The Colombian delegation does not consider it necessary to reaffirm, in the general debate, its adherence to the principles of the Charter of the United Nations, or its constant desire to participate in the joint effort to ensure peace and to create better living conditions for humanity. We have come to this Assembly in the same spirit which inspired our conduct in London, San Francisco, Mexico, Buenos Aires and in all the Pan-American meetings of this turbulent age. We come here now with the same interest which we brought to the Inter-American Conference for the organization of peace when we presented a plan for an association of the American nations, with that same ardour with which we helped to build the unity of our hemisphere in the Act of Chapultepec, with that same determination which we evinced at San Francisco to strengthen the Pan-American system, and with that same optimism we felt during all the initial stages of the organization of the United Nations; In the same way, we are now ready to support any initiative tending to establish once and for all throughout the world the triumph of reason over force, of right over arbitrariness, and of liberty over slavery in any form.
Nevertheless, we cannot refrain from expressing our great pleasure at the attractive prospects which we believe are before us with the inauguration of the meetings of this Assembly. There is a great diversity of opinions regarding the results of the Paris Conference. Many think that, in the course of the discussions between the representatives of the great Powers, the antagonisms which arose between them overshadowed the progress achieved in agreeing on peace terms for some of the defeated countries. Others think, on the contrary, that the negotiations marked a considerable advance toward the reorganization of continental Europe. For us, the principal fact, the most significant of all, is that from this Conference, at which the differences between the United States of America and the Soviet Union were so acute, seems to have emerged, strengthened, the will to peace which is finding such happy expression at this meeting.
The representatives of the United Nations have come to the Assembly with the same earnest desire to seek, in conformity with the principles laid down in the Charter, the pacific settlement of the world problems falling within their jurisdiction. None of them would wish to make irreconcilable the disputes between nations, whether they are of a political or economic nature. At the precise moment when the tension between the Soviet Union and the United States was so extreme that a serious and dangerous misunderstanding threatened the world, their most responsible spokesmen gave a necessary and timely respite to world opinion, by their declarations of peace and collaboration, both explicit and far-reaching. We not only welcome these statements with enthusiasm but we must remember them as a stimulus to strengthen our confidence in the success of our work.
Marshal Stalin was perhaps the first to try to dispel the fear of another war, stating clearly that he did not see how such a thing could happen.
The Soviet Foreign Minister, Mr. Molotov, upon his arrival in New York, ratified this declaration, expressing the assurance that any difficulty which might arise would be satisfactorily solved with goodwill and sincere intention to maintain mutual understanding.
Some days before, the Secretary of State, Mr. Byrnes, had explained to the American people how, after every great war, the victorious Allies have found it difficult to adjust their differences in the making of peace, and how those differences cannot be dispelled or reconciled by a mere gloss of polite words. But, added Mr. Byrnes, it is better that the world should witness clashes of ideas rather than clashes of arms.
“We must co-operate to build a world order, not to sanctify the status quo, but to preserve peace and freedom based upon justice. And we must be willing to co-operate with one another — veto or no veto — to defend, with force if necessary, the principles and purposes of the Charter of the United Nations.”
Holding out his hand, figuratively, to the representatives of all peoples, great and small, Mr. Byrnes revealed his whole thought when he said:
“Any nation that abides by those principles can count upon the friendship and co-operation of the United States, irrespective of national differences or possible conflict of interests.”
As President Truman declared at the opening meeting of the second part of the first session of this Assembly, “the United States of America has no wish to make war, either now or in the future, with any nation in any part of the world”.
Neither the Soviet Union, nor United Kingdom, nor any of the nations represented here wishes to become involved in an armed conflict again. They are all sincerely and eagerly seeking peace.
This is as it should be, and as far as lies in our power it could not be otherwise. In the past, wars have been waged on a great variety of pretexts and with many different objectives in view; but whether it was territorial conquest, the defence of a religious creed, the maintenance of a status quo or the propagation of a certain political ideology which brought men to the battlefields, it is certain that the last war alone was indisputably a war to ensure world peace, a war in which the democracies were obliged, against their will, to take an active part.
