I should like to give, as succinctly as possible, the views of Uruguay on the United Nations Charter; I shall discuss both the ideas underlying the Charter and its practical application, point to defects in its structure and shortcomings in its operation and consider the results of the experience gained during its ten years of existence.
11. At the San Francisco Conference, Uruguay was among those countries which criticized the veto privilege granted to the permanent members of the Security Council. This privilege appeared to us unjustifiable in view of the principle of the equality of all States expressly laid down in the Charter.
12. The Charter of the United Nations was not the product of some unrealistic doctrine. Its spiritual descent is not traceable to academic abstractions claiming to control events by pure thought — divorced from reality and out of touch with world affairs. On the contrary, the Charter was born to the mighty sound of historic events, the most potent influence attending its birth being that of the forces victorious in the Second World War.
13. Through the force of circumstances, the ideal of organizing a community under law had to be adapted to a powerful reality, but this was done in furtherance of purposes and principles worthy of mankind, in an attempt to regulate the behaviour of all States in a realistic setting. But, like any endeavour in which ideals have to be sacrificed to possibilities, it showed obvious defects. The structure approved at the San Francisco Conference was rightly criticized by the smaller States, although they finally voted in favour of the United Nations Charter. We could not hesitate when confronted by the dilemma of setting up either a legal system offering opportunities solely for academic deliberation without any effectiveness, or else a system of international law, suffering admittedly from flaws and imperfections but wielding a potential influence in favour of international peace and security and requiring States to submit to the rule of law and to practise the only legitimate democratic policy: that which respects human rights and offers full scope for the fundamental freedoms of all peoples.
14. Since its foundation, therefore, we have cherished no naive illusions that the Organization -would be an infallible instrument capable of solving all international problems. Our attitude has been one of calculated and well-founded confidence in an organization, imperfect perhaps but potentially effective.
15. Today, after ten years of experience, our attitude to its defects has not changed, but we feel in duty bound to recognize before world public opinion that the Organization has maintained peace in difficult circumstances, by taking successful action against aggression, as in the case of Korea; by criticizing with laudable firmness the use of force in contravention of the rules of the United Nations, as in the case of Egypt, where it has achieved a cease-fire and the cessation of hostilities; and by condemning in appropriate terms the tragic foreign attack on the independence of a nation, as in the case of Hungary. Thus, although fully aware of its imperfections, we continue to support the United Nations and we wish to assert categorically that we see no cause for discouragement and still place our hopes in the Organization.
16. I should now like to comment on several basic aspects of the Charter, namely, the veto privilege, the duty of States to respect human rights and fundamental freedoms, and other matters of vital importance for the United Nations.
17. Since it was obvious that, without the veto power vested in the permanent members — previously agreed at Yalta — an international community under law would not materialize, Uruguay presented its reasoned criticisms, but nevertheless signed and ratified the United Nations Charter.
18. With a foresight that has been borne out by events, we stated that even if the veto might be justified during the initial period, it was inadmissible that after ten years of experience the veto privilege should persist to prevent amendment of the Charter, to the point of subordinating any modification of the international system to the will of a single State.
19. Today we reaffirm the position we took in 1945, The veto privilege, accepted as inevitable, as a feature of the constituent instrument that was more or less dictated by the outcome of the war, no longer has any raison d’être so far as the revision of the Charter is concerned.
20. Since, however, revision is impossible without the support of the five permanent members of the Security Council, some means must be sought to alleviate the unfortunate consequences of the abuse of the veto, through an interpretation of the Charter which will not arouse the opposition of the main protagonist of this discretionary power to obstruct.
21. We know that we cannot count upon the support of certain permanent members for any proposal to eliminate the veto. We still remember the reasons advanced in justification of this special status. It was, admittedly, an improvement over the procedure in the League of Nations, where the veto privilege, on questions of substance, was general and absolute, whereas in, the United Nations it was to be held only by the five permanent members which could not take any major decision or make any recommendation without the support of two non-permanent members.
