1. Guatemala comes before this august world parliament to explain the position of its new Government, revolutionary in its desire to bring about immediate and radical economic and social reforms for the underprivileged classes, but democratic in the legal basis of its actions and the fact that it was elevated to power, from the opposition benches, through free and direct elections which gave voice to the unlimited support of those same people.
2. As representative of this Government, Mr. President, I wish to repeat the tribute which I had the honour to pay you from this same rostrum three days ago on your election to the Presidency of the General Assembly. Today I should like to add our most sincere wishes and to offer our loyal cooperation in bringing the work of the twenty-first session to a successful conclusion. We are meeting in circumstances which are ominously grave, not only for the existence and fate of the United Nations, but also for life itself in a large part of the world, for they point to the danger of a world-wide holocaust.
3. If participation in the general debate of the United Nations is ever imperative — a debate unjustly criticized as yielding scant results in comparison with the amount of time involved — if, I repeat, participation at this stage of our discussions is ever called for, it is precisely at a time when a new Government must restate or modify its political stand as a Member of the United Nations. This necessity takes on giant proportions in view of the responsibility placed on each and every Member of the United Nations by the two crises facing us as this session begins: the Secretary-General's decision not to continue at the head of the Organization, and the threatening clouds of war in Viet-Nam.
4. Guatemala has clearly defined its position with regard to the Secretary-General's decision. Our Permanent Representative to this Organization supported, within the Latin-American group, the joint appeal of our region asking U Thant to reconsider his decision. I am pleased to say that all the Latin American delegations, sharing the same concern, joined together in this unanimous request on behalf of Latin America, that the Secretary-General agree to remain in his high post.
5. We well understand the intolerable situation in which political and legal circumstances, by setting limits on his sphere of action, have placed U Thant, in the face of grave world events calling for intervention by an Organization Which neither acts nor permits him to act. Personal bitterness, intellectual rebellion and moral anguish must weigh heavily upon a man of such intellectual honesty, who so scrupulously upholds his ethical beliefs.
6. But though we understand his distressing personal dilemma, we have to recognize that while his attitude has aroused the attention and conscience of the Member States, adherence to his decision can only make it more difficult to solve those very problems to which he has devoted his whole-hearted efforts. The consensus of the great and small nations of this Organization imposes upon the Secretary-General the clear moral obligation to reconsider his position; but it also imposes upon the Member States, particularly the great Powers, the binding obligation not to oppose, impede or inhibit the political and diplomatic efforts that so wise and impartial a mediator can contribute to the cause of peace. And finally, it imposes upon the United Nations, as an institution, the obligation not to remain indifferent in the face of the very grave crisis now afflicting mankind and facing the United Nations.
7. This crisis in Viet-Nam is perhaps the most serious ever to darken the horizon of the United Nations. We may speak of Hungary or Korea, we may remember Suez or the Congo, we may mention financial difficulties such as those encountered two years ago; but in none of those crises did the United Nations remain inactive. The gravity of the Viet-Namese war does not lie merely in the fact that human beings are killed every day, or merely in an internal situation producing more than international friction. Nor is it sufficient to point to the conflict between two great world Powers, to rival or aggressive ideologies, or to geopolitical theories. The full scope of this crisis cannot be comprehended even when we rightly point out that it continuously threatens to become a world holocaust. No. There is still another grave factor implicit in the situation, namely, the stand taken thus far by the United Nations in favour of non-intervention in the conflict, of non-confrontation, of refusal even to study, analyse, discuss or pass judgement. We know the opinion of the United States on this issue, as well as that of troth South Viet-Nam and North Viet-Nam; we know the position of the People's Republic of China, the attitude of the Soviet Union and the statements by General de Gaulle; and we have heard the world-wide debate held by the most outstanding and varied personalities of our time at the national or international level. But we do not know the opinion of the United Nations. Whether we call it prudence or indolence, powerlessness or indifference, fear, realism or precaution, the fact still remains that the United Nations is increasingly in danger of becoming a static structure rather than a living organ pulsing with energy, translating the feelings, thoughts, concerns and aspirations of all the peoples of the world.