But a war to bring about the millenium, the ideal of peace in a new world order, must, of necessity, entail obligations which the previous wars did not impose upon all the nations. This was the reason why, before hostilities had ceased, the San Francisco Conference was convened in order to lay the foundations and proclaim the Charter of the United Nations.
The representatives of States concerned were able to meet even before the unconditional surrender of Germany and Japan, because they knew what motives had led them to enter the struggle and the nature of the new order which they wished to see established for the common benefit of mankind. We may well say, once and for all, that the war was necessary in order that men and nations might adjust and resolve their differences, reconcile their interests and seek their welfare by peaceful means.
In open and firm opposition to Hitler’s and Mussolini’s new order, which made disagreement with official opinion an offence, the free nations went to battle for the right to dissent as one of the essential prerogatives of progress and human dignity. And they won the fight. That is why we are now engaged in the task of securing for all men the right to live and work in peace, regardless of their race, religion, language, or political ideology, within the organization which they freely elected as the body most likely to achieve these purposes; the right of the citizen to express his opinion about the Government’s actions without restriction; the right of the minority to profess a political or religious creed different from that of the majority; the right of all races to receive equal protection from the State.
Therefore, we must ask ourselves these questions: If we went to war in order to achieve the right to live together in disagreement, why do we not recognize it as a fundamental rule of international relations, with all its consequences? Why do we not offer and guarantee it general and universal acceptance?
It has often been said that the key to peace is to be found in the nations’ ability to live together in harmony notwithstanding their different criteria; it is to be found in the ability to give free expression to their disagreements until a satisfactory solution is found.
That is why we derive so much confidence from the fact that such matters as the regulation of the veto and the control of atomic energy, which many consider a threat to the stability of the United Nations, are brought before the General Assembly for discussion. Wherever there is a safety-valve, it is easy to prevent an explosion. In the world prior to 1939 these same forces, which we can now examine and utilize for our mutual benefit, lacked this opportunity which is now enjoyed in the Assembly of the United Nations, and were able to explode and create chaos without previously revealing their violence.
In reality, neither the vote of the majority nor the veto can, in itself, guarantee peace. The imposition of a decision obtained through a majority of votes may seem more legitimate than any other method of decision; but it is nevertheless the result of numerical force which is no more excusable simply because it is not exercised in a brutal manner. The stronger nations, which are fewer in number, are obliged to yield to the will of the weak nations which are numerous. This, in our opinion, creates the necessity to restrict, not only the use of the veto, but also that of the vote as the normal means for arriving at highly important decisions. Both prevent the settlement of differences in many cases where it might be easy to arrive at a compromise as an interim solution.
The experience of the Latin American nations in their continental relations has shown us that when giving effect to an international policy the right of a majority must be exercised with the utmost discretion.
Not once but many times the small nations could have carried points of view which were contrary to those of the stronger nations simply because they had a majority of votes in Pan-American assemblies. I should venture to say that inter-American relations have developed very happily partly because the small nations never did so; that is, nations never tried to adjust any of their major differences simply by conforming to the will of the majority. The fairness of the vote of the members of the Pan-American system was not achieved by hastiness, but rather by always allowing ample opportunity for the discussion of opposing points of view.
I firmly believe that it is precisely because none of our more serious disputes has been solved by the numerical force of the vote that there has not even been any thought of establishing the veto for any purpose in the association of the American nations. They all recognize, however, that the common interest naturally involves the veto right whenever the importance of the subject at issue, or that of the countries which are opposed to the taking of a certain decision, ought ultimately to carry more weight than the opinion of a fortuitous majority.
It may be that in this way the vote of the majority has in fact been limited, and that we have postponed matters of great moment for a longer time than is strictly necessary. On the other hand, we are certain of having better served the interests of peace in this part of the world and of thus having promoted co-operation between the American peoples more effectively than by adopting premature or precipitate conclusions, whereby voices of dissension or of discontent would have been silenced.
We, the members of the delegation of Colombia, believe that the task with which the General Assembly of the United Nations is now confronted could be accomplished in the same spirit, although on a larger scale, because we are not representatives conducting the individual defence of any country or of its particular ideology, but are seeking the common interest of everybody without reference to victories and defeats. The war which the United Nations fought under the banner of tolerance will not yield its best fruits unless we give this tolerance the fullest place in our deliberations and unless we make every effort to find an amicable settlement of all our differences. We must learn to differ without timidity, and with sufficient courage to discuss and make compromises boldly.