22. The Secretary-General of the League of Nations once said that it was believed that the existence of a reciprocal power of obstruction would tend to promote agreement and compromise solutions based on the unanimous support of the permanent members. This argument has been taken up by those who see in the veto a device which made the existence of the United Nations possible and which is capable of producing agreement as the inevitable outcome of the interplay on the conflicting views that hamper action in the Security Council, This is a twentieth-century manifestation of the truth perceived by Montesquieu — that Powers which are capable of checking each other are forced to collaborate,
23. We believe it is childish to consider, at the present time, that the Charter can be made dynamic through a Security Council in which States would have equal influence and where decisions would be taken by majority vote. We do insist upon equality of States and of their votes in the General Assembly, although we do not ignore the historical fact — pointed out by Sir Winston Churchill — that there is a difference between the power of large and small States and that, in view of this difference, equality appears to be an unattainable ideal.
24. We fully realize that States, although equal before the law, are not equal from the spiritual and material points of view, and they are not truly comparable. This may have been the reason for the system of privilege. The corollary of greater power is greater responsibility and the discretionary power of veto. Thus, as the Spanish professor Barcia Trelles has said, the Charter leaves us with the alternatives of unanimity or explosion. The late President Franklin Delano Roosevelt was bowing to reality when he maintained that the application of sanctions to a great Power would bring about the war it was sought to avoid. Hence the belief that unanimity would be born of the experience of the war. The late Mr. Stettinius, too, was speaking realistically when he said that the great Powers had not acquired their might through the Charter.
25. The Charter was therefore adopted, giving preferential treatment to those Powers, and, although this was contrary to expressed principles, it soon became clear that the power of approval or veto in international affairs, held by each one of them, was compensated, limited and restrained by the fact that identical powers were held by the other permanent members.
26. From our experience with the Charter, however, we have all come to realize that it is illusory to believe a desire for unanimity will necessarily be the motivating factor in the Council. There have been abuses of the veto right, which the United Nations should endeavour to prevent or moderate. Interpreting Article 27 of the Charter, Mr. Alf Ross, the Danish jurist, has said that a great Power which discards moral scruples can by its veto frustrate any resolution of the Security Council. By means of the veto, it secures its immunity, even though it has acted as an aggressor, and can paralyse the Security Council through its votes and vetoes in successive decisions on questions of procedure and substance, and if the item relates to a situation or to a dispute, it violates not only the principle of equality but also the maxim that none can be judge in his own cause,
27. Still, the Council’s paralysis owing to abuse of the veto has had one happy outcome which may perhaps stimulate interest in the solution we shall advocate: the extension of the power of the General Assembly through a wider interpretation of the provisions of the Charter, as contained in resolution 377 (V), entitled “Uniting for peace”.
28. No one denies the competence of the General Assembly, the world parliament in which the principle of equality of States is observed, in which each State can vote as a means of voicing world opinion, a body capable of studying, discussing and recommending the principles and the regulation of disarmament, of deliberating on any matter affecting international peace and security, or on international political, economic or social co-operation, and of debating the peaceful settlement of any dispute. The General Assembly does not legislate, but demonstrates the effectiveness of its consultative power which, although only in the form of advice, judgements or warnings, does give expression to world opinion on the conduct of a State, an opinion which it is difficult to disregard without defying the rules of the civilized world.
29. Such action by the General Assembly has prevented the United Nations from being paralysed by the improper use of the veto. Agreement should therefore be Bought to ensure that this discretionary power to obstruct will not be used in a manner prejudicial to the purposes of the Organization.
30. So long as the revision of the Charter is not possible, it might be advisable to temper the use of the veto by means of an agreement on the part of the permanent members to heed the resolution [290 (IV) ] adopted by the General Assembly in 1949 on “Essentials of peace”. In substance, that resolution recommends that the powerful veto privilege should not be exercised in deciding whether a question is procedural or not, whether a particular question involves a situation or a dispute and, particularly, in the case of all decisions relating to the peaceful settlement of international problems.
