I should like to join in congratulating the President upon being elected to conduct the proceedings of this ninth session of the Assembly. My country has great pleasure in congratulating you, Mr. President, because you represent a friendly country, and I myself am particularly gratified to do so because I have been fortunate enough to meet you at several international conferences, where I have had the opportunity of appreciating your vast knowledge, your vigorous personality and the understanding with which you consider other people’s ideas. I am confident that, under a President endowed with these qualities, the Assembly will have a fruitful session and that by the time you have completed your task your prestige will have been greatly enhanced.
46. Before reading my statement, I should like to say a few words to explain why I have come to this rostrum before representatives of greater countries than my own. I was particularly anxious to be the first speaker, though I gladly yielded to the representative of Canada when he explained his personal reasons for wanting to speak first; it was not for any ridiculous ambition of being first, but because after this meeting or tomorrow’s meeting the television cameras, the radio networks and the columns of the Press will be concentrated on the pronouncements of the representatives of the great Powers and the spotlight thrown upon them will cast into shadow what we, the representatives of the small countries, have to say. In size and population we are small, but there are many of us, and we represent a sector of international public opinion which, unfortunately — and I am not saying this as a complaint but as an appeal — is not adequately reflected in the great United States Press, in those many and powerful instruments of world-wide communication and dissemination of ideas which make up the press of that country. That press does not make the voices of the small nations heard as they should be, representing as they do a body of international public opinion which should be heeded and which should have the means of spreading its thoughts and ideas, for the small nations sincerely desire the establishment of a real basis for a stable world peace.
47. Forgive me for these remarks. I shall now read the written statement that I was eager to deliver at the right moment. I am going to read it slowly because it contains a few ideas which I should like to sink into the hearts and minds of the representatives of the big countries and to make an impression on the newspapers and communication media of this great country.
48. It is difficult to analyse the international situation over the period between one General Assembly and the next. However new the facts observed may appear to be, they form part of a complex of contradictions and difficulties which have beset the life of the international community since the end of the last world war, leaving no respite nor breathing space to the peoples, which placed their faith in the Charter signed at San Francisco in the belief that peace had been concluded with victory.
49. In his interesting annual report, the Secretary-General says that the United Nations is “a tool created by the Governments of Members to serve them in their efforts to establish and maintain peace, and is in no way an end in itself . . .” [A/2663, p. xi]. That statement is a necessary one; for if any new trend can be discerned in international affairs during the last year, it is the tendency on the part of certain countries to seek procedures and solutions outside the Organization to which all belong.
50. At San Francisco it was thought that in future, nations would deal with their problems, difficulties or differences within the United Nations system and that with the co-operation of all it would be possible to seek solutions in a peaceful atmosphere.
51. However, there are States within our Organization which not only obstruct its work but which have even accused it of aggression because it participated, as it was bound to do, in the defence of the Republic of Korea. It is true that the last year has seen the end of hostilities in Korea and Indo-China, but it is no less true that had it not been for this forum of nations which desire peace and condemn aggression, these conflicts would not have been localized, brought under control and suppressed.
52. It is for that reason that my country expresses its grave concern that in some cases the United Nations system is not being used in matters which are part of the paramount responsibility conferred on it by the Member States signatories of the Charter. This tendency, as the Secretary-General very rightly says, “may tend to weaken the position of the Organization and to reduce its influence and effectiveness, even when the ultimate purpose which it is intended to serve is a United Nations purpose” [A/2663, p. xi]. Nations which are small in area and population have no part, and can have no part, in the shaping of important international events occurring outside the United Nations; yet at the same time they must resign themselves to bearing whatever consequences may ensue. We can understand that peace must be sought within or outside our Organization; but what we cannot understand is the acceptance as an accomplished fact of the thesis that peaceful coexistence or a mere respite in the cold war can be achieved only behind the back of the United Nations and in defiance of the principles of the Charter.
53. Our delegation reaffirms its faith in the system of collective security established at San Francisco, and believes that true peace, bringing tranquility to all nations and peoples — that is to say, a peace based on respect for human rights and offering the hope of an improvement in the standards of living prevailing today — can only be based on the principles of our Charter.
54. During the period I am reviewing — and also outside the United Nations system — there was a renewal of the propaganda campaign which calls itself “an appeal for coexistence”. That slogan caused no surprise to the international community, for the years of constant tension and fear of aggression have taught nations to be surprised at nothing.
55. If the countries having the greatest influence in world decisions only resolved to live up to the principles of the Charter, the whole human race could coexist in peace and prosperity. It is inconceivable that after the sacrifices of the last world war, after all the tragic experiences the peoples lived through, it should still be thought in some quarters that it is easier to ignore the United Nations and bargain in a world dominated and ruined by the burden of armaments over a precarious right to existence. I have stated, and I repeat, that peace is an aspiration of such transcendent importance that it does not matter whether we try to achieve it inside or outside our Organization; but while we must welcome any serious effort to achieve peace we cannot refrain, in this forum, from expressing our doubts with respect to the so-called communist appeal for coexistence.
