Mr. President, your presence here brings back the emotional and hopeful moments of the San Francisco Conference, where I had the good fortune and the honour to know you and to appreciate your fine qualities as a diplomat, and especially as a modern • diplomat, because of your wide knowledge, your liberal judgment and the profoundly humanitarian way in which you dealt with all questions. I can say that at that time I had the feeling that your brilliant career would one day culminate in your presiding over the General Assembly, thus continuing the brilliant course of the Presidents who have directed our work with such great success, among whom Latin America is honoured to have had its own efficient and worthy representatives. I fed that it is indeed a happy omen that, at a time when the General Assembly’s ninth session is meeting and has to cope with such difficult problems in an atmosphere of uncertainty, our work will be directed by you with the delicate tact and human feeling which are your finest attributes.
2. As the tenth anniversary of our Organization approaches, serious problems loom ahead, which, if left unsolved may endanger its very existence. We cannot resign ourselves to the fact that, in the matter of the great questions on which not only the progress but the very existence of mankind and the survival of all culture depend today, the United Nations should merely be regarded as a rostrum from which opposing monologues are delivered. It is said that such statements clarify world opinion and tend to form a kind of collective consciousness. That is probably so, but it is also true that debate of this kind accentuates differences, prevents problems being solved, and at times fans the passions which ominously accompany all debates. The time has come to ask ourselves in all sincerity whether the United Nations is merely a meeting place for the exchange of views, a debating society, or an institution in the scientific and historic meaning of the word, with a personality which at any moment can take effective action and take the right course.
3. An institution presupposes a community of aims and spiritual values, and, in the end, strict application of the principles deriving therefrom. The changing and ever-moving course of life may in certain cases and at certain times call for some flexibility of decision, but the fundamental purpose and standards of an effective and greater coexistence will always stand out in their great immutability. I stress the deep and beautiful meaning of the Spanish word “convivencia”, which means much more than “coexistence”. In this connexion I share the views of the President of the General Assembly. “Coexistence” seems to have a purely negative meaning, which at the present time is accentuated by the ephemeral, transitory and evanescent meaning given to the word “existence” in the vocabulary of contemporary philosophy. “Convivencia” means the union of lives in sincere understanding and loyal cooperation. An institution requires not only coexistence but also true convivencia. This spiritual community for high ends is in keeping with the great Western Judaic-Greco-Christian philosophic traditions and all the great religions of the world. It even appears in the philosophy of Hegel, who was responsible for the idea of a State being constituted by groups of the extreme right and the extreme left, forming what that philosopher called an objective spirit.
4. . The United Nations cannot be conceived as other than a full and effective organ, or, if you wish, as an objective spirit. Within this concept attention must be drawn to the decisive factor of self-knowledge, or rather the knowledge of one’s own personality and its destiny and the means of fulfilling that destiny. An impartial study of the United Nations shows that it has achieved success whenever its work has been inspired and accompanied by a clear institutional consciousness, a vision of its high aims and an unswerving devotion to certain standards of justice.
5. Failures have not been due, as some think, to unfavourable circumstances or to the complexity of the problems, but to some defect in its own life, in the feelings and functioning of the United Nations.
6. In contrast with the failure to solve certain political problems, there is to be noted a great unity of action among the United Nations in the exploration of economic problems, in the technical assistance programmes and in the international efforts to protect children. Although this incipient accord may be attributed to many causes, one of the most important is the institutional manner, the clear institutional consciousness with which the United Nations has acted in this field, since it cannot be denied that we all agree on the urgent need to promote the welfare of the economically underdeveloped countries.
7. Despite the significance of this co-operation between the United Nations, it is obvious that this Organization’s mission and responsibility are of an extent and type which go beyond the praiseworthy but nevertheless inadequate work already accomplished.
8. I fully understand that it is no longer possible to doubt that the low standard of living in the economically under-developed countries is a factor which upsets regional equilibrium, and that in turn results in the instability of peace in general. It can therefore be affirmed that to work for the welfare of such countries is really to ensure peace for the future. It might be said that it is a question of sowing the seeds of peace.
9. To this end, the Western world, both inside and outside the United Nations, should increasingly promote the economic and social progress of these countries, using for that purpose technical assistance and an international trade aimed primarily at assisting the economies of needy countries. With this same purpose in mind, the creation of the Special United Nations Fund for Economic Development and the International Finance Corporation should be expedited. They are institutions which, by complementing the action of private capital, will provide highly useful methods to be followed by these countries. The establishment of an international fund for the disposal of the surpluses or balances of all countries, to be used to finance specific economic development programmes, might also be considered.