31. Although such agreement would still leave the way open for the use of the veto, the latter would be reduced to a legal weapon for dealing with questions of vital importance, and would no longer be a political weapon to be used in any circumstance, in the just or unjust interests of a -particular State,
32. With regard to human rights and fundamental freedoms, Uruguay wishes to stress, once again, that the Charter imposes a dear and unquestionable obligation upon States to support those rights and freedoms. Although repetition may be tedious, we would again refer to the preamble and to all the provisions of the Charter which require States to respect, in conformity with their legal system, the primacy of the human person and public liberties, without which political democracy cannot exist. The Charter does not prescribe any specific legal or political system as the only lawful one, since that would be contrary to the principle of self-determination of peoples. However, it is dear, in our view, that the Charter deems it iniquitous to set up any system of authority based on the denial of human rights and of the freedom of the peoples,
33. I would again refer to the provisions of the Charter in so far as they stress the supreme importance of human values, which it places even above political (democracy.
34. The preamble, which, in accordance with universal theory and jurisprudence, establishes the spiritual basis of the document, proclaims the determination of the people to reaffirm faith in fundamental human rights, in the dignity and worth of the human person and in the equal rights of men and women and of nations large and small.
35. Article 1, paragraph 3, of the Charter states that one of the main purposes of the United Nations is the promotion and encouragement of respect for human rights and for fundamental freedoms for all without distinction,
36. Article 13 provides that the General Assembly shall initiate studies and make recommendations for the purpose, among other things, of assisting in the realization of human rights and fundamental freedoms for all.
37. Article 55 specifically states that one of the bases for peaceful relations among nations is universal respect for, and observance of, human rights and fundamental freedoms for all without distinction.
38. Under Article 62, paragraph 2, it is one of the essential functions of the Economic and Social Council to make recommendations concerning the respect of those rights and freedoms and it is furthermore provided — with the admirable object of impressing the idea on our minds — that the Council’s recommendations shall also promote the effectiveness of those rights and freedoms.
39. Article 73, in Chapter XI concerning the Non-Self-Governing Territories, lays down this guiding principle: the interests of the inhabitants of these Territories are paramount. With respect to the peoples which have not attained full self-government, the Charter imposes on the administering States the international duty to discharge a trust, which the Charter calls sacred, to promote their well-being, and charges those States with certain specific obligations: to ensure, with due respect for the culture of the peoples concerned, their political, economic, social and educational advancement, their just treatment and their protection against abuses; to develop self-government; and to assist them in the progressive development of their free political institutions. As a consequence of this responsibility, this administration is carried out under United Nations supervision, which proves once again that this delicate task calls for international inspection.
40. Chapter XII, concerning trusteeship, adds to the duties of the Administering Authorities, as Article 76 states specifically, that of acting in accordance with the purposes of the United Nations. Under this Article, they have an obligation to promote the political, economic, social and educational advancement of the inhabitants; self-government or independence are set as targets, in accordance with the freely expressed wishes of the people concerned, and sub-paragraph c, as a further reminder, stresses as a basic objective the encouragement of respect for human rights and fundamental freedoms for all.
41. If we interpret the Charter, after first taking the precaution of reading it, we shall see that it is full of rules of positive international law which bind all systems of political authority not to present themselves before the United Nations with claims of legitimacy unless they are practising political democracy in which human rights and fundamental freedoms are respected. The Charter lays down a practical philosophy of freedom ; it requires States to respect the dignity and worth of the human person; it demands universal and effective respect of fundamental rights and freedom.
42. Since it is laid down, with respect to the Trust Territories, that the people should express their wishes freely, our powers of interpretation are surely not strained by the other provisions which lay down in unambiguous terms that in all Member States the rights of the community of free men are paramount, that it is only free men who can exercise their political will and that they are the sole foundation of true sovereignty.