56. Not one inch of communist territory or territory dominated by communist troops has suffered aggression or been invaded by the forces of the free world. On the contrary, the territories of the free peoples have been attacked or invaded during these same years by communist forces in Europe and Asia, and the United Nations has been obliged for its part to assume grave responsibilities. Both in Korea and in Indo-China, peace has been obtained at the price of partitioning the territories and dividing the population.
57. Nevertheless, the propaganda machine of the aggressor, not of the victim of aggression, has launched the slogan of coexistence. Those who for years have prevented other nations from living in peace; those who have imposed perpetual tension and fear; those who have blighted the hopes of economic prosperity by forcing other countries to rearm, now speak of coexistence and invite us to share in it, but outside the United Nations Charter, which defines coexistence in terms which they cannot accept, namely, respect for human rights and the self-determination of peoples.
58. What is the price of this so-called coexistence? There is talk of admitting Communist China, the country which attacked Korea, into our Organization; of destroying the North Atlantic Treaty Organization and of closing our eyes to any emergency in Formosa. The price may be these or many other conditions; but there is one condition inherent in the entire Communist appeal for coexistence: the invitation to join, consciously or unconsciously, in the campaign of hatred against the United States.
59. Communist strategy, using various means to permeate world public opinion, has made its appeal for coexistence coincident with its vicious attack upon the United States. Attempts have been made to link nationalist movements, social awakening, aspirations for economic betterment and even cultural and racial differences by a common denominator of abiding unrelenting and persistent hatred, towards this nation, in an impressive campaign to shatter the solidarity and understanding which had developed in the international community during the trying years of the last world war. For all these reasons, we continue to think that the only form of coexistence worthy of free peoples is that proposed in the Charter of the United Nations. We have great problems and differences, but no one can put his trust in a system of coexistence nurtured on hatred for one of the members of the international community.
60. The agenda for this ninth session again draws the attention of Member States to those economic and social problems whose solution has been so long delayed.
61. There is no need to emphasize once more the close relationship which exists between peace and prosperity, between political conditions, and economic and social conditions; or to point out that the solution of some of the existing economic problems would help to strengthen the peace-loving forces of the world. It is a fact that the agencies created by the international community in the post-war period to deal with reconstruction, currency stabilization and the development of world production have done everything possible under their charters and with the resources at their disposal; but at the same time it is also true that the measures they have taken have proved inadequate because of the immensity of the task. The statesmen of the post-war period failed to grasp the magnitude of the problems, both economic and social, which developed in the wake of the war, and the plans they made for a return to “normalcy” and a subsequent stabilization of international economic forces proved woefully inadequate.
62. In reviewing the Secretary-General’s studies on economic development, international finance, agrarian reform, the development of natural resources, economic stability, full employment and international commodity problems, the reports of the regional economic commissions and the practical work of the principal agencies, such as the International Bank for Reconstruction and Development, the International Monetary Fund, the Food and Agriculture Organization and others, a striking disproportion is to be noted between what is recommended to be done and what is actually being done or what we may hope to see done some day. We cannot but admit that international co-operation in this field has been characterized by generous intentions and modest achievements.
63. What is the main obstacle? My delegation believes that for some time economic considerations have been transformed into an appendage of or addendum to the general political and military situation. International resources seem to flow to the areas of greatest danger, and almost invariably arrive too late.
64. In addition — and it is necessary to state this here so that the views of all nations, large and small, may be known — there is a tendency to think that whatever is or has proved beneficial in the history of an industrialized country must necessarily be good for the development of a growing nation. Economic dogmas are as dangerous as political dogmas; perhaps they do not endanger peace or the peaceful coexistence of nations; but they undoubtedly jeopardize and distort the economic well-being of the great masses of the population and implant in the minds of the people an attitude of discontent and rebellion, as they perceive a high standard of living, which is appropriate to the country in which we live but unattainable to the majority of mankind.
65. This year the tenth Inter-American Conference was held at Caracas, and the countries of Latin America, without exception, spoke the same language and pointed out that those who are in a position to have a deciding voice in matters affecting international economic cooperation must understand the real conditions obtaining in the nations concerned before attempting to impose rules or remedies which are not in conformity with the true conditions in our countries.