8. Several reasons have already been suggested to justify or explain this attitude on the part of the United Nations. There are perhaps three main reasons: first, not all the nations involved in the Viet-Namese conflict are Members of the Organization; secondly, as long as there is no agreement among the great Powers, action by the United Nations would be ineffective; and thirdly, a debate on this issue within the United Nations would widen the gap between some of the great Powers, whereas the vital concern of maintaining peace requires a rapprochement between them.
9. There is a fourth argument, which at once supports and weakens the tireless and disinterested efforts of the Secretary-General in this matter, namely, that the Secretary-General is only the spokesman of the Member States, which are organized and express themselves, naturally, through their statutory organs.
10. There is only one valid argument among these, and even this is not an insurmountable obstacle to some sort of action by the United Nations.
11. The fact that there are nations directly or indirectly involved in the conflict which do not belong to the Organization does not and should not prevent the United Nations from sponsoring or encouraging measures with regard to Viet-Nam. Guatemala firmly supports the principle of universality of the United Nations, including its application to the admission of Members. But Guatemala realizes, as we all must, that, just as an individual may discuss the solution of his problems with people of another nationality or circle, so this Organization may negotiate a settlement of its problems with non-member States. Of course, the possibility of sanctions, particularly those of a moral nature, becomes less effective with non-member nations. But the United Nations does not have to resort to coercive action; in this situation it should act rather as negotiator, initiator and mediator. Furthermore, United Nations sponsorship is not an essential prerequisite to peace initiatives. The United Nations can at least lend its full moral, political and diplomatic support to peace negotiations, or to efforts to get them under way. Peace talks — and I wish to emphasize this point — might even be held in accordance with the Geneva Agreements, should this be desirable in settling the issue.
12. Now let us turn to the second argument — that the action of the United Nations would be ineffective as long as disagreement persists among the great Powers. Does this mean that the United Nations was established only to ensure peace among small or medium-sized nations? Does it mean that the great Powers will act and rejoice only when peace has been made, for example, between India and Pakistan? Does it mean that, like the League of Nations, our Organization must be concerned only with regional conflicts, such as the Chaco War? If such is the case, then the United Nations is doomed to suffer the same sad fate as the League of Nations. No, the United Nations must be able to meet the challenge of the great issues confronting it, and it is the duty of the small- and medium-sized nations to take the initiative when the great Powers are encumbered by their very immensity. On the other hand, when the great Powers are involved in international conflicts, if we wait for them to reach an agreement, the task of the United Nations will in due course become superfluous. But should there be no agreement among the great Powers, then the United Nations always has the obligation, under the Charter, to intervene in the manner most effective for the pursuit of its objectives, always of course endeavouring to avoid any approach which might complicate the problem rather than help to solve it.
13. This brings me to the third argument, which we grant has a certain measure of validity, namely that a debate on Viet-Nam might drive some of the great Powers further apart, whereas a progressive rapprochement is essential to the cause of peace. But this argument can also be set aside if United Nations intervention is planned in such a way as precisely to avoid the negative reaction which such intervention might create. I am referring particularly to a bitter debate on the substance, or the alleged substance, of the question, full of accusations and counter-accusations. While I do not wish to suggest specific solutions, I wonder whether the United Nations could not present a vigorous appeal or judgement in a resolution without debate —deliberately without debate. This, plus a mandate given to the chief official of the Organization, could combine the vehement expression of will, inexorable universal will, with the diplomatic tact of the Secretary-General, to the extent that his personal interventions were considered desirable.
14. I wish to refer to the Secretary-General while just briefly mentioning the fourth argument outlined earlier, namely that his personal intervention in the Viet-Namese crisis is limited by the expressed will of the Member States-especially of the great Powers — and that as a result the United Nations cannot and must not intervene in this issue. Such views seem to be reflected in repeated public statements by the Secretary-General.
15. I do not wish to enter into a discussion of this issue; I merely wish to express some reflections. First, in addition to the expressed will of the Member States we have this same will codified in the principles of the Charter of the United Nations, which include a mandate for the Secretary-General. Secondly, as a consequence of this, it can, of course, be asserted that the United Nations cannot effectively contribute to the solution where there is a particular threat or breach of the peace, but it can never be said that this Organization must not intervene in the face of a breach of the peace, and even in doubtful cases liable to create friction or threaten international peace. The most that can be said is that United Nations intervention must be cautious, well informed, tactful and prudent.
