Our presence in New York affords objective proof of the conviction of our Governments that just as a city cannot develop without the foresight and watchfulness of the municipal authority, so there is an absolute necessity for the existence, in a world tormented by doubt, of an international organization which, rising above individual interests and conflicting passions, exerts a tempering influence to further justice and peace.
The small nations, and Mexico in particular is one of them, feel that States should live together in harmony, under the rule of law. They feel it now more strongly than ever before because they are not unaware of a grave danger, which we have seen foreshadowed in recent months, namely, that in international decisions political considerations rather than justice may prevail.
We do not believe in the imminence of war but we feel bound, in spite of the consciousness of our material limitations, or perhaps for that very reason, to stress the duty devolving upon all nations alike to strengthen the peace organization which we so laboriously erected at San Francisco. In this connection, our words, the words of Mexico, will here, as in Geneva, bear the mark of courage, of disinterestedness and the strength of conviction.
An objective — even benevolent — examination of the world situation compels us to admit that the relations between the States fall very far short of that ideal of living together in peace as good neighbours which we adopted of our own free will when we drafted the Charter. We should be deceiving ourselves, and mocking the peoples we represent, if we endeavoured to draw optimistic conclusions from the mere fact of our attendance at the Assembly.
The holding of a General Assembly or the meetings of the Security Council, apart from the pomp with which they are attended, are no more than the purely formal expression of a determination to carry out a purpose. But that is not enough; after all, the failure of the League of Nations became inevitable at the very time when its prosperity was at its height, when it moved from the Quai Wilson to the Palace at Ariana.
Neither can we accept as valid the argument that our Organization is barely one year old and therefore needs time to consolidate itself. Such a complacent attitude contains within itself seeds of destruction similar to those which resulted in the downfall of the League of Nations, from whose experience we ought to profit, since it constitutes, or should constitute, part of our assets.
The support of Governments will not be sufficient to enable the United Nations to carry out its great task; what it needs above all is the confidence of the peoples, and this will be forthcoming only in the measure of our success.
The Government of Mexico sees no solution for the serious problems of peace and war other than those which may originate from an international organization; it is for that very reason ready at all times to collaborate in the work of the United Nations. It is, however, deeply concerned to see that phenomena which were typical of the years preceding the last war are reappearing and that the same errors are being committed. Conferences and negotiations outside the United Nations follow one another, while the political activity of the latter shows results which, in order not to be too severe; we will only say do not satisfy the expectations of our peoples.
In my opinion, there are two reasons for our lack of success — I say “our” because, in varying degrees, ours is a collective responsibility. The first consists in the difficulty we are experiencing in consolidating a peace which was so painfully won on the battlefields. The second results from the system of voting which was included, with no less difficulty, in Article 27 of the San Francisco Charter.
The discussions concerning the treaties of peace, some of which have not yet taken tangible form although their general outline is becoming apparent in phenomena of secondary importance, do not correspond to the obligations which we contracted during the war. The man in the street who accepted in good faith the promises of his leaders, who welcomed the Atlantic Charter as the dawn of a new day and who greeted with joy the declaration of the United Nations, cannot understand how it is that decisions in which he believed he was entitled to have a voice are presented as accomplished facts. His inability to understand such a state of affairs is transformed into suspicion when he thinks he sees certain moves on the international chessboard being made for strategic purposes, either from the political or from the economic point of view.
In such a delicate situation, it is of secondary importance to ask who is right; in view of the complexity of the problems before us, it is childish to seek ready-made solutions. The important thing is that the problems exist. They are mentioned by statesmen in their speeches, they are written about in the daily press and commented upon by the man in the street.
And since the problems exist it is our duty to solve them. How can we do that? By strengthening the United Nations Organization, by ensuring that it does not fall into discredit, and by preventing its work from being limited to registering events of world importance which take place without its intervention. This is why, in the opinion of the Government of Mexico, it is absolutely essential to accelerate the consolidation of peace by means of international instruments which will put an end to uncertainty; moreover, the discussion of these agreements must take place within the framework of our Organization or at least with the active participation, on a basis of equality, of all the countries which made up the nucleus of the United Nations.
As I said before, the other factor which has had an unfavorable influence on our decisions is the veto, or to be more precise, the way in which the veto has been used. At the last meeting of the Security Council over which I had the honour to preside, I gave my opinion on this matter. As it is now on our agenda here, the Mexican delegation will have an opportunity to revert to it; consequently, my observations will be limited to certain of the fundamental aspects of the problem.
In San Francisco we were told that the voting system in the Security Council, as it was finally included in the Charter, was intended to guarantee the unanimity of the great Powers. If the results of the application of this procedure had corresponded to what was foretold, we should have no objection to raise. The small, or medium-sized, nations are those most concerned that the fullest possible understanding and harmony should exist among the permanent members of the Security Council. They have nothing to gain from differences of opinion among those members which, we see no objection to admitting, are the result of intense patriotism and concepts both just and expedient in the eyes of the States concerned; nevertheless, they have unfavourable effects on the political, economic and social conditions of the whole world and even create dissension within our own countries.
We desire ardently and sincerely the unity of the great Powers. We desire it in our own interest; we desire it as citizens of an indivisible world. We desire it for the sake of the peace and prosperity of all countries.
Unfortunately, experience has shown that the veto, far from helping to achieve this unanimity, is undermining it in a way which we cannot but regret and which we trust will be only temporary. We do not think it would be rash to assume that the elimination of the veto would help to strengthen that unanimity which we all desire. While there exists the certainty that there can be no legal defeat, there is no need to compromise nor to go half-way to meet the opposing view. If, on the other hand, there exists the latent danger of such a defeat, it is natural to seek a compromise and thus to achieve unanimity.
We, the representatives of the small and medium-sized nations, have never possessed what we might call the collective veto of the great Powers. We realize that with those Powers rests the main responsibility for safeguarding the peace, and we recognize, with a clear sense of reality, that they should have certain special privileges. We are not worried by the possibility that the five permanent members of the Security Council, with the aid of two non-permanent members, might attempt to impose arbitrary decisions. Apart from the fact that this is a purely theoretical hypothesis, we have sufficient confidence in the conception of equity of the great Powers not to have any fears in this respect. What does worry us is the probability, not the mere possibility, that the veto may paralyze the best intentions of our Organization, and, as a result, destroy our main hope of arriving at a permanent peace by means of justice.
Perhaps the discussions which are now starting will succeed in exercising, in the future, a psychological influence in favour of unanimity in the voting in the Security Council, as a result of which the use of the veto will become less and less frequent. If future events demonstrate that we have obtained this victory on behalf of peace and understanding, then the work of the General Assembly, whatever conclusions it may adopt, will not have been useless.