61. Mr. President, I should like to extend to you my heartiest congratulations on your election. By electing you, the Assembly has recognized your long and fruitful association with United Nations activities, your high qualifications, your experience and your ability. Your election is doubly satisfactory to me personally because of the circumstances of which you and the Assembly are aware relating to your candidacy last year. I should therefore like to extend to you my best wishes for success in your task.
62. Over the years every nation's voice has been heard from this great forum, every cultural value and all men's highest aspirations have been made known. For thirteen years, the United Nations General Assembly has been the scene of dreams and disappointments, of acts of good faith and expressions of intransigence, of magnificent human achievement and small but decisive steps towards peace and harmony.
63. What makes us persevere in our tasks of discussion and negotiation? What have we achieved and what are we striving for? Although we have accomplished much, through our perseverance, we are determined to do much more. Speaking once again from this rostrum, I feel that our hopes are nourished by our experience. This combination of the reality we have lived through and our ambitious goal form the basis for what might be called our conviction, reaffirmed year after year in our loyalty to principles which we consider fundamental, principles which have been the age-long guides of the Mexican people and — I might venture to add — of all men of good will throughout the world.
64. We reaffirm our conviction that mankind deserves a world based on peace, freedom and justice.
65. We reaffirm our conviction that respect for the territorial integrity and political independence of all States is essential to security.
66. We reaffirm our conviction that all international disputes can be settled by peaceful means and declare that the use of force is not only morally reprehensible but in practice ineffective as a means of solving the problems of coexistence of States.
67. We reaffirm our conviction that the right of peoples to the full enjoyment of civil and political liberties and the guarantee of a continuous improvement in the living standards of the great masses of the people are essential conditions of universal peace.
68. We reaffirm our conviction that every nation — the product of historical forces which it is not always easy to understand from the outside — is entirely free to choose the political and economic system which suits it best and to exercise full sovereignty in solving its internal problems. We therefore reaffirm the validity of the principle of non-intervention, which protects the right of self-determination.
69. We reaffirm our conviction that every country must decide for itself whether to maintain democratic institutions.
70. We reaffirm our conviction that prosperity, like peace, is indivisible. It is impossible to conceive of a harmonious world in which a few are wealthy, and many hungry. If our real purpose is peace, let us recognize that the individual’s interest and the general interest are now one and the same.
71. In the present dangerous international situation, the peoples of the world are watching the attitude of the Great Powers with fear and misgiving. The path we are following, at their behest or against their will, is not one which leads to peace and there is a universal feeling that there is an urgent need to go in a different direction and adopt different methods.
72. We all recognize the existence of legitimate individual principles but we believe that the most complex problems can be solved without undermining such principles and without repeated accusations which world public opinion finds useless, monotonous and sterile. Attempting always to put the blame and all the responsibility on the opponent does nothing to help mankind. Similarly, there is no advantage to be gained from comparing each other's faults, errors and abuses. It is puerile to produce political statistics merely to show which State has most frequently acted in a manner contrary to the Purposes and Principles of the United Nations. Two wrongs do not make a right, nor two untruths a truth.
73. We believe in positive statements, not negative ones, and we are u 3 that there is not a single country which is unworthy or committed to evil. However, a policy of recrimination tends to create the belief that there are such countries and to encourage in a people continually exposed to arbitrary denunciations a feeling of rancour and inflexibility. We therefore think that recriminations must be met with silence; a qualified silence, that is, an avoidance of denials, charges and accusations. No country is so free from blame that it can throw the first stone in the name of truth or set itself up as judge of the conduct of others.
74. The world is not divided into good peoples and bad peoples. It is divided only into a number of nations with different spiritual motivations, different historical backgrounds and differing philosophies. It is neither proper nor wise to think that a nation nurtured in the philosophy of Aristotle or Thomas Aquinas should react to political, economic and social events in exactly the same way as a nation whose philosophy stems from the individualism of Locke or from the oriental concept of becoming. For good or evil, the world is still made up of nations which differ spiritually. Instead of continuing to judge others from our own point of view, let us strive to understand them, and draw from the characteristics which astonish or trouble us because we do not understand them, the essence common to us all, which is part and parcel of our human heritage. Let us use our intelligence and discern the universal features of humanity in the national image of every people. We may thus sow the seeds of peace in the most fertile soil, in the hearts and minds of men.