16. It is no longer merely a matter of safeguarding the prestige of the Organization, or even its existence. The aim is to bring peace to an extensive region of the world and, even more important, perhaps to avoid a war of immeasurable proportions. No statutory limitation can justifiably stand in the way of an act of goodwill. Let us not intervene to widen the gap between the parties involved, nor between these and third Powers; let us avoid at all costs a debate on the substance of the problem; but let us not remain indifferent in the face of a holocaust, when we set up this Organization specifically to eliminate such threats.
17. In this connexion, I should like to repeat that my delegation has unbounded admiration for the tireless efforts of the Secretary-General, the wisdom and devotion he has placed at the service of peace, and the moral stamina which has enabled him to overcome his deep disappointment each time his efforts met not only with no support or understanding, but with actual hostility. These efforts of the Secretary-General, which have upheld the moral responsibility of the United Nations while its principal organs remained silent, today give us cause for a cautious optimism, which my Government is happy to point out. I am referring to the welcome — as I hope it is — given in the United States to the three points proposed by the Secretary-General as conditions for initiating peace negotiations, even though this meant modifying entrenched positions. We hope that the other parties involved in the conflict, particularly the Government of North Viet-Nam and the Viet-CongNational Liberation Front, and the parties to the Geneva Agreements of 1954 and 1962 will be able to accept those three points, along with a time-table for a reduction of the fighting, which might be proposed by the Secretary- General in consultation with the parties directly involved.
18. This session of the General Assembly will not have risen to the needs imposed by the conflict, or the principles of the Charter, the hopes of the peoples that founded the United Nations, or the searching demands of Member States, unless it makes an appeal or formulates a declaration which, in no uncertain terms, will convey to the participants in the conflict what the nations of the world require of them and provide the Secretary-General with the political support which will help him carry out his diplomatic task.
19. I am devoting the greater part of my address to what I feel it should be devoted to an examination of the two most important issues facing the United Nations. It is unnecessary and, perhaps, inappropriate during the general debate to attempt to define the position of one's Government on each and every item on the Assembly's agenda. This must wait until the debates in the Committees. But it is important, and at times necessary, to explain the general policy of one's Government towards the United Nations and towards certain general matters for which the Organization and the General Assembly are responsible under the Charter or through the decisions of the principal organs.
20. In this area, the new Government of Guatemala bases its policy towards the United Nations on the principles of legality and universality: on legality, because that promotes the ideal operation of the Organization and defines the authority and sphere of action of its organs; and on universality, because it is the loftiest humanistic principle inspiring the Charter and underlying its aims, and one which must, therefore, serve as an additional criterion in the examination of our problems.
21. The principle of legality, which is the greatest protection for small States, also finds positive, ambitious and very noble expression in the work of the Sixth Committee, the International Law Commission, and other bodies and committees. All are witnesses to the courageous and unrelenting efforts of eminent jurists who, with imagination and patience — although overshadowed at times by the political concerns of Member States — are gradually building the edifice of international law. This structure is already helping to guide our relations — and it will do so even more in the future — to the point when the political settlement of conflicts will be abandoned in favour of a just and correct legal settlement, in keeping with the loftiest values of a humanistic philosophy.
22. The principle of universality casts light particularly on the political issues facing the United Nations. Guatemala supports this principle, which has at least two immediate consequences that should be noted. First, Guatemala maintains relations with all the States Members within the United Nations and its organs and committees. Secondly, we feel that all countries should be represented in the Organization, and that there can be no exclusions based on injustice and discrimination contrary to the principles of the Charter,
23. This last point immediately brings to mind the case of the People's Republic of China, a subject on which we shall express our opinion in due course; but it also leads us to rejoice at the admission of Guyana, which we had the occasion to welcome two days ago, and at the return of Indonesia, that great Asian nation with which we once fought side by side as struggling and oppressed peoples and whose prompt return to the Organization Guatemala greets with since rest good wishes.
