSR representative to the Security Council made further resolutions impossible, although it could not cancel the effect of the resolutions already adopted, which promise the re-establishment of peace in the near future. If the Soviet Union would change its policy and co-operate as a true Member of the United Nations, the conflict would end immediately. Nothing would be more conciliatory than such a change in policy, which would be welcomed by the majority of the delegations here present as a promise of peace and tranquillity for the entire world. If this invitation, which is in the minds of all of us, is not favourably received by the one nation which can carry it into effect, it is obvious that the only alternative remaining to the world in order to protect its own security is to expand existing regional systems and even increase the number of such systems in order to establish an effective curb against all future aggression. 148. Such regional systems, and the right to organize collective defence, are recognized in Articles 51, 52, 53 and 54 of the Charter. At the present juncture, when the Security Council is paralysed by the veto and therefore unable to fulfil its essential function of preserving peace, the North Atlantic Treaty and the Inter-American Treaty of Reciprocal Assistance of Rio de Janeiro are the only hope of mankind for restraining any imperialist tendency, from whatever quarter it may come. 149. All of us know that much must still be done to make those pacts completely adequate, so that they can effectively ensure the collective defence of the States which they include; but that development is bound to occur and even to be intensified under the pressure of circumstances. 150. All these considerations are based upon objective facts and not on conjectures. The world, or rather humanity, which is being bled white by wars, insists that the General Assembly of the United Nations, in which a majority of free States is represented, should do everything within its power to make possible the adoption of all such measures as are compatible with the spirit of our Organization and are aimed at remedying the effects of the chronic paralysis from which the Security Council suffers. 151. The delegation of the United States has made very important proposals in that direction. Those proposals, as well as any others made by other delegations seeking the same objective, will receive the most sympathetic consideration on the part of the delegation of El Salvador. 152. The principal agenda items of the General Assembly have already been considered at previous meetings of this important organ of the United Nations. The delegation of El Salvador has made its attitude quite clear in regard to those items; hence all I have to say is that that attitude is the same as it was in previous years and that we shall continue to support the same principles. 153. I now conclude the statement which I deemed it necessary to make on behalf of the delegation of El Salvador. Its only object was to contribute as far as possible to the debate and to help to guide us towards the practical solutions which are required at the present moment. I thank the representatives for their kind attention in listening to me and I offer them the most sincere co-operation of my delegation in attempting to obtain positive fruits of international understanding as a result of our present session.