75. Every day, political and military declarations place bars, obstacles and limitations in the way of Governments which are involved in an unending battle of words. The Powers risk their prestige in each new skirmish and their freedom of action is becoming Increasingly restricted. This makes it impossible to appraise problems properly, and difficult to treat them realistically according to their true nature and real significance. Our means are unsuited to our ends and we are setting off on roads which lead us away from our goals.
76. It is urgently necessary to agree on a truce of silence which will permit a reappraisal of the international situation. A suspension of verbal outbursts, an armistice for reflection in which the din of mutual recrimination would be lulled, an interlude of kindness in the exchange of threats. The science of politics is no longer in its infancy; it is time for it to produce results befitting its maturity.
77. I humbly and respectfully suggest an armistice of silence, a lull in the din, in which it will be possible to talk quietly and to good purpose. That would indeed be a true policy of silence — of eloquent silence -which we should agree to apply forthwith.
78. Mexico is convinced that the problem of peace depends fundamentally on what progress can be made towards disarmament. In accordance with this unshakable conviction, we have spared no effort at the various sessions of the General Assembly to help to bring the great Powers, and particularly the "nuclear Powers", closer together. Convinced that the only thing which can get us out of the impasse in which we have unfortunately been for some time, is not oratory but valid practical suggestions, however modest they may appear at first sight, we now wish to submit to this Assembly a few concrete ideas, the fruits of our reflections on some outstanding aspects of the disarmament question.
79. As we all know, the efforts which were being made within the framework of the United Nations during the period between sessions of the General Assembly were completely broken off, because the specific machinery provided for the purpose has not been used this year. It would therefore seem that one question to which we should give priority is the exploration of methods likely to lead to the resumption of the interrupted negotiations within the framework of the United Nations. This obviously cannot be achieved by majority votes but only with the agreement of the great Powers; my delegation feels, however, that the Assembly might make a useful contribution by recommending that the representatives of those Powers should meet to consider the specific point to which I have just referred. If this idea was received favourably by other delegations, my delegation would be willing to submit it to the appropriate body, namely the First Committee, in the form of a draft resolution in which that Committee would recommend that the representatives of France, the United Kingdom, the United States and the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics should jointly consider, with the assistance of the Secretary-General, how to resume the negotiations on disarmament.
80. I should also like to, refer to two other suggestions which I made at the twelfth session from this very rostrum. The first is that the Assembly should consider the feasibility and advisability of appointing a statesman of high international prestige, on the unanimous recommendation of the Powers I have just mentioned, to act as a United Nations Commissioner or Mediator for disarmament. I do not consider it necessary to go into the details of this idea, as the Mexican delegation had an opportunity to explain it at length, both in the statement I made on 3 October 1957 in the general debate [699th meeting] and in the statements made-by the Mexican representatives in the First Committee at its 884th and 891st meetings. Let me merely read the draft resolution which we were — and are still — prepared to submit to the Assembly if there is agreement on it among the great. Powers, because, as we said before; we feel that the unanimous recommendation of those Powers is essential and indispensable for the success of our initiative. The draft resolution would be as follows: "The General Assembly. "Convinced that an agreement on disarmament is necessary and possible, "Considering that there is an urgent need to intensify efforts and to seek further means of reconciling the divergent points of view, "Requests the Governments of France, the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics, the United Kingdom and the United States to consider, when they deem it appropriate, the possibility and advisability of unanimously nominating a statesman of high international prestige to be appointed by the General Assembly to assist them in their negotiations and, for that purpose, to consult with them, submit to them for their private consideration whatever proposals he considers advisable and, in general, to promote the conclusion of agreements between them; "Requests the Secretary-General to provide the facilities required to give effect to the present resolution."