24. This question of new Members carries with it a note of sadness and a note of hope: Rhodesia's absence, the refusal of its present government to respect the most elementary principles of racial democracy, its determination not to comply with United Nations decisions — these are distressing matters for the democratic peoples and Governments of the world, We hope that the United Kingdom will be able to solve this problem under the authority of the United Nations, for otherwise we shall have to consider more decisive action by our Organization.
25. The note of hope is contributed by the imminent independence of Botswana, Lesotho and Barbados. Guatemala will be most happy to welcome them to the United Nations.
26. Although I have defined the principles of legality and universality on which the general position of my delegation is based, I still feel that I must mention certain basic political issues which, although not of the same order as the Viet-Namese crisis, nevertheless exert international pressure fraught with immediate and potential dangers. These are also issues of peace and war, such as disarmament and the related matters of atomic energy and atomic tests. The progress made by the United Nations in these areas does not encourage undue optimism; but we must not give up. The vicious circle of mistrust must be broken little by little, through toilsome discussions at the conference table, with their myriad technical details and through the slow but determined action —or rather, actions — which the great Powers are taking, slowly but surely, in the right direction.
27. At first glance it would seem that in matters of such significance the ability of small States to participate is limited. But the danger of extermination and contamination knows no boundaries, and the waste of enormous financial and technological resources is a source of bitterness to peoples which are still struggling against poverty, disease and ignorance. The role of small nations, therefore — apart from the fact that thinking is not the privilege of the big Powers — will be to urge discussion of the problem, to demand more information from the great Powers and to make use of it, to promote whatever course of thought and action they believe most likely to lead to the slow but sure realization of those goals which help to break the vicious circle of insecurity and the arms race.
28. In this context, my delegation is pleased to express its interest in the masterly address made by the Foreign Minister of the United Kingdom at the twentieth session of the General Assembly. The logical structure of his thinking on the items of disarmament, peace-keeping, the peaceful settlement of disputes, and United Nations efforts in the economic and social sphere, was directly related to the sub-items or projects for immediate execution to which he referred. Guatemala is in general agreement with the substance of his thinking and will support any decisions or steps which seem likely to deal with these perennial agenda items.
29. An admirable example of this civilized philosophy and the procedures through which it is applied is the mediation which the Governments of Guatemala and of the United Kingdom have both accepted with regard to their long-standing dispute over the territory of Belize. Such acceptance does not imply a renunciation of our rights, and the primary concern of both Guatemala and the United Kingdom is to further the highest interests and the development of the people of Belize. The equally long-standing reservation of its rights in this matter which Guatemala has always made in the general debate — a reservation which it makes again at this session of the Assembly — does not diminish the profound interest and concern held by the Government of Guatemala for the well-being and the progress of the people of Belize.
30. But, to return to the political items on our agenda, Guatemala will support in principle resolutions designed to prevent the proliferation of atomic weapons and to extend the ban on nuclear tests not only to all countries, but also to underground tests. The 1963 Treaty must be extended to cover underground tests. We are also prepared to support resolutions calling upon those Powers which are not signatories of the Treaty banning nuclear weapon tests to sign and ratify it. We are certain that once a Power is assured that tests and production have been suspended, that stockpiles are being reduced and that adequate surveillance or guarantees have been instituted over the remaining supply, it will abandon its plans to procure atomic weapons and will devote those enormous funds and efforts to more constructive ends. Otherwise, whatever United Nations declarations may be made, the only limit to the proliferation of atomic weapons will be financial capacity, for even technology can be bought.
31. For these reasons, Guatemala has viewed with sympathy and admiration the efforts made by the Government of Mexico in favour of a denuclearization treaty for Latin America. We are sure that the differences of opinion over details that have temporarily held up this commendable project will soon be smoothed away.
32. We have also noted with considerable interest the suggestion made by the Secretary-General in the introduction to his annual report [A/6301/Add.1] that an appropriate body of the United Nations should undertake a thorough study of the impact and implications of all aspects relating to the manufacture and development of atomic weapons. Such a study on the manufacture, acquisition, development, demonstration, stockpiling and possible use of these weapons could be a valuable contribution to our understanding of these complex problems and to our search for a suitable solution. We hope that at this session the General Assembly will feel able to authorize this study.
