At the point at which we have arrived in our general discussion it befits the representative of little Luxembourg to be very brief. I have listened to the speeches made at this tribune with the closest interest. Recognizing the eloquent phrases which, in the early days of the League of Nations, aroused so many hopes and such enthusiasm, I wondered why these same generous words today only call forth a feeble response in the hearts of the peoples. It is because the masses, disappointed by the first international experiment, hurt and ruined even more than in 1919, have become terribly realistic and wait impatiently for us to proceed from words to deeds, and above all, to conform our acts to the spirit of the Charter which we solemnly signed in San Francisco.
In spite of its imperfections which have been revealed in practice and which are even greater than we had feared, I think it would be premature to attempt to amend the Charter.
It has been said in this Assembly that the marriage of the veto and the Charter took place under constraint. Let us rather say that it was a marriage of reason. It is a well-known fact that unions of this kind are sometimes more stable than sentimental unions which fail to take sufficient account of material realities. Should the incompatibility of the two partners one day become intolerable, then I would decide in favour of divorce by mutual consent rather than pronounce a decree against a recalcitrant spouse.
It is not the right of veto in itself, conferred on themselves by the great Powers, which creates inequality in our Organization. It merely throws a lurid light upon the tragic hiatus in the scale of responsibilities between the plans for world peace and the Charter. This scale of responsibilities exists, with or without a text, by the mere fact of the presence in our Organization of great and small nations.
As in the case of individuals, absolute equality among peoples is an illusion. Believe me, I speak to you with full knowledge. Equality between great and small is absolute only in matters of duty. We must all bring the greatest good-will to the accomplishment of our task. Whatever improvement might be effected by a restriction of the right of veto — even if such a restriction were possible at the present time — would be brought about far more effectively by the mere good-will of those who exercise this exorbitant right.
Let us never lose sight of the fact that, at present, peace is based solely on the permanent good-will of the peoples and of mankind. The situation will be different on the day, which I hope will come soon, when our Organization has given the world a code of international law fortified by compulsory jurisdiction, and an international peace army that will progressively replace national armies.
In the meantime, good-will in the application of the principles of the Charter remains the sole factor of international cohesion. Without goodwill, dangerous fissures will soon appear in the proud structure of our Organization. We shall win through to peace and security only by a continuous and lasting daily effort of international solidarity.
National egoisms have been in the past, and will be in the future, the most dangerous enemies of international co-operation. Briand used to say at Geneva that every delegate to the League of Nations had two faces: one turned with candour and enthusiasm towards the ideal of international co-operation, the other turned towards his own country, anxiously listening for the nationalist watch-words. “Alas,” he used to add, “It was always those watch-words that won the day.” That, happily, is not our present situation.
It would be fantastic to expect the representatives, when entering this international chamber, to leave their national anxieties and interests with their hats in the cloak-room, and it would be equally fantastic to attempt to blend century- old particularisms into one world organization within the space of a few years and to ignore our respective social, economic and political concepts in our discussions. However, there is nothing to prevent us from seeking to compose our differences. Co-operation is possible where complete union is impossible, provided always that distrust and bitterness are absent from our debates. It is written in the Bible: “Where bitterness replies to bitterness, where shall bitterness end?”
In many places in the world the eternal sceptics seize upon our differences of opinion as a pretext to predict the end of the United Nations. Frederick II of Prussia wrote in 1782: “The American Union cannot endure long.” One hundred and fifty years after this prophecy that same American Union, now a world Power, crushed Prussia with the help of her great Allies, and the organization of the fifty-one United Nations was born beneath the folds of the glorious star-spangled banner of the forty-eight United States.
The Constitution of the United States did not win its way to triumph without a lengthy struggle. The better world which it is our sacred task to establish will also be brought to fruition, but only after patient strivings and consistent effort. There is no magic wand in the political arsenal and the structure of civilization, though it can be ruined in an hour, was not built nor can it be reconstructed in a day.