81. It may also be advisable to repeat that our suggestion is not dependent in any way on the composition and functions of the Disarmament Commission and that it has the advantage, in our view, that in the person of the Commissioner, the Assembly would not only be represented but could bring to the notice of the great Powers any views, suggestions or studies, which might, in the general interest, contribute greatly to a gradual solution of the problems of disarmament. Another advantage which will be obvious to anyone who is familiar with the real difficulties, often quite different from the apparent difficulties, which have been encountered in disarmament, is that the Commissioner could assist the representatives of the great Powers in their negotiations, maintaining constant contact with them and submitting privately for their consideration any proposals considered helpful in conciliating divergent views, and, in general, in smoothing the way towards agreement.
82. The second suggestion I would reiterate, since unfortunately it could not be carried out last year owing to the international situation and to the trend of our discussions on disarmament, was to consider the possibility of the Assembly urging the great Towers to redouble their efforts to achieve positive results as soon as possible in the disarmament negotiations, addressing an appeal to them similar to the resolution unanimously approved on the initiative of Mexico in 1948 [resolution 190 (III)]. for the establishment of a lasting peace, and which might be phrased in the following terms: "The General Assembly, "Conscious of the fact that the armaments race today represents the greatest threat to peace and security, "Convinced that disarmament, even on a partial scale, would alleviate international tension, thus freeing mankind from fear and anxiety, and would create a propitious climate for the solution of pending political problems. "Considering that an agreement on disarmament would make it possible to use substantial resources to raise the standard of living of all peoples, "Convinced that the adoption of concrete disarmament measures is both necessary and feasible, "Addresses a solemn appeal to the Powers which, because of their war potential, have a more direct responsibility in this field, to renew their negotiations and to redouble their efforts towards the early conclusion of mutually satisfactory agreements covering the various problems connected with disarmament."
83. We share the view expressed by the Secretary- General in the introduction to his annual report [A/3844/Add.1] that the encouraging results obtained by the Conference of Experts to Study the Possibility of Detecting Violations of a Possible Agreement on the Suspension of Nuclear Tests, held in Geneva last summer, seemed to indicate a way of separating the political from the non-political elements so that a solution may be found at an early stage to the problems entailed in the former, which will undoubtedly increase the possibilities of arriving at a subsequent agreement on the latter. This is also evident from the interest in holding similar talks shortly concerning the security measures necessary to prevent surprise attacks. The same method might perhaps also be tried with regard to the other concrete measures specified in resolution 1148 (XII) which the General Assembly adopted at the twelfth session and which would seem likely to benefit by a similar approach by stages.
84. With regard to tests of nuclear weapons, I had occasion at the twelfth session [699th meeting] to recall the statement I made in 1957 in the International Law Commission, concerning the international responsibility of a State for the harmful results of such tests in that they are beyond human control. This does not refer, of course, to the magnitude of the explosions and the physical devastation they produce, but to the unpredictable effects of radiation on human and other living beings as well as on future generations. My delegation reiterated its concern about the situation in the following statement to the First Committee: "We know that radioactive fall-out caused by these explosions produces harmful biological and genetic effects. We also know that the greatest danger stems, not from direct exposure to radioactivity caused by the tests, but from indirect absorption, by means of a chain in which the last link is food, of substances which might have harmful genetic effects. "
85. In examining the report of the United Nations Scientific Committee on the Effects of Atomic Radiation [A/3838], which sets forth the results of three years of study and which is, as the Secretary-General points out in the introduction to his annual report, "the most comprehensive and authoritative single contribution to knowledge in this field that has been made up to the present" [A/3844/Add.l. p. 2]. we have found our statements of last year confirmed. Thus, in its general conclusions, the Committee states that "even the smallest amounts of radiation are liable to cause deleterious genetic, and perhaps also somatic, effects" [A/3838. para. 55 (a)]. It also points out that: "Radioactive contamination of the environment resulting from explosions of nuclear weapons constitutes a growing increment to world-wide radiation levels. This involves new and largely unknown hazards to present and future populations; these hazards, by their very nature, are beyond the control of the exposed persons, The Committee concludes that all steps designed to minimize irradiation of human populations will act to the benefit of human health. Such steps include the avoidance of unnecessary exposure resulting from medical, industrial and other procedures for peaceful uses on the one hand and the cessation of contamination of the environment by explosions of nuclear weapons on the other." Ibid. chap. VII. para. 54.