33. I shall not tire my listeners by detailing our position on other question of peace and war, such as the financing of certain United Nations operations, the United Nations Emergency Force and the Special Committee on Peace-Keeping Operations. Statements on these points will be made by our representatives in the First Committee and the Special Political Committee.
34. I therefore turn to the last part of my statement. Thus far I have dealt with the political function of the United Nations. I must also at least mention our concern with colonial problems, with the economic and social functions of the Organization, and with some administrative and budgetary matters.
35. Colonial questions, with which we were so closely concerned a few years ago in the United Nations, have always occupied an important place in the foreign policy of Guatemala. After an eight-year absence, it gives me great pleasure to sit in this forum of international co-operation with nations for whose independence Guatemala struggled so resolutely for more than a decade, always inflexibly anticolonial, a position which we most vigorously reaffirm today. The million and a half inhabitants in the Trust Territories and the twenty-six and a half million in forty Non-Self-Governing Territories must, through accelerated political, economic, social and educational development, attain their independence, which will enable them to find a way of controlling their own destinies. However, I should recall a warning which I gave in the last statement I made in this hall several years ago, on leaving the Presidency of the Trusteeship Council: it can be an easy solution to push a Territory into independence before it is ready and, while terminating the obligations of the Administering Authority to the United Nations, still keep the inhabitants in subjection through economic bonds and the handicaps of immaturity and underdevelopment. Fortunately, I do not think that any of the administering Powers would entertain such ideas; but the watchfulness of the Trusteeship Council and the Special Committee on the Situation with Regard to the Implementation of the Declaration on the Granting of Independence to Colonial Countries and Peoples can help to avoid illusory independence or the upheavals which occur in nations that are not properly prepared for independence. We must also reaffirm our position that if Chapter XI of the Charter is properly interpreted, the programmes for and the advances in the economic, social and educational development of the Territories must be measured against their political goal, which is self-government.
36. Unfortunately, I must close this portion of my address on a note of discouragement. I am referring to the tragic situation of the people of "unredeemed" South West Africa and their fellow Africans. We must also deplore the inexplicable attitude of the Government of Portugal which, divorcing itself from the present trends towards the liberation of dependent peoples, still refuses to transmit information on the Territories for which it is responsible, Territories whose development should already have been speeded up so as to place them on an equal legal and political footing within the international community. But what is really beyond all comprehension is the callousness shown by the Government of South Africa in maintaining its policy of apartheid in flagrant violation of the principles underlying the United Nations, the resolutions of the General Assembly and the most fundamental human rights.
37. This brings me to the social aspect of the United Nations programme, to which the Government of Guatemala attaches so much importance. Whatever the prevailing systems of government or philosophies of economic development, respect for human rights is a touchstone for judging the moral value of men's acts, of their institutions and of their way of thinking. Guatemala can understand that there maybe violations of human rights anywhere in the world at any given moment; but what is reprehensible — more, abominable — is complicity in such violations on the part of a Government—through its actions or its failure to act, through its indifference or negligence, or even through hidden motives. But such monstrous behaviour goes beyond all bounds when it is openly exalted into a policy of defiance, a legal system or a philosophy for action. In this context, Guatemala categorically condemns the policy of racial discrimination, and it will fully support any measures that will enable the United Nations to achieve its goals and apply its principles in this area.
38. I must now refer to the economic aspect of the work of the United Nations, and I take this opportunity to pledge Guatemala to doing its utmost in the Economic and Social Council If, as we hope, the General Assembly confirms our election at the present session.
39. My Government's interest in the problems of international trade in primary commodities, promoting industrialization and supporting economic development is not unique but is, rather, in keeping with the universal desire to increase productivity in order to bring about social reform and economic justice for the poorest classes of the population. Guatemala wishes to express its gratitude to the United Nations, the specialized agencies and the Expanded Programme of Technical Assistance — now part of the United Nations Development Programme — for the material and intellectual co-operation extended to It in its efforts towards development. It hopes that this cooperation will be increased in view of the urgency of the reform programmes now being undertaken by the new Government.
