Peace is not built with words. Peace must be written in the human heart.
We are not here to make the peace, but to build for peace. We are not here to avenge the injuries of the past, but to fulfil humanity’s hopes for the future. We are not here to reap and divide the harvest of victory, but to make ready the hearts and minds of men for the seeds of peace.
The agenda before us outlines the shape and magnitude of our task. It reflects the infinite variety of the problems that are involved in planning for the future peace and progress of the world. To the prompt and successful completion of this task, I pledge the enthusiastic cooperation of the Philippine delegation.
We represent a nation that was recently born to the recovered freedom of the post-war world, the first-born State of the atomic age. The Philippine Republic is both consanguineous and coeval with the United Nations. The blood that the Filipino people shed for their freedom was shed likewise for the common victory. Their stake in the United Nations is the stake of an identical destiny, of shared anxiety and of hope and endeavour.
By the circumstances of our birth as a free and independent State, we are committed to the aims and purposes of the United Nations. The Philippine Republic has been the first beneficiary of the triumph of democracy. It has been established under a constitution which renounces war as an instrument of national policy. It is the child of the marriage of the East and the West, heir to the traditional ways and aspirations of the one and to the social and political institutions of the other. Our country may thus be regarded as a bridge between two worlds, among the first of many that must be erected to make them one.
I speak of two worlds, and I speak of a division that is more than merely geographical. It is an easy matter to look at the globe and indicate the longitudes that separate the East from the West. Here, one might say, are the lands of Asia, the Near East and Africa, inhabited by peoples belonging to a great diversity of races and cultural patterns. And here are the lands of Europe and the Americas, inhabited by peoples of related stock whose cultural pattern is, in the main, homogeneous.
But geography and race alone do not explain the bifurcation of the world. Nor does culture by itself explain it, since culture is essentially an end-product of the historical process. We have two worlds today because one of them has fallen under the economic and political domination of the other. The line that separates these two worlds is not the vertical wall of racial or cultural dissimilarity, but the horizontal barrier of economic and political inequality.
The Economic and Social Council has, during its recent session, devoted a great deal of attention to the economic reconstruction of devastated areas. The Philippine Republic took part in the study of this problem. We urged then, and we urge today, that the mere restoration of what has been destroyed does not answer the basic needs of the Philippines and of the other countries of Asia and the Far East. Most of the peoples in those parts of the world have for many centuries lived at submarginal economic levels. What they need today is not reconstruction only, but construction as well, not merely the restitution of a destroyed economy but the institution of a new and progressive one.
It is customary to deprecate the low standard of living and political backwardness of the peoples of the East as if these were a matter of fate or predestination. We, of course, know better. We know that many of the countries of Asia are enormously rich in natural resources and that these resources, if properly exploited and developed in the interests of the native peoples, would elevate the standards of living there to levels as high as those of the peoples of the West.
We trust that this General Assembly and the various other instrumentalities and agencies of the United Nations will regard the discovery and application of the appropriate remedies to these conditions as one of their gravest concerns. There can be no peace in a world that is permanently divided between nations that produce raw materials and nations that process these materials into finished products. This is not the sort of economic interdependence among the nations which we all envision. The interdependence we seek must be a balanced and reciprocal relationship.
The political implications of industrialization are no mystery to anyone. Industrialization is the handmaiden not only of economic progress but of political liberty.
In the conference held last year in San Francisco, it was our privilege to help write into the Charter of the United Nations the principle that any nation which assumes responsibilities for the administration of Non-Self-Governing Territories accepts “as a sacred trust” the obligation, among others, to ensure the political, economic, social and educational advancement of the inhabitants of those territories, and to develop self-government, take due account of their political aspirations, and assist them in the progressive development of their free political institutions.
This was a noble declaration, marking a new era in the history of colonization. We realize very well that its force is largely moral. But there is much, during the past year, to encourage the hope that it was more than a declaration of good intentions. During that period the Philippines became independent. India is today on the road to freedom. We feel confident that the situation in Indonesia and Indo-China will continue to improve under the influence of this declaration as a statement of principle which carries with it the force of world opinion.
Moreover, the organization of the Trusteeship Council is now happily in prospect. Although the success of the trusteeship system will depend primarily upon the good will and sense of responsibility of the administering authority, it is encouraging to realize that the treatment of Trust Territories will henceforth be subject to the scrutiny of the conscience of the world. Let no nation, however powerful, repudiate its responsibility with respect to Trust Territories under the Charter.
The Philippine delegation regards as inadequate the provisions of the Charter regarding the implementation of the principles enunciated in Chapter XI, and will propose in due time the formation of a Regional Conference for Non-Self-Governing Peoples. The millions who would not remain silent any longer will be voiceless no more; they will have a voice, and their voice, whenever raised in the name of freedom, shall be heard.
The voice that is raised in the name of freedom must be free. Because we of the Philippine delegation sincerely believe that freedom of information is essential to the maintenance of peace, we have proposed the holding of an international press conference to discuss methods of ensuring the unimpeded transmission of news throughout the world.