86. The foregoing will fully explain why it is a matter of great satisfaction to us, as it is to the rest of mankind, that after the constructive Conference of Experts at Geneva the Powers producing nuclear weapons reached agreement on a date close at hand, 31 October, for the suspension of all nuclear tests and the opening of talks which we certainly hope, for the good of present and future generations, will lead to the final cessation of such tests.
87. As we have already said, the solution to the problem of disarmament will provide the key to lasting peace. It is obvious, however, that the arms race and the dire threat which it constitutes for mankind is not only the cause of a deterioration in the world situation but also largely the result of the constant frictions arising, particularly between the great Powers, out of regional conflicts which are aggravated by the rival interests of those Powers.
88. I therefore feel that while endeavouring to promote agreement on partial disarmament measures, we should constantly bear in mind at our annual sessions the need also to help to reduce international tension by adopting such other measures as seem appropriate to eliminate, or at least to reduce, the areas of conflict between the great Powers. I shall proceed briefly to discuss the three main areas in which this conflict is now apparent.
89. There is no denying that the conflict over the off-shore islands of China, the most important of which are Quemoy and Matsu, is the most vital issue at the present time. Up till now, the measures adopted and the stands taken outside the United Nations by some countries have not often been conducive to a favourable climate for negotiations. We nevertheless hope that the discussions now being held at Warsaw between the representatives of the United States and the People's Republic of China may result in a peaceful settlement of the dispute over the off-shore islands. If these hopes should be disappointed the Assembly could not, in our opinion, overlook this serious matter without failing in its responsibilities. In such an unfortunate event, we should therefore envisage, not an acrimonious debate serving only to reiterate mutual recriminations and rigid positions, which are only too well known, but a calm and objective approach towards a solution based on justice and law, but also taking into account the facts of the situation. One such solution, and perhaps not the least effective, might be to entrust the Secretary-General with a mission similar to the one he has just carried out in the Middle East with such success.
90. This should give a dear idea of our position on the question considered by the General Assembly at its third emergency special session. The Mexican Government, as shown by its delegation's active participation in that session, has been and continues to be deeply concerned that a just, equitable and mutually satisfactory solution should be found as soon as possible to the problems which for many years have beset the countries of the Middle East and which have caused so much suffering to the peoples of that area, Our interest, which is in keeping with Mexico's consistent policy of favouring the peaceful settlement of controversies and in support of the right of peoples to self-determination, is also based on its unswerving adherence to the principle of non-intervention, which we consider of fundamental importance in international relations.
91. My delegation is therefore doubly pleased with the task accomplished by Mr. Hammarskjold, as described in his report of 29 September 1958 [A/3934/ Rev. 1], since it appears that, thanks to his efforts, the policy of good neighbourliness advocated by the Charter will be safeguarded in the area by means of a series of practical measures freely agreed upon by the Governments concerned and will, at the same time, result in the complete withdrawal of the foreign troops which are still in Lebanon and Jordan. However, for a complete and permanent return to normal in that area, upon the withdrawal of those troops, the Powers will have to show by their conduct, in accordance with the appeal made by the General Assembly at its third emergency special session, that they intend to act in strict conformity with the principle of non-intervention in their dealings with the Middle Eastern countries.
92. With regard to Europe, my delegation shares the view expressed by Eastern and Western statesmen, both in the United Nations and outside, that consideration should be given to the possibility of applying practical measures designed to reduce international tension. The suggestions made here since last year, and elaborated on in the present general debate by the Foreign Minister of Ireland [751st meeting], for securing what he called "a military and diplomatic drawing back in Middle Europe", as well as those put forward [697th meeting] by another of our distinguished colleagues, Mr. Rapacki, the Foreign Minister of Poland, within the framework of his plan, may perhaps serve as the basis for a detailed examination of the question. The possibilities of international friction will obviously diminish, as a result of the physical removal of the military forces of both sides, and the limitations that may be imposed on their supply of armaments.