10. These are the brief comments which my country wishes to make at present on this problem facing our whole international order. For its part, Peru has cooperated and will continue to co-operate with the United Nations, the United States and other European and Latin-American countries in numerous economic and technical assistance programmes, following the precepts of a free economy and recognizing the need to welcome all foreign capital, both public and private, which wishes to come to Peru to help develop and improve our economy. My country needs the vitalizing presence of new courses of wealth, as well as technique and co-operation generally in order to obtain foreign markets for its produce and thus procure the currencies needed for its economic development. Only in that way can my country continue the rate of progress which is recognized as its due and which it has so far experienced.
11. But, to return to the main point of my argument, I would say that the success of the United Nations is built upon a dear consciousness of itself as an institution and the fulfilment of its duties.
12. Turning to politico-legal matters, no one can deny that the United Nations affirmed its existence when it took steps, almost unanimously, to meet aggression. All the peoples of Europe, America, Asia, Africa and Oceania, with the exception of those who were concerned in the incidents in question, co-operated in condemning aggression and in adopting measures conducive to peace. Any division or deviation at that crucial moment would have led not only to the weakening 0f our institution, but to its bankruptcy and disappearance
13. Lastly, to show that the United Nations has an institutional consciousness and adheres to certain legal standards, let me quote the case which is still fresh in our memory — that of the prisoners of war in Korea. As the result of an evolution of law, the prisoner who was formerly regarded as a slave, then ransomed and exchanged, and afterwards claimed by his own country, now falls under an international protection which recognizes his right freely to decide as to his repatriation. Such a doctrine and its realization is a triumph in the history of the United Nations and emphasizes the decisive influence of its institutional and legal consciousness.
14. Very serious and profound problems confront us at the present time. Neither brilliance of debate nor the most exhaustive information will help to solve these problems if the United Nations, when faced with them, does not apply the criteria to which I have referred and which are not only in the very nature of our institution, but which are consecrated in the text of the Charter,
15. In all sincerity and objectivity I should like now to refer to the problem which sums up the profound crisis through which mankind is now passing — disarmament, in its dual aspect of prohibition of nuclear weapons and a reasonable limitation of conventional armaments to the needs of self-defence. The so-called “balance of forces” or “balance of power” has throughout history manifested itself in an interesting and some-, times useful way. It is true that armament races have led to war, but it is also true that, while the tendency towards equilibrium and a reasonable balance has not prevented war, it has given us long and fruitful periods of peace. Such periods of peace have been broken on many occasions as a result of a surprise upset in the existing equilibrium. The use of nuclear energy in its most recent forms does not allow of the application of the theory of equilibrium. The tremendous power of the new weapons requires what might be called the extension of a state of law to those armaments which were previously subject to the domestic jurisdiction of each State. It is not that the principles have changed; they are the same in so far as a State’s rights and duties are concerned. But the radical and profound change in the purposes for which they are applied must necessarily have different consequences.
16. The personality of the State, with its historical and cultural physiognomy, its full political sovereignty and free economic structure, must today, as yesterday, be respected and not touched. Respect for the personality of each State is the essence of the international order. This principle cannot be attenuated or modified, but just for that reason its application at the present time requires such international regulations of nuclear energy as will ensure the life of every State and, reciprocally, the life of every State which might use such weapons. The international world today therefore inescapably requires international regulation of a weapon on which hangs the life of States and the free development of their culture.
17. Self-imposed limitations have been notable, landmarks in the effective progress of international order protecting and safeguarding but never diminish national sovereignty. Any international regular pre-supposes the voluntary acceptance of some limitation on the offering by each State of some service on behalf of the international community. The personality, economic structure and essential rights of each State will always be reserved matters. But other matters connected with the work of States and the relations between them are more and more coming under international jurisdiction — in economics, through the creation of organs of control and administration; in politics, through conciliation commissions and arbitration ex aequo et bono; in the legal field, through arbitration properly so-called and, more important still through the International Court of Justice. The exclusive production and use of nuclear energy by a State without international control are therefore not only incompatible with international coexistence and harmony, but with the very existence of States.
18. To think now that because the great Powers possess nuclear weapons, and because of the fear of instantaneous and general reprisals, a mutual ban will be imposed which will lead to such weapons not being used is unfortunately a dangerous deduction which overlooks certain gloomy factors of collective psychology, such as illusion, fraudulent and equivocal calculations, the uncontrollable pressure of certain circumstances, the morbid obsession, with propaganda which obscures the vision of the truth, and, lastly, that mysterious and catastrophic impulse towards suicide of which we have had examples in contemporary history and more recently in our own days. In addition, it must be remembered that, although it seems improbable that nuclear weapons will be used because of such a mutual ban, there has already been created among human beings a fear psychosis which is in itself a deterrent to international progress and harmony among men. On the other hand, this psychosis has an advantage, but certainly not for those people who by their deep and lasting ethical and legal traditions and their conception of life, know that a preventive war can never rightly be begun.