40. I cannot neglect to mention the principal contribution for which Guatemala is indebted to the United Nations. I am referring to the economic integration of Central America, whose common market system, integrated industries, investment policies, Clearing House, Central American Bank for Economic Integration and other subsidiary agencies all came into being thanks to the creative impulse of the United Nations. These achievements are a source of pride for a nation which was the first to abolish slavery, for a region which was the first to have an international court and for a group of sister nations which have enjoyed accelerated development and closer ties between their people as a result of economic integration. This stage, now nearing completion, is being followed by efforts to create a customs union and to formulate a common policy with regard to world trade problems.
41. World trade in primary commodities is a subject on which I should like to express some concern and a few ideas. The international agreements on primary commodities reached under the auspices of the United Nations are undoubtedly steps in the right direction. The changing complexity of the problems they are attempting to solve, and any errors or injustices that may arise in their Implementation, are not really good enough arguments for adopting a negative attitude to the theoretical basis of such agreements. We all know that there are powerful nations which use their overwhelming voting power to support policies which they back up with reasoned and substantive arguments. All that troubles my delegation in this regard Is the want of proportion between the various national economic interests involved and the absolute subjection of nearly all producer nations to the dictates of a single country, no matter how fair and friendly it may be,
42. I think I should point out that agreements on primary commodities should be drawn up bearing in mind not only the particular problems relating to each commodity, but also the effects on the economy
of each participating State. Voting systems — another eternal challenge to man's ingenuity — should be considered bearing in mind the fact that for countries which are always in the minority voting means a renunciation of sovereignty, even when they vote unanimously as a group,
43. In conclusion, I wish to make a few comments on administrative and budgetary matters.
44. First, we are opposed to the proliferation of international agencies. We do not wish to restrict the number of projects unnecessarily, but it is an obvious principle of good administration, and of order and economy that the increase in administrative expenditures and staff required by each new agency should be avoided.
45. With regard to these budgetary matters, and for different reasons, Guatemala feels compelled to recall the very interesting statement made by the Foreign Minister of France during the twentieth session of the General Assembly when he referred to the complexity — if not disorder — of the financial affairs of the United Nations and its specialized agencies. In this connexion, r wish to congratulate the Ad Hoc Committee of Experts to Examine the Finances of the United Nations and the Specialized Agencies on its reports on the finances of the Organization, and to express the hope that Member States, particularly the Soviet Union and France, will now find it possible to make substantial contributions to reduce the deficit of the Organization.
46. As a final word on budgetary matters, I am prompted to emphasize the need to avoid duplication in the tasks and projects of the United Nations and the specialized agencies. The primary function of the Organization is political, while that of the agencies is technical,
47. I now come to the end of my address. I do not wish the emphasis I have been obliged to place on the issues discussed during this last part of my statement to divert our attention from what is and should he the central theme of the twenty-first session of the General Assembly. I am referring to the Viet-Namese crisis and to the weakening of the United Nations.
48. During the years I have been absent from this Organization, I have watched it grow into a more universal body with the addition of so many new Members, each making a different cultural, intellectual and political contribution. I have seen the United Nations overcome new and delicate crises; I have also seen it weakened, for there is no other explanation of its taking a less active role in solving the weighty problems of war and peace which afflict mankind.
49. We may find the explanation of this weakening in these two considerations. First, the very changes in the make-up of the Organization, with so many new and different Members, may have been an unpleasant surprise for the great Powers, which expected to find in the United Nations a more flexible instrument for peace; they expected that the only big disagreements would be between themselves, or if they were with other nations, that the solutions would depend more on the will of these same great Powers. Such a reaction is understandable, and should perhaps be the object not of criticism, but of constructive thinking aimed both at adjusting solutions to the Organization as it is today, and at preparing the Organization to reach the simplest and fairest solution of the problems with which it is called upon to deal.
50. Secondly, we must also recognize that responsibility for this apparent weakening falls upon all Member States, on our Governments and on our delegations. A sense of responsibility must be allied with tact and discretion when we are dealing with such complex and delicate problems as those which the United Nations must study and solve; but no measure of discretion or tact can excuse indifference, apathy or ineptitude which would relegate our Organization to a secondary role, or give it none at all.
51. If our predecessors had the vision, the ideals and the strength of will to accept the rules laid down in the United Nations Charter, then we of the present generation must have an equally firm determination and lofty outlook in order to bend our minds and wills towards peaceful international co-operation, either within the United Nations or under its auspices.