It would be very prejudicial to the permanent interests of peace if we representatives to this Assembly were to attend its deliberations as though we were the spectators of a sporting event and followed the practice, as do some press organs, of recording the points scored by each team. Fortunately for us the responsibility for negotiating the peace treaties does not fall on our shoulders. We have no other obligation now than that of solving or adjusting the differences which may arise from the peace settlements, and that of procuring for humanity as expeditiously as circumstances permit the benefit of the four essential freedoms laid down in the Atlantic Charter.
The separation established between the functions which were reserved to the Allied Powers and those devolving upon the General Assembly of the United Nations affords us the opportunity of debating the items on the agenda without fearing that we may prejudice the interests of peace if we do so in a generous spirit of compromise. It is not for the moment incumbent upon us to solve within a few days or weeks any question affecting the territorial integrity, the sovereignty or independence of any State, and consequently we have wide latitude to sink our differences or to postpone them when we consider it necessary.
I have more than once felt inclined to think that by a strange paradox it is possible that the two problems which, in the eyes of world opinion, constitute the bone of contention, namely the control of atomic energy and the right of veto, are serving more effectively than any other influences to invigorate the United Nations Organization and to strengthen the spirit of sometimes rough frankness, and the good faith which are beginning to dominate international relations in this new age of public diplomacy.
General disarmament will have no more sincere advocates in this Assembly than the representatives of Colombia. We belong to a nation whose army does not constitute any threat to its neighbours, nor is it an instrument of political oppression in the service of any cause. We have not yielded to the temptation of futilely sacrificing our resources by maintaining armed forces which our external defence does not require, but have entrusted the safeguarding of our rights to the international bodies which fulfil that function in our time. Our boundaries were defined by peaceful procedures and we hope to see them abolished for all practical purposes so that the citizens of the territories which once formed Greater Colombia may cross them without let or hindrance. A general limitation of armaments would not impose on Colombia any rectification of her traditional policy. It would serve to enhance the prestige of that policy and to consolidate it in the popular mind.
Within the framework of the present distribution of international forces, we believe that it is the duty of the great Powers, on whom the responsibility for maintaining the peace primarily rests, to indicate the course which will sooner ,or later have to be taken in regard to certain very acute political questions. It accordingly follows that in the particular case of Spain, for example, we have been and still are awaiting the directives of the Security Council regarding the manner in which the recommendations of Potsdam, San Francisco and London are to be fulfilled. We are still prepared to fulfil all our undertakings but we have refrained from taking initiatives which, in the normal course of events, remain in the hands of those nations which conquered nazism in its own strongholds.
The position of Colombia in regard to the veto was established at San Francisco, but the delegation over which I have the honour to preside considers it opportune today to make some brief comments in connexion with that matter.
The veto has always existed, in one form or another, as the privilege of the great Powers. It existed in the development of their policy and in their so-called spheres of influence. It existed in the Council of the League of Nations, where it was embodied in the rule of unanimity. The delegation of Colombia thinks it right to insist that the restrictions laid down in the Charter as regards the exercise of the veto should be respected, and that the conditions which the United States, Great Britain, the Soviet Union and China accepted at San Francisco, before the right of veto was granted to them, should be fulfilled. In addition, it wishes to express the real pleasure with which it noted the attitude adopted by the Under-Secretary for Foreign Affairs of the Soviet Union, Mr. Vyshinsky, in facilitating the discussion of Cuba’s motion on the veto, although he regarded it as inconvenient and inopportune for his Government.
As things are, the reasonable use of the veto might be interpreted as a right which small States have conceded to the great Powers to enable them to postpone the study of any subject at a given moment. It might, however, equally be regarded as a tremendous threat to the right of dissent which all peoples and their representatives should retain, particularly the weakest, if the strong claim to exercise it indiscriminately as though arrogating to themselves an unforeseen tutelage over the opinion of the contemporary world. The right to discuss it in the General Assembly is, in our opinion, inseparable from the right of veto in the Security Council; but our view is that whereas all nations, great and small, are equal in this Assembly, their responsibility for the preservation of peace is not the same.
