Uruguay

Permit me, Mr. President, to extend to you the congratulations of my delegation upon your election, You possess to a very high degree qualities which are rarely found in a single person: you are thoroughly familiar, as a jurist, with the principles of theoretical and speculative thinking and, as a statesman, with those of the practical science of politics. These endowments warrant the hope that, under your wise leadership and the guidance of the Supreme Being whom you have so humbly invoked, the debates now beginning will help to attain our objectives. 89. The seventeenth session of the General Assembly is opening at a time when the international situation is fraught with tension and danger; The problem of Berlin and the whole problem of the future of Germany — the most difficult legacy left to us by the Second World War — are still unresolved and compel the forces defending the principles of the free world to remain in a continuous state of vigilance. In that more than in any other area, an act of rashness or an act of weakness may have unforeseen consequences. 90. There, is also tension and conflict in Asia, despite some instances of significant progress; tension in Africa, where some sectors of opinion still refuse to recognize the inescapable realities of African nationalism; and finally tension and danger in America, the continent which we would have wished to be "par excellence" the continent of peace, in accordance with what has been and continues to be the unalterable objective of our peoples. 91, This, of course, is no new situation. Since the Second World War, with shorter or longer periods of respite, the world has become accustomed to living in a permanent state of crisis. The days of September 1961, when we opened the sixteenth session, seemed even darker. At that time, too, the question of Berlin was in an acute stage, but there was also the Congo crisis; we were on the eve of the explosion of the fifty-megaton bomb, and the whole world was mourning the death of one of the most selfless servants of the United Nations. 92, But crisis and conflict, however recurrent, do not provide sufficient reason for our hopes to waver. Life itself is conflict and crisis, because injustice, cruelty and ambition are present in it. Life is all that, and all that is worse in an international than in a national context. But such is reality; and it is reality which must be our starting point, for paradise is not of this world. All we can hope to do is to make the human condition more tolerable, by using the means available to us. 93. The United Nations is one of those means. We do not, of course, regard it as the only instrument for coping with the problems arising from the coexistence of nations. As pointed out in the introduction to the annual report of the Secretary-General on the work of the organization from 16 June 1961 to 15 June 1962, it was never the intention that all problems should be solved within the United Nations, nor was the United Nations conceived as the sole means of conducting international diplomacy. It is clear that our world is still based, and will continue to be based for some time to come, on the classic concept of sovereign nations in more or less peaceful competition — for that unity upon which alone can be based a juridical structure with any claim to universality has not yet been established. The "world city" seen as the highest ideal of human, political organization in the philosophies of all great culture sis still no more than a dream, an age-old dream. 94. But if that is true, and if on that account the small countries, more than others, are compelled relentlessly to defend their sovereignty in a world in which the differences in economic and military power are so vast and blatant, ultimately we are bound to unite and integrate, not to separate and divide. That is why the instrument which the United Nations represents should be conceived as a dynamic one, to be used in the service of new forms of co-operation and international action. Possibly a dynamic concept of the United Nations was not in the minds of the Organization's founders, and perhaps that idea has not yet been fully developed. But the United Nations is an institution; and institutions are destined to live, not to die. They are living things, even though their life — that is, the force they exert — is of a nature different from ours. And just as our life is simply the translation of power into action — that is, a movement toward perfection, towards fulfilment, which is the ultimate goal — so institutions, like plants, animals and men, require the harmonious development of their potentialities and their attributes before they can arrive at the full achievement of their purposes. 