93. Disarmament and the other problems I have briefly reviewed and which are only a few of those which have been dividing the great Powers and constituting a serious threat to world peace, have prompted the intermittent but persistent cry heard of late for what is generally known as a "summit meeting" at which the Heads of State of the great Powers would try to sink their differences and save not only future but also present generations from the scourge of war. We believe the time has Come for the General Assembly to respond to this appeal and consider whether to recommend that the great Powers should resume their negotiations, which were interrupted by the Middle East crisis, with a view to reaching an agreement on the place, date and agenda for such a meeting at the highest level. It should not be forgotten that the Chiefs of State of every one of the Powers in question have recently spoken in favour of holding such a meeting, differing only on the conditions in which it should take place. Moreover, if that conference were to be held on the recommendation of the Assembly and the participants were required to submit a report on its result, it would then remain within the framework of the United Nations.
94. There are three further items on our agenda on which I should also like to make some brief remarks, namely the question of territorial waters, the promotion of economic development and the right of self-determination.
95. With regard to the first, the Mexican Government has expressed regret that the United Nations Conference on the Law of the Sea, held in Geneva last spring, was unable to reach agreement on the width of the territorial seas. The establishment of a reasonable limit, in accordance with the practices, claims and aspirations of the majority of countries, would undoubtedly have done much to facilitate friendly co-operation between nations. The Conference can, however, justly claim two constructive achievements in this special field. In the first place, it has proved that the old concept of the three-mile limit has been generally abandoned and rejected and its claim to be a rule of international law no longer obtains in legal circles; secondly, what may be called a customary rule of international law concerning the width of the territorial sea is provided, as I said in 1956 at the 362nd meeting of the International Law Commission, by a "rule of variable' content" the maximum limit being twelve nautical miles, since that emerges from the legislation and practice of roughly two-thirds of the countries of the world. That was Mexico's argument at the Geneva Conference. It was embodied in a draft resolution sponsored by Mexico and India and was taken first of all from the texts voted upon in the First Committee of the Conference. It was reintroduced by our delegation in the plenary meeting in a draft resolution sponsored jointly by Mexico and seven States from three different continents and won majority approval, although it failed to obtain the two thirds majority required under the rules of procedure. It was the argument put into practice, after the close of the Conference, by two more States, while a number of other countries and political entities stated their firm intention to take similar action at an early date.
96. The objection frequently raised by some of the opponents of this rule to the effect that it would jeopardize freedom of navigation is without foundation and in open contradiction with reality. The right of innocent passage across the territorial sea is based on generally recognized and respected principles of international law, which have moreover been expressly reaffirmed in the Convention on the Territorial Sea and the Contiguous Zone adopted by the Geneva Conference. Nor is it true that the rule might be prejudicial to the legitimate interests of air navigation. For the past twenty-three years the breadth of Mexico’s territorial sea, for example, has been nine miles, under existing legislation, and I do not know of a single case where this has harmed or impeded either maritime or air traffic.
97. The real reasons for the opposition to a twelve-mile limit which, if all the factors involved are examined objectively, seems eminently reasonable, are to be found elsewhere. They arise primarily from the selfish interests of States which have large fishing fleets accustomed to operating hundreds and even thousands of miles from their own shores, disregarding the rights of the riparian States, Naturally those interests come into conflict with the legitimate interests of States like Mexico, whose programme "A March to the Sea" — which merely indicates its decision to exploit the natural resources of the sea in the off-shore area for the nation's welfare — would have no meaning if we found the sea impoverished and emptied of its natural riches.