For our part, we regard the General Assembly of the United Nations primarily as a forum where world public opinion can and must make itself heard. Our deliberations will help to create a conscience with regard to the problems of our time, which exceed national and continental boundaries and affect the interests of all peoples on the earth. They are problems of extraordinary proportions, without known precedent in history, just as the circumstances in which live the men who are called on to solve them are novel and extraordinary.
Only if we can count on the active co-operation of world opinion can we commit ourselves to the ambitious process of test and trial which we must carry out in the course of the years to come. The world scene has changed more in the last five years than in the four or five decades immediately preceding the war. We are witnessing a redistribution of forces such as has not been seen since the sixteenth century. New Powers have arisen. Others have lost a considerable part of their former importance. But we all go on thinking in terms of time, volume, space and velocity which do not correspond to existing facts, but to an epoch which has gone forever. Only thus can we explain the striking contrast between the attitude of Governments which have already achieved an international mentality and the attitude which the citizens of their countries hope, or demand of them.
The organization of democracy on a worldwide scale is not, as many imagine, a question of applying our experience to situations of greater extent or importance. The fact is that rules of democratic government, which have been so effectively tested within national jurisdictions, do not adapt themselves to international relationships with the facility which might be desired.
There is more than a problem of proportions in the change of fundamental principles which we representatives to this Assembly must bear in mind in examining the rules which must regulate the conduct of the nations here represented and guide their footsteps in order that they may attain future prosperity. We must recognize, in the first place, that we run the risk of making, and certainly shall make, many errors in all good faith. As President Roosevelt would have said, there is no chosen people and there are no prophets among us. Possibly there is no one who has sufficient knowledge and experience to avoid mistakes in the choice of methods and standards for the organization of world peace and co-operation. The United Nations is an organism which, as events develop, will take shape and assume functions beyond the anticipations of the Charter. Hence we must begin by watching its development as something new and more or less unknown. Hard facts will determine what the United Nations is to become — certainly something different from what men originally intended.
Many of the representatives present here attended the historic San Francisco Conference and are able from their own experience to compare what has actually happened with what it was believed would happen two years ago, and derive from this comparison an unforgettable experience. What remains, for example, of the conflict between the large and small States regarding the relative importance of the United Nations and the Security Council? The former feared that the General Assembly would be an academic body in which the five great Powers would play the part of tutors of a paralyzed and silent assembly. Many representatives protested against the excessive powers entrusted to the Security Council as compared with the Assembly. Nevertheless, no one will venture to deny that the present General Assembly shows the clearest signs of being at least as important as, if not more important than, any of the sessions of the Security Council, and that the optimism which today is spreading throughout the world originated in the General Assembly after many memorable sessions of the Security Council and the heated debates at the Paris Peace Conference.
The delegation of Colombia will play its full part in the study of the proposals which are submitted for the consideration of this Assembly. It does not consider that it possesses, at present, sufficient information either in favour of or against many Articles of the Charter which have been the subject of more or less serious objections since it was drawn up at San Francisco. Nor does it believe that it has as yet a full understanding of the scope, the significance and the importance of the veto, apart from the actual terms laid down in the Charter. But it believes that the new debate on the question must begin where the San Francisco discussions left off. Only when we know quite definitely what the veto is and what it is not, shall we finally be in a position to advocate its abolition, without prejudice to our demand for its more careful and effective regulation.
I cannot conclude without mentioning with praise and gratitude the work done by the United Nations in all those spheres of activity which rarely attract public attention because by their very nature they do not give rise to heated controversy. Probably, owing to its nonpolitical character, the work of the specialized agencies of the United Nations, the Economic and Social' Council, UNRRA, the International Labour Organization and the Provisional International Civil Aviation Organization has not received, in the press or in political speeches, the applause which it deserves; but it is only fair to say in effect that this work exceeds in importance the failures which some attribute to the United Nations.
Full of hope and faith in the future, let us pursue the task which God has entrusted to the men of our generation.