19. Nuclear weapons have brought about a profound change in the life of mankind; a psychological, moral, economic and political change. How then can it be thought that such changes do not simultaneously involve a legal change? How can our Organization, the supreme human institution, reflect the life of mankind if it does not adapt itself to the changes taking place in that life at the present time?
20. If no such adaptation takes place, the United Nations will be unable to fulfil its mission. It must follow step by step the progress and the changes occurring in the life of mankind. Let it not be said that, in order to follow such changes in parallel, revision of the Charter is essential because some of its provisions are already incompatible or inapplicable. We cannot accept hat interpretation of the Charter. We cannot forget bat peace and coexistence are the supreme aims of our Organization and that disarmament is envisaged in various Articles of the Charter, both in those relating to the function of the Security Council and in those relating to the functions of the General Assembly. No written constitution or charter can be as rigid as it is desired to make the United Nations Charter. Principles must be interpreted in relation to the purposes of the Organization and in accordance with the needs of the time.
21. In this connexion I remember that the Roman praetor when dealing with the same principles in different circumstances, created that law which is the marvel of the centuries. Are we, with a technique which is superior to that of the Romans, and with a higher and divine moral background, to be incapable of adapting our political institutions to the needs of our time? A negative reply to that question would deny every principle of human progress. But if, in spite of this, it should be believed that the present structure of the Charter does not correspond to new and basic aspects of man’s life, that fact would indicate an imperative need for revision of the Charter in order that it may correspond to the high purposes for which it was written and meet the needs of our time.
22. We fully recognize the great importance of the role played by the regional bodies and agreements, which, the veto being foreseen, were incorporated in the United Nations Charter, precisely so that changes could be made when new means of safeguarding the peace required them.
23. America has set the example of a regional body and agreement nearly seven decades old and in the Inter-American Treaty of Reciprocal Assistance has set forth effective formulas for solidarity in meeting aggression and means for peaceful settlement and punitive action. Similarly, we note with deep interest that the principles proclaimed on our continent have been extended to other areas for an essentially defensive purpose and in order to safeguard peace. But let us remember that these agreements were brought about in an international situation in which the production of nuclear weapons was scarcely beginning. Today the situation has radically changed. Methods of destruction have reached the peak of their power and are shared by all the Powers which have diametrically opposite political interests and conceptions of life. These agreements, even if they function perfectly, hardly represent the diverse aspects of a very useful, necessary, advisable, equal political equilibrium because it is always based on the uncertain supposition that a mutual ban will be placed on the use of weapons of mass destruction. Such a supposition is not a sure guarantee for the full life, free from fear, to which all the peoples of the world have a right.
24. May I recall that one of the principles included in the Atlantic Charter was freedom from fear. Freedom from fear is not solely individual. The most dangerous form of fear is collective fear, and today, because of atomic energy, man lives in that state of collective fear.
25. If the United Nations does not solve this problem, uneasiness will continue, the rivalry between the Powers will persist, and there will still be an equivocal situation, with subversive war, a cold war, with infiltration and a surprise attack at some sensitive spot. For that reason we consider that it is our duty, especially of those of us who belong to medium-sized and small nations and who abhor adventures in power, to proclaim from this rostrum the imperative need of finding without delay an immediate and final solution to the problem of disarmament by means of international control.
26. This question has been discussed as long as the United Nations has lived. Some will ironically conclude that the debate will go on without any practical result being achieved. The fact is that these discussions have already resulted in very important conclusions being reached — in Paris, for instance — in useful rapprochements in many cases; and also, I must recall, although this may seem paradoxical, that some useful contrasts have been brought out. We have attacked the problem and a sound attack at least leads half-way to a solution. I draw the following conclusions from this historic debate.
27. First, as we said in Paris, any theoretical, spectacular, general, vague declaration made for the gallery on the prohibition of weapons of mass destruction, which safeguards no one and convinces no one but, on the contrary, awakens a general feeling of suspicion in proportion to the emphasis involved in such theoretical declaration, would be useless. I am not exaggerating when I say that, if the discussions in this Assembly produce a purely theoretical declaration, based on a non-existent confidence and on a sense of honour which, even though it does exist, does not inspire confidence in the public generally, it would be followed immediately — and this is a psychological factor which I wish to emphasize — by a wave of suspicion among mankind. We have at least learned that psychological factor from these debates. We cannot deceive the public, already informed on these matters, with a spectacular and theoretical declaration. The declaration will not deceive anyone. On the contrary it will engender suspicion and criticism. We should therefore avoid making any spectacular or theoretical declaration.