43. This interpretation of the Charter by Uruguay is recognized today as irrefutable by the leading authorities in international law, and has been stoutly upheld at this session of the General Assembly by various delegations, including that of Argentina and of States from other continents. The noble truth is beginning to make headway. An important step forward was the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, which world opinion has taken as an expression of the spirit of the United Nations. We hope that the convention on the rights and the duties of States and the guarantees of the exercise of fundamental rights and freedoms will take shape in the near future.
44. The lessons learned during the nineteenth and twentieth centuries confirm the preeminence of the basic individualism which is today a feature of most modern constitutions. To these individualistic tenets are added economic and social rights as an essential complement to make that individualism socially effective and operative for all. The tendency of certain superficial Western thinkers to believe that respect for the human person is a preoccupation of times gone by and destined for oblivion with the eclipse of bourgeoisie is evidence of a deplorable levity, only conceivable in persons without an atom of human feeling or without the healthy counterpoise of a modicum of elementary education.
45. In answer to the Soviet representative’s exhortation to mutual understanding and respect between the different economic systems, I should like to point to Uruguay’s experience and to the conclusions it has drawn from the gradual evolution of its political and social beliefs.
46. The problem does not lie in the differences between economic and social systems. From the point of view of the observance or the violation of the Charter, the most important question, quite regardless of the economic features of the system of a particular State, is essentially whether human rights and fundamental freedoms are respected or not.
47. From the point of view of the Charter, from the point of view of strict compliance with its terms, all dictatorships are reprehensible — whether black or red, of class or of party; the same is true of all forms of despotism, which are the more blameworthy when they are systematic, for they give not the slightest scope to freedom, although their representatives may come to this Assembly to speak in defence of the emancipation of persons and peoples, when it is notorious that at home the rulers alone have the right to feel, think and desire in the name of a people condemned to silence.
48. From the spokesmen for those regimes we have heard criticism of the colonial Powers and of the Powers administering Trust Territories. However, we know the tragic truth which deprives their complaints of any authority whatsoever. The peoples living under despotic rule have no protection, not even as much as the peoples of the colonies, for the free expression of their wishes. And yet, from this rostrum representatives of those regimes have questioned delegations to this Assembly, asking them what instructions they have from their peoples.
49. This Assembly can become a true world parliament only through the presence of the delegations of the democratic States, where human rights and the freedoms of the people are respected and effective.
50. In countries where no genuine elections are held, or where elections are merely entertainments for government partisans, where an opposition is out of the question and the Press, radio, cinema, theatre, science and the arts are all government activities, only the opinions of the powerful can receive currency, and the views of the enslaved people are unknown, though they can be guessed at. The representatives of such States in the United Nations cannot be regarded as anything but the spokesmen of authoritarianism, and cannot be said to be speaking as representatives of communities of men.
51. The Purposes and Principles of the United Nations will be observed in the world only to the extent that the General Assembly becomes the meeting place of the representatives of democratic Governments which are themselves genuinely representative of their peoples and which have been elected in an atmosphere of freedom; these alone can help to build peace. As we read in the preamble to the Constitution of the United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization, “it is in the minds of men that the defences of peace must be constructed”; the Second World War “was made possible by the denial of the democratic principles of the dignity, equality and mutual respect of men”, and peace must be founded “upon the intellectual and moral solidarity of mankind.”
52. How can Governments that live in open war against their own peoples and who make warlike forays against peoples in order to impose their totalitarian beliefs upon them with fire and sword be builders of peace? The lesson of our own life impels us to condemn all kinds of despotism absolutely.
53. Our point of departure is the individual, but to forestall the injustices of individualism we have increased the State’s responsibilities in the social field and converted the State into a vast service organization, an agent of brotherhood. We draw on legal thinking in order to work out just solutions by means of constantly and peacefully evolving legislation.
54. Among our people, no citizen believes that a Slate which offers security as the dispenser or distributor of rations is worth the loss of freedom. As the United Kingdom representative on the Commission of Human Rights said at Geneva, we do not think it an ideal mode of life for a people to form a body of slaves who are passably well fed by the State.