66. The Economic Survey of Latin America, 1953 states that during the period 1945-1952 average per capita income in the Latin American countries rose 3.3 per cent, and that if this rate were maintained, Latin America could double its present standard of living in twenty-one years. It goes on to say, however, that this improvement resulted solely from increased income attributable to the terms of trade, which have now entered an unfavourable phase. In other words, we can no longer think of maintaining the rate of 3.3 per cent, and the dream of doubling the present standard of living will not be realized within the period of twenty-one years. Behind the technical expression “terms of trade” what the report is really saying is that the output of the Latin-American continent is beginning to decline in value on the world market, and that the same commodities that it has been producing are now worth less money. Thus a country’s effort, the mobilization of a country’s resources to achieve its legitimate economic development, are undermined and weakened by the operation of international factors beyond its control.
67. If this is what is taking place in the field of production, let us see what has happened in that of international co-operation. During the period 1950-1953, net capital investment in Latin America amounted to an annual average of $421 million which, allowing for certain credit operations carried out for the purpose of adjusting the balance of payments, made up a total flow of capital of less than $530 million per annum. Of this amount, less than $80 million were furnished by international credit agencies, the remainder consisting of private investment. The total volume of public investment in Latin America during the same period amounted to $2,240 million; thus the contribution of international credit agencies to the whole of Latin America represented only 3 per cent of the total investment. Moreover, 56 per cent of the so-called “flow of private capital” resulted from the re-investment of profits; it did not represent fresh capital.
68. Finally, the total investment in Latin America between 1950 and 1953 from public funds and private capital was $2,446 million, representing an annual average of $611,500,000. During the same period, remittances to cover repatriation or redemption of capital amounted to $358 million, or $89,500,000 per annum, and service of capital (dividends, profits, royalties, interest, etc.) amounted to $2,524 million, or $631 million per annum. In other words, if we compare investment in Latin America with the Latin-American countries’ disbursements during the period 1950-1953, we find that the investment was smaller than the disbursements by $535 million. Our region is a good business proposition.
69. In this situation, we are receiving a generous amount of advice. We are told of the boundless importance of private enterprise and the danger of economic intervention by the State. Now our countries have long known, respected and encouraged private enterprise, but we prefer enterprise which is our own, which is national and which produces for the general good of the country. Latin-American private enterprise — an anomaly in the world of today — has no access to the international capital market. Foreign private enterprise has been and still is welcomed in our America; but it must be realized that it is interested only in exportable production; and furthermore, that the resulting service of capital heavily burdens our balance of payments.
70. Exaggerated fear of economic intervention by the State evidences ignorance of the real situation. Before the First World War, when the State was virtually a passive element in national production, international sources of credit offered their capital directly to the State in the form of loans or other means of credit. And now that the emphasis is on private enterprise and private enterprise alone, international credit cannot be obtained without a State guarantee. In short, it is a sign of our times that Latin America, an area which is in the full tide of development and in process of expansion, at a time when it most needs international assistance, exports capital instead of importing it and disburses far more in payments for services and other items than it absorbs into its economy in the form of public or private capital.
71. It was for these reasons that the Tenth Inter-American Conference at Caracas unanimously agreed to adopt the proposal put forward by the Chilean delegation and decided that this year, during the session of the General Assembly, a meeting of Ministers of Finance and Economy of the American States should be held in Rio de Janeiro to discuss once and for all our common problems, in order to make clear what international co-operation really amounts to.
72. I have referred to the recent experience of the geographical area to which my country belongs in order to show you all one of the aspects of the drama of our time: the ignorance which exists of the true situation in which nations live and the obstinate persistence with which political and economic dogmas are imposed upon a humanity whose sole desire is for unity and understanding.
73. On behalf of my country I should like to say here that our approach to political as well as to economic and social problems should be founded upon respect for human rights. The events of the past year should make us reflect upon the danger inherent in the fact that the importance of those first two factors of international action may make us forget that the true object of the Charter is precisely to impose these minimum standards of civilized co-operation.
74. Despite the obstacles which confront it, our Organization should endeavour to intensify the work of drawing up the international covenants which have for long years been the study of the Commission on Human Rights. We cannot resign ourselves to the thought that the international situation destroys any hope of collective effort to enforce respect for these rights. Wherever there is any possibility of imposing or maintaining them, there our Organization should throw in the weight of all its experience and moral force.
75. In conclusion, I should like on behalf of my Government to express the hope that this session coming, after so many years of anxiety and cold war, may serve all our countries as an occasion for self-examination. We must understand that international events have developed in such a way that the worst may happen at any moment; that the responsibility which each of us bears in relation to his opportunities is enormous, for not only has fear and terror been spread throughout the continents but faith in this Organization has dwindled, and it is essential that we should raise our collective conduct to the high moral level of the Charter.
76. Chile greets the ninth session and declares its resolve to lend its assistance where it can and in such measure as it can, in order that when peace is spoken of, peace is really meant, and when co-operation is offered, we may be sure that what is offered is really co-operation.