98. If, we are to bring about international harmony as defined in the Charter, our conduct must be adapted to the Charter's principles. The problems of the regime of the sea provide an excellent opportunity for us to translate into deeds the principles of cooperation among nations and repudiation of force, in accordance with the spirit of the eloquent statements we are accustomed to hearing in his forum. For example, my delegation feels that there is no justification for the situation created by the United Kingdom's incursion into the territorial waters of Iceland, which the Icelandic Foreign Minister described here the other day [759th meeting] in a statement which was all the more forceful because it was so sober and thoughtful. We share the speaker's confidence that the United Kingdom statesmen will soon recognize that their position is untenable and can cause Incalculable harm, even from a purely practical point of view. The head of the Relegation "of Canada, one of the principal members of the British Commonwealth, was not speaking in vain when he stated emphatically at the recent Geneva Conference: "It might be Said that it would not be" legal for a State to take unilateral action substantially to enlarge the width of the sea under its control. But what sanctionative law would it be violating if we fail to agree on a law here? How could any nation fishing in remote waters prevent the application of the laws and regulations enacted by the riparian State, if we fail to reach agreement? Certainly, not by force. The day is past when any action of that kind could seriously be contemplated."
99. What I have said, and particularly what I stated regarding the argument upheld by Mexico in Geneva, explains to a great extent, I think, our position with regard to the agenda item dealing with the possible convening of a second United Nations conference on the law of the sea. Briefly, that position maybe summarized as follows:
100. First, the Geneva Conference may rightly be counted as a success of the United Nations. It avoided the mistake of The Hague Codification Conference (1930) in that, while it did not succeed in concluding. agreements on two basic problems — the breadth of the territorial sea and the width of the zone in which the riparian Stale has exclusive fishing rights — it did succeed in drafting four conventions of indisputable value.
101. Secondly, another United Nations conference on the law of the sea would have on its agenda only those problems which the first conference failed to settle, Consequently, the convening of such a conference will have to depend on whether there are any new developments showing a change in the divergent positions held at Geneva. So long as there are not, the holding of a second meeting, which would surely end in a discouraging failure, would only defeat the intended purpose.
102. Thirdly, in the opinion of the Mexican delegation, the only change which can reasonably be expected to occur, and which should occur as soon as possible in the interest of everybody, is the acceptance of a flexible rule with a maximum limit of twelve nautical miles, which is a reasonable limit in keeping with prevailing legislation, practice and the claims of about two-thirds of the States of the world.
103. Turning now to questions relating to promotion of the economic development of the under-developed countries, I should like to say that on the regional level — as shown by the recent Conference of the Foreign Ministers of the American Republics, held in Washington — as on the international level, the most urgent and overriding problem appears to us to be the stabilization of prices of primary commodities.
104. Unfortunately, we must recognize that what has been done thus far, whether under the inter-American system or within the United Nations, towards achieving a solution of this problem is very Utile compared with the magnitude of the task. As an example and in order to illustrate the serious effects this has on countries in the process of development whose essential commodities constitute an important source of income, I shall cite the case of Mexico. In a single year, 1957, Mexico experienced a loss of about 15 per cent of the total value of its exports in its sales abroad of five of its main primary commodities — cotton, coffee, lead, zinc and copper — as a result of the decline in the prices of those commodities. This figure is computed on the basis of the volume of what we sell, not of what we might have sold. It is a loss due solely to the decline of prices and not to a falling off in the volume of exports. Fluctuations have recently ranged from 20 per cent in the case of cotton to 55 per cent in the case of copper,
105. The case of Mexico is far from exceptional. I am sure that many representatives here could give us similar examples relating to their respective countries. That is why it is so urgent to find a satisfactory solution, and we think it should be sought through continuous consultation and the conclusion of multilateral agreements. It is essential for us to find ways of eliminating, excessive and violent price fluctuations. We believe that that task offers the United Nations its greatest opportunity in the economic field to make a truly important contribution to the welfare of mankind. In this connexion, we noted with satisfaction the reorganization of the Commission on International Commodity Trade during the twenty-sixth session of the Economic and Social Council, and we hope that, as a result, the Commission's work will increase in scope and effectiveness, Similarly, we find it encouraging that study groups have been set up on the-situation and prospects of certain primary commodities, like those in London which recently dealt with copper, lead and zinc.