95. Even a superficial review of what has happened in the United Nations in the past few years would show that part of that process has begun and that a peaceful revolution has been set in motion within the Organization. In illustration of my point, it cannot be denied that the decisions adopted by the Assembly are merely recommendations, devoid of the binding effect which international obligations usually have. Nor can it be denied that the non-mandatory nature of the Assembly's decisions, together with the veto and the principle of domestic jurisdiction, constituted the three pillars on which it was possible to support the San Francisco agreement. But while this is still true from a strictly legal standpoint, it is less obviously true from the standpoint of one particular political consideration. I am referring not merely to the moral force consistently attributed to the Assembly's recommendations as expressions of public opinion and world conscience. I am thinking specifically of the increasingly wide-spread belief, particularly in certain fields of United Nations activity, that these resolutions are mandatory — of the emergence of a psychological factor, the opinio necessitates, which is one of the decisive elements in the development of the rules of customary international law. This, it must be recognized, is a new phenomenon — one not provided for in the system of the Charter. The least we can say now is that this idea already exists; time alone will tell whether it is to be the idea of the future. 96. I have indicated a specific field of the United Nations activity in which this "living" concept of the Organization has made itself felt more keenly than in others. The field is that of colonial questions. It has been said that colonial empires are lost in New York; while that may be an exaggeration, it is a fact that the United Nations is playing a decisive role in this matter. Who can now doubt, for example, the tremendous explosive power of the Declaration on the granting of independence to colonial countries and peoples? We may go on debating whether the Declaration is strictly in conformity with the letter of the Charter or the intention of its authors. But who would now deny that the Declaration is in conformity with the spirit of the Charter and its political philosophy? Even if we did go beyond the formal provisions of the Charter when we adopted that resolution, we did so in order to make those provisions serve the purpose, of the Charter more effectively, for that is why they are there. And that was all to the good, for it is the letter which kills and the spirit which gives life. 97. I would not wish to let this opportunity pass without expressing our appreciation of the work accomplished by the Special Committee on, the Situation with regard to the Implementation of the Declaration on the Granting of Independence to Colonial Countries and Peoples, on which we were privileged to serve. We think that, apart. from the normal flaws which inevitably characterize any new and original undertaking, the Committee has done constructive work. While there have been differences of opinion among the members with regard to some problems, and certain positions may have been maintained with the rigidity of extremism, there has also been much evidence of a spirit of compromise and a constructive approach. When we consider what colonialism, a system which grew out of an inhuman desire for gain, has meant in our time, we must at the very least recognize the responsible attitude adopted by countries which have undergone, in body and soul, the affliction of colonialism; we must at the very least marvel at the fact that, with one single exception, this battle for liberation is being waged within the framework of the Charter, which is tantamount to saying that it is being waged within the law. Any revolution is, to a large extent, violence; but violence within the law and in support of the law is known as justice. After all, the object of this struggle for liberation is legitimate; and there is probably no nation represented in this Assembly which has not had to fight, at some moment in its history, for its liberation from foreign domination. In any struggle for a noble cause, those who carry on the struggle must also, in some way, be ennobled. 98. Much, doubtless, remains to be done, and it is for the Assembly to decide how the task shall be pursued. But if we are to go on — and no one doubts that we must — it should not be merely to bring about peoples more or less formal independence. Political independence and self-government are the first objective, but not the ultimate goal. The ultimate goal is independence in the fullest sense of the word — independence which really makes us masters of our own destiny, masters and sovereigns in the legitimate areas, of competence of oar communities. It is true that political independence is a sine qua non of full independence; but of itself is not enough. 99. I Should like to recall that we, the peoples of Latin America, have learnt, and not in anima vili, that the establishments self-government involves, in the first place, intelligent adaptation of the forms of law to the sociological realities of each country. Speaking, for people which, like its brothers in America, has in the past had to involve itself in a continuous battle as between ideal constitutions and real constitutions, as between written constitutions and sociological constitutions battle fortunately terminated by Uruguay half a century ago — we are in a position fully to appreciate the need to adapt the principles underlying the development of free institutions to the political body which they are intended to govern, as skin is adapted to the human frame. 100. Every country, of course, must make its own experiment in working out its own principles. But in all cases the objective should be the same: that those institutions — except, for such basic principles as the sovereignty of the people or respect for natural human, rights, which are unconditionally applicable in all situations — should be adapted, like the skin to the body, to the actual structure of the country. Otherwise, independence leads to chaos