Coming to this platform where so many distinguished and eloquent speakers have preceded me, I have one difficulty and one advantage: the advantage is that there is hardly anything more to be said, while the difficulty lies in having to draw conclusions. I will therefore profit by this advantage to be brief, and by this difficulty to be frank.
I should like first of all to thank the Government of the United States of America and the City of New York for the generous hospitality which they have extended to us. At the same time I wish, on behalf of my country, to pay a very respectful tribute to a certain lady in black, who was formerly the first lady of this country, and who is seated today at the table of the United States delegation. She has directed her grief into the most noble channel of all, that of duty. She has continued to serve the ideal for which her husband died.
I should now like to point out that the members of the Bolivian delegation to this Assembly were present neither at the Dumbarton Oaks Conference, nor at the San Francisco Conference, nor at that held in London. We are therefore a new team, consisting of new men. We represent a new Government, sprung from one of the most singular popular movements in history. It is the women, workers, and students who, thanks to their sacrifices, have been able to restore public liberties.
This Government has recently declared that it intends to respect international conventions, private property and also all the capital invested in our country, attracted by the riches of our sub-soil, which has as yet been inadequately explored.
This Government of judges and magistrates, professors and workers has announced that elections will be held on 5 January next. Thus, in one and half months’ time, the people of my country will be called upon freely to express their will by electing their constitutional government.
At this point I should like to quote the opportune words spoken from this very platform by my distinguished friend and colleague, Mr. Arce, representative of Argentina:
“But all this is exclusively our own history, and although we cannot deny anyone the right to pass judgment upon us, to applaud our wise actions and blame our mistakes, we do not and never shall allow foreign interference in any matters concerning the rights of our people to settle their own problems inside the boundaries of our own land.”
The Bolivian Government, composed of judges and magistrates, professors and workers, upholds, as its fundamental principles, respect for human personality within the framework of the law, as well as the safeguarding of public liberties and the claims of social justice which are so essential in a country of workers and miners like our own. I venture to emphasize this point, because the time has now come to repudiate from this platform the false and tendentious comments made by a certain section of the press on the rise to power of the Government which I have the honour to represent at this Assembly.
As a veteran of international conferences like this one, I should like to recall the day, now long past — it was 4 September 1929 — when I mounted the platform of the League of Nations for the first time. It was in the old Salle de la Réformation at Geneva, a bare and somewhat sombre hall, and the League was preparing to move into far more luxurious premises which, unfortunately, did not bring it luck. On that occasion I said:
“We have come here now, impelled by the conviction that a man-made, and hence artificial and defective, though perfectible institution cannot live or renew its vitality unless harmony exists between its component parts; and in order that this union may bear fruit, we must have either unanimity or a degree of culture, that is, of international understanding sufficient to enable the minority to accept, not the injunctions, but the reasoning of the majority.”
Thus, even at that time I unwittingly raised the vital problem of co-operation between large, medium and small States. In accordance with your conception of democracy, this co-operation can only be based on the equality of all States before the law.
It is on this basis, therefore, that we have always co-operated in all international organizations. However, it seems to me that at Dumbarton Oaks the very essence of this principle was somewhat changed.
My distinguished friend and colleague, Mr. Alberto Ulloa, the chief representative of Peru, in the memorable speech which he made from this platform reminded us of the Congress of Vienna and the Holy Alliance, which were the outcome of the Napoleonic wars. The outcome of the most terrible of wars, from which we are now emerging, was on the other hand, Dumbarton Oaks. But the five great Powers, which are, of course, heterogeneous, agreed at Dumbarton Oaks to maintain peace on the basis of a Charter, that is to say, of a law whereby the sum total of duties is counterbalanced by the sum total of rights. A larger number of rights corresponds to a larger number of greater duties. This establishes a kind of hierarchy, which was accepted at San Francisco. But it is for the great nations by their actions to make us forget it. True greatness does not take advantage of those who are weaker.
All international co-operation should be based on the legal equality of rights. And here I should like, if you will forgive me, to quote once more from the speech I made before the League of Nations:
“We should indeed like, to believe in the ideal of peace which you propose, but we hope that this peace organization will prove to be more than a mere mirage, designed to lure us on and to dazzle us. For rights and fears run parallel, and our rights are limited only by the respect they inspire in others.”
After seventeen years, and with my heart still heavy with disappointment at our failure, I could repeat from this platform the very same words I uttered at that time before an assembly at which were gathered together the builders of a world which has since collapsed. I might do so with all the more justification because the new Organization is based on a Charter which can be applied to one’s neighbours but not to oneself, if it hampers or displeases.
The right of veto must therefore be, if not amended, at least applied differently. This is a question to be decided by the large, medium and small States. I understand very well that the veto right was suggested by the three great Powers in compensation for the sacrifices they made for the common victory; but what I do not understand is the manner in which it has been abused; I do not understand this lavish use of a privilege which has been so criticized from this platform. In saying this, I am merely drawing conclusions from the speeches we have heard here. I hope, therefore, that, sooner or later, we shall be able to reach a better understanding on this exercise of the right of veto, which, we must confess, conflicts somewhat with our democratic conception of co-operation between large, medium and small States.
As you see, I have spoken with some frankness. I am glad to note, however, that since 23 October 1946, the day on which this General Assembly opened, the heavy atmosphere created by the quarrels in the Security Council, which was becoming an “Insecurity Council”, has been replaced by a much lighter one. The air we breathe is more invigorating. The Assembly is becoming, so to speak, a supplementary lung for a body afflicted by the veto with a sort of infantile paralysis, which it would be wise to relieve. It was therefore necessary to speak openly. I am happy to have done so after my colleagues had addressed you with similar frankness.
Although I am a veteran of international conferences, I am a newcomer to this milieu. Certain representatives of the great Powers had been described to me as incorrigible bogies. I have found them, on the contrary, to be charming, clear-sighted people, who wish to be understood and to understand others. Understanding is our great problem. Mutual understanding between us all for the common good, that is what we must seek. And why should we not understand each other? Have we not all, to a greater or lesser extent, directly or indirectly, shed the same blood and the same tears, and suffered the same misfortunes? Have we not all carried on a struggle for liberty without which this meeting could never have taken place?
I will end these brief remarks on a note of confidence, in the hope that all nations, large, medium or small, will apply themselves to the common task of dragging the muddy chariot of peace out of the mire into which it has sunk.