106. We believe it would also help to achieve our purpose if due attention were paid to the financing of economic development. Too much emphasis has frequently been placed on the necessity for loans to be repayable in convertible currencies, which, in some cases, has given rise to an overproduction of certain primary commodities such as lead, zinc and copper.
107. The narrow limits of this course — which might be. justifiable for private banking institutions, but is wholly unsuitable for co-operation in financing the economic development of the under-developed countries — should be altered if such financing is to produce constructive results. We are confident that existing international credit institutions are becoming increasingly aware that loans should be directed towards strengthening the economic infra-structure of States. This would lead to better utilization of national resources for the process of industrialization. We therefore believe we are entitled to hope that this will be the policy underlying the operations of similar agencies to be set up in future, such as the Inter-American Bank on which agreement was reached in principle at the Washington Conference to which I referred earlier.
108. I shall dwell only briefly oh the third and last of the three points which I enumerated: the right of peoples to self-determination. The efforts of the peoples of the Non-Self-Governing Territories to attain full self-government deserve our warmest sympathy. That is why we welcomed with real gratification the admission to the United Nations of new Member States from Asia and Africa, whose entry into the international community is a happy augury of an era when the colonial system will have been entirely liquidated.
109. The principle of self-determination enshrined in the Charter and its corollary, non-intervention, have been steadfastly championed by the Mexican people since it won its independence over a century ago. We have always rejected the claim of other States, however powerful, to assert their hegemony, because it is incompatible with our sovereign rights, just as we scrupulously respect the rights of others.
110. This explains why Mexico has been watching with growing and friendly interest the formation in Belize of a country, neighbouring ours, and endowed with definite characteristics and a distinct personality. Our position on Belize is that, if its present status is altered, Mexico will claim its rights in accordance with well-known historical and legal precedents and by the peaceful and friendly methods by which it conducts its international affairs.
111. At this point, I should like to add, using the terms of Article 73 of the Charter, that we recognize the principle that the interests of the inhabitants of the Non-Self-Governing Territories are paramount, and that in developing self-government, due account should be taken of their political aspirations, freely and genuinely expressed. Accordingly, I believe, and I am sure that I am reflecting the profound feeling of the Mexican people, that Mexico, when the time comes, will not neglect to take into account that a solution of the question of Belize must be based on freedom and independence for the people of that territory.
112. The exercise of power always carries with it responsibility. There is no act of power which cannot be attributed to someone, and we must recognize that in the United Nations we are all responsible for the fate of mankind. We therefore believe that the so-called small and medium-sized countries are exercising and must continue to exercise the lofty responsibility of exerting their moderating, constructive and mediating influence.
113. It is time to ask the great Powers — which have a greater responsibility commensurate with their power — for effective co-operation and assistance, and to examine their general behaviour and their specific actions not for the purpose of judging them before world public opinion, but in order to contribute to the solution of the problems which beset us through a dispassionate and honest analysis of international questions.
114. We shall not advance a single step towards the peaceful settlement of disputes if we align ourselves blindly in hostile and inflexible camps which seem to be incapable of slowing their headlong rush towards a fatal collision in the midst of a growing clamour of arms.
115. Let us proclaim prudence and moderation while we seek unremittingly those solutions which we believe appropriate. Let us proclaim them with sincerity and firmness, undeterred by the fear that our voices will not be heard in the wilderness, because there will come a day when the wilderness will be peopled by those who know how to listen. Let us now take first steps, contenting ourselves with modest tasks and humble beginnings in the search for means and methods to lead us out of our present dilemmas. Some day our perseverance will open the way to reason and the higher interests of mankind will prevail.
116. The world hopes that the great Powers will never plunge into the inferno of mutual atomic destruction. It hopes that the balance of power may some day be replaced by the power of the spirit and the balance of understanding. Throughout history, men have recognized the basic and eternal values in life's changing pattern. They know that no conflict can last forever, no anguish is interminable and they look forward to being able to perform their daily labours in peace.
117. We believe that it is necessary and possible to convert those hopes into realities. Mexico has faith. Mexico continues to have faith. Mexico knows that will is as strong as hope and that even the greatest hope may be fulfilled in the future.