We are aware of the difficulties that stand in the way of this objective. It has been asked, for instance, whether the press, the radio and the movies are equal to the responsibilities of freedom. The question is not born of spite, for these media of information can be controlled, and not only by the police of a despotic State; they can be controlled by powerful elements even in a State avowedly democratic. They can be polluted not only by prejudice but by motives of pecuniary profit and political advantage.
The press, the radio and the movies, to be free, must not only be able to operate without fetters; they must be inwardly free of corrupting motives and self-limiting prejudices. The proposed press conference shall concern itself with these two aspects of freedom of information. The freedom of inquiry and transmission must be safeguarded by compensating guarantees of honesty and responsibility. Only in this way can these media of information become instrumental in the maintenance of peace.
It is our hope that the holding of such a conference will be approved by the General Assembly and that the appropriate agreements may soon be drawn up — possibly in collaboration with the Human Rights Commission of the Economic and Social Council — with a view to the elimination of the barriers of censorship which encourage malicious propaganda and breed distrust.
Distrust is the one thing that we can least afford to cultivate at this stage of our work. I must express our extreme gratification with the atmosphere of tolerance and good will which has so far pervaded the deliberations of this Assembly. We have agreed, thanks to the gracious forbearance of the Soviet delegation, to place upon the agenda the various proposals to modify the Charter provision on the veto privilege of the big Powers in the Security Council.
No issue will probably be more passionately debated by this Assembly than the question of the veto. There are, as we have seen, powerful arguments on both sides. The Philippine Republic is one of the small nations, and our sympathies are entirely in favour of limiting this privilege to the extent that it will not continually obstruct our efforts towards peaceful agreement and fruitful co-operation. At the same time, we have no illusions regarding the practicability, at the present moment, of establising absolute voting equality among the nations of the world.
In the League of Nations, you will recall, a system was tried under which each Member could, by its own choice, will itself out of an agreement. There was absolute equality there, but the results were negative. In the United Nations Security Council, only five nations enjoy this privilege, with the difference that there can be no agreement at all except with their unanimous consent.
There has been some improvement. Yet this is not democracy, any more than the absolute voting equality between big nations and small is true democracy. Until we are able to establish a world government based upon proportional representation, there will be valid argument for the veto.
It is the contention of the Philippine delegation that a compromise between these two positions is not only necessary, but possible. It is necessary in order to enlarge the area of agreement in the Security Council, and to enable that body to perform the vital functions that have been entrusted to it. It is possible provided we shall see more and more, from now on, of that spirit of tolerance and good will which has given such an auspicious colour to our deliberations.
Peace is not made with words. Peace is won by numbers. The fifty-one nations represented here are not our sum total. In summing up our forces, we must not overlook the roll-call of the dead, the twenty million men of all nations who died in the past cataclysm within the space of six years. And they are not all. Watching with us are the uncounted millions of mute and unrepresented peoples of Asia and Africa. They too ask the right to live. There are more. There will be more.
What of those who survived, whose ranks are beyond number, who are dying from within, spiritually, as surely as men die from within after the shock of atomic bombs? They are the sufferers of war’s residue of hatred, suspicion and cynicism. They are not here; we must speak for them.
Around us, and making merry at our expense, are the money-changers, the hired destroyers of hope, the professional haters of humanity, the rented jesters of those who deny the survival rights of the common man. Their voices are loud. Their power is great. But if destruction comes, their cries will be no louder than our own, and their children and ours will die together.
The dead, the living and the yet unborn are our conscience. We speak for them.
Our responsibility is not for this hour, nor for this day, nor for tomorrow. We must plan for all the tomorrows, we must build peace forever, for one world, indivisible. We have not long in which to build.
The Nagasaki blast is the story foretold in Revelation of the breaking of the sixth seal. Let us remember that Bible prophecy: “When the kings of the earth, and the great men, and the rich men, and the chief captains, and the mighty men, and every bondman, and every free man, shall hide themselves in the dens and the rocks of the mountains.” We have seen that prophecy brought to pass in lands we thought civilized and safe. We saw it happen in England, Germany, France, Italy, Japan and in the Philippines.
The Philippine Republic is the world’s newest nation. We are taking our place in a world, that has not made up its mind to live or die. We ask to live. We fought to live.
We of the Philippine Republic reject cynicism as the underground refuge of the cowardly and a repudiation of the dignity of human life.
In this past war, it was a source of both grief and honour to me to know the simple, honest soldier, brown or black or white, who gave all he had to give — his life — because he believed that aggression is an arch crime against mankind. We dare not be less honest than he. Under the falling bombs men open their hearts. They speak with honesty in the face of death.
We are all under attack, although it may seem impossible to conceive. Danger is in the skies, and every man on the face of the earth who knows enough to be afraid, walks in fear.
Now is the time for an honest opening of hearts and minds. Frank discussion is safer than hidden bitterness. It is the only tiling that can save us now.
By nature, and by the experience of suffering, the Philippine Republic is dedicated to the ideals that first brought together our fifty-one nations and to the programme of the United Nations, conceived as an instrument of military victory and perpetuated as an instrument to win the peace. It won the fight. It can win the peace.
Ours is the solemn responsibility to grant or to deny humanity its right to live. May we who are gathered here today prove equal to this responsibility and to the sovereign promise of the United Nations.