55. As State intervention for purposes of public interest extends, so the reaffirmation of respect for the classic individual rights and the economic and social rights which allow all human beings to live in dignity becomes more necessary. The more a State grows, multiplies its activities and extends its influence, the more alert we must be in our guardianship of freedom and the unimpeded exercise of political democracy.
56. The State must then possess a sound structure of guarantees, a system of decentralized administrative authorities and decentralized local and municipal governments; there must be a certain balance between the public and, private sectors of the economy, while at the same time a complex system of distinct agencies, with properly defined judiciary functions, assures the individual, under constitutional guarantees, of physical freedom, of protection against all undue pressure, of respect for the right of property, which gives him independence without the power to exploit his neighbours, of the inviolability of his home and his correspondence, thus affirming in the face of authority the sacred character of his privacy, full freedom of the mind and of opinion, which means that he can utter his thoughts through any medium without prior censorship. Without such rights and freedoms there is no real living democracy.
57. By means of such a system, without outlawing any political party, and while permitting spontaneous activities on the part of any one in accordance with public desire, Uruguay offers the spectacle of a true democracy gradually eliminating Communist influence. In Uruguay, citizens and foreigners enjoy equal and exemplary protection in their rights and property; we have an independent and high-principled judiciary; our Supreme Court of Justice can declare unenforceable laws which are contrary to the Constitution, and the Administrative Court can set aside irregular administrative decisions ; the State and the public authorities are answerable for any injury they cause by their irregular acts or by their discharge of functions in the course of the public service.
58. In this way the State can further the public interest without impairing the dignity and worth of the human person, because by virtue of the law and through the action of the judiciary its responsibility is under constant scrutiny.
59. We are in favour of the United Nations. In accordance with this approach, we advocate the Organization’s universality, though not at the cost of an increase in political barbarism, and support the effective respect of human rights and the freedom of peoples.
60. The General Assembly has a duty to promote the study of the guarantees for the effective respect which any political authority owes to human rights. On this point, Uruguay will maintain the position it has adopted on other occasions.
61. We should strengthen the international machinery for ensuring the respect and effectiveness of these rights and freedoms, preferably by means of consultative procedures. A world or regional agency should have competence to receive complaints and petitions. The body making the complaint would first be classified, and then there would be an investigation, an examination of the facts, culminating in a recommendation to the offending State. As a complement to this system, which can hardly be opposed by States wishing the Charter to be enforced, provision should be made in specified cases, for jurisdiction by a section of the International Court of Justice or some special body capable of rendering decisions in defence of human rights.
62. As we have said, the flagrant and systematic violation of human rights and the freedom of peoples raises a question of international public interest. It is a crime against humanity, and to plead the defence of domestic jurisdiction is merely frivolous. It is not our intention, as some publications have said, to internationalize everything. Just as we want the State to be dedicated to a whole range of values — the human being, the family, the trade union, the school, the university, the municipality, private institutions generally — so we want the international community to admit national self-determination as having an intrinsic value, subject, of course, to international law and ethics which demand respect for the dignity and worth of the human person.
63. We respect, as a logical consequence to the independence of States, the American doctrine of nonintervention, but in its one and only true sense. We reject all recourse to force, any action by one State to impose its will on others, all undue interference, all imperialist claims, any aspiration on the part of one State or a group of States to wield authority over the internal or external affairs of another State. This healthy repudiation of imperialist force implies putting the law above States; the State must deal fairly with its citizens, be the servant of the people and respect the equality of other States.
64. I have listened with alarm in this General Assembly to certain statements on the subject of sovereignty which seem to date from well before the beginning of modem times; it is as if we were returning to Pope Gregory VII or Pope Boniface VIII and were witnessing once again the beginning of the struggle of the national kingdoms against the Papal State and the Empire. Claims are being made for the absolutism of political power to justify crimes against humanity. Certain States appear in their political pride to be adorned with papal infallibility for all their works on this planet, and even to desire those who urge control over the effectiveness of human rights to be condemned to do penance at another Canossa.