28. Secondly, what mankind needs, as it already has a wide knowledge of this problem, is a legal statute, a convention, establishing as a legal obligation the prohibition of the use of atomic energy by means of effective and immediate international control. That is what world opinion wants — a legal statute, a legal obligation, an agreement and a body to see that the agreement is honoured.
29. Thirdly, such control would necessarily involve the inspection and verification of all production centres. I must add, with respect to the control organ, that it should be impartially constituted and should carry out its inspection and verification duties under conditions of absolute equality and full reciprocity, so that the inspectors of one Power would have the same rights in the territory and factories of the other Power that the inspectors of the latter Power had in its own territory. Not one right more or less; not one action more or less. Nothing is more in accordance with sovereignty than such a rule of full reciprocity and fair and arithmetical equality.
30. It may be said that we have approached agreement on these three principles which were brought out in Paris, and I must recall that it was also stated in Paris that the international control organ should not have the power of veto and that all its decisions must be reached by a majority vote. The only remaining objection would seem to be the objection of sovereignty.
31. To these three points may be added two more — one of which is dependent on our legal organization and the other will depend on an accomplished fact.
32. In the fourth place, any disagreement between the international organ and the States concerned regarding the exercise of the right of inspection should be settled summarily by a court of law, by the International Court of Justice. And I would add that if it is thought that the procedures of the International Court of Justice are too complicated, then a special tribunal could be set up with full guarantees of impartiality and with powers of immediate action.
33. Fifthly, as President Eisenhower has suggested, all countries should become members of an agency set up for the purpose of encouraging and promoting the peaceful use of nuclear energy. I am grateful to the distinguished United States Secretary of State, Mr. John Foster Dulles, for making clear — indeed for revealing — the possible bases of an agreement on this matter.
34. So then — to sum up — five distinct elements are required: first, a legal statute; secondly, a fully guaranteed organ of control; thirdly, powers of inspection on a basis of equality and reciprocity; fourthly, powers of judicial action to deal with any complaint which may be made by a country in defence of its sovereignty; and, finally, co-operation among men to divert the use of atomic energy from criminal to peaceful purposes.
35. I cannot believe that, if the problem is posed in this way, if it is presented in this form to the conscience of humankind, there will not arise in support of it a great tide of opinion in all the countries of Europe, Asia, Africa, America and Oceania — a tide which nothing can hold back, for it would be the expression not only of our feelings but of the imperative demands of life itself. And I would say, with all the sincerity of which I am capable, with the respect which is due to the representatives of a great people and a great nation — I am referring to the representatives of the Soviet Union, who are profoundly aware of economic, political and military realities — that they cannot nor should they ignore the psychological reality. This factor of world opinion may penetrate the Soviet Union itself and can and should inspire the policies of its Government.
36. This would be a real trial by fire, the acid test as the English say, of the United Nations. There is nothing in the very nature of the Organization, nor in the words of the Charter, however strict and literal an interpretation may be put upon them, which would warrant opposition to the adoption of such principles, On the contrary, their application would be in full accord, allowances being made for the demands of the period, with the spirit of San Francisco, with the intention of the authors of the 'Charter and that of the creators of our Organization. The dilemma is inescapable: either the United Nations will be the organ for the international control of disarmament or it will not be, however long its debate may go on or its other activities be pursued.
37. Everyone is familiar with the facts which form the background to the ninth session. I shall not attempt to assess their significance nor to make forecasts from them, nor, because of them, to deny any hopes. We are not interested in what might be called final hopes based on a dubious calculation of the probabilities. To us, hope is something deeper and more real, because more urgent. It is a hope which is based on the fulfilment of a duty. Let me, without hatred, without recrimination or resentment, without guile or deception say what I think is our mission. If any constructive principle is to guide us it should be one inspired by the thought that above the clash of particular interests and political systems and beyond the structure of States, the soul of all our peoples is longing for peace, harmony and international co-operation. Above all, we should be deeply conscious of our duty as an institution. Every duty is by its nature an important stimulus.
38. Past events are irreversible and in many cases irreparable. Fate has denied us power over the future; there remains to us only the present within which to accomplish our duty. People will say that there are many difficulties, but the greater difficulties the more imperative the duty. It will be said that the outlook is dark, but the greater are the courage and decision required of us in fulfilling our duty. We cannot resign ourselves to the idea that after life has appeared on this planet and human consciousness has flowered, it should be precisely during this period of flowering that life itself should be annihilated and our planet revolve lifeless upon its axis in the eternal silence of infinite space, destroyed by an act of suicide. I am well aware of our present difficulties, but I have faith in the instinct of mankind, which has always turned upon every difficulty an eternal and heartening light, the light of duty fulfilled.