65. Sovereignty in our times affirms democracy; it is a tenet of this creed that the people are the sole lawful basis of a society governed by law. Thus, in many constitutions, such as that of Argentina, sovereignty is the source of individual rights and guarantees not specifically enumerated.
66. If sovereignty in international law should mean supreme power, outside the notion of duty which is inherent in the law and not governed by the rules of law, then that idea of sovereignty would be an imperialist theory of tyranny of the great Powers over the others.
67. Under the Charter, national sovereignty must be tempered by respect for human rights, which is implicit in the fundamental principle of the political self-determination of peoples.
68. Until safeguards for the effectiveness of these rights are established, We trust that the General Assembly will ensure their respect, which is a fundamental purpose of the United Nations. Due regard for these rights is essential in the colonies, in keeping with the trusteeship System; a fortiori, if possible, these rights must be respected in independent States. In a document Which has been circulated among all delegations by the Assembly of Captive European Nations, it is said that 100 million Europeans are groaning beneath the totalitarian yoke.
69. Our principles are wholly consistent. We do not ask for free, internationally guaranteed elections for Hungary alone; we put forward this recipe for exterminating despotism in all parts of the world.
70. We trust in the United Nations. Under its universal System we Can achieve that peace and security which are today indivisible. The United States President, Mr. Eisenhower, has said that the free nations must live together or die separately. The truth is that no great Power is great against atomic weapons. With these weapons, even the exercise of the right of self-defence could mean the end of mankind. Indivisible peace is bound to come when all mankind submits to morality and law.
71. We long for the great nations to agree on the control of atomic weapons, to harmonize their plans for disarmament and take steps to promote the peaceful uses of atomic energy which could transform the world economy.
72. Throughout this continent of America, united in political and economic co-operation, we fight in the cause of the world. In the Americas, we ate at the beginning of the road to economic co-operation. The underdeveloped countries, with low standards of living, are one of the breeding-grounds of disturbances to world peace and, because of the understandable resentment that arises, of the psychology of Violence. The countries of Latin America import machinery and wish to attract foreign capital because they do not Wish to stagnate in a primitive economy as mere producers of raw materials. They demand opportunities of full economic development and industrial progress under an international system of co-ordinated economies, governed by fraternal understanding, to the benefit of all countries.
73. In Order to strengthen the rule of law over all nations, we demand ah unrestricted system of international justice. The Under-Secretary of State of the United States, Mr. Hoover, has complained that the list of countries recognizing the compulsory jurisdiction of the International Court of Justice was not increasing. We echo his complaint, adding that only eight countries have ratified the American Treaty on Pacific Settlement signed at Bogota in 1948, which is the most advanced instrument of its kind and which stipulates the universal and compulsory jurisdiction of the International Court of Justice.
74. In closing my long speech, whose abuse of the patience of my audience has sometimes perhaps been attenuated by wandering attention, I should like to redefine the spirit which guides all our considerations. We are not so vain as .to speak as teachers of democracy, particularly not when addressing our sister nations in America, whose uneven political evolution we understand because Our own experience has been similar. Even less would we wish to do so as the democratic system of the United States is becoming stronger, a country whose people we love and admire and whose recent presidential and senatorial elections set an example to the world.
75. We desire to see a speedy end of colonialism, despite the fact that in some cases it has brought peoples to independence and we regard as the worst colonialism that of the totalitarian States over their own people; we urge the emancipation of human communities; we regard the Charter as a political canon which repudiates both black and red totalitarianism, for in the United Nations we act with conscious humility based on our well-learned lesson from the eminent teachers of Spanish law. Those teachers tell us that a State can be judged just like a private person.
76. Our attendance here is that of a democratic republic, subject to scrutiny, discussion and possible trial like any State. In view of this possibility, we shall not threaten to withdraw, nor do we — in the case of the international system of human rights — seek refuge in the plea of domestic jurisdiction. In accordance with the Magna Carta of 1215, in accordance With North American law, with the jus naturale enshrined in all modern constitutions, we shall merely ask for time to address this supreme world tribunal, and there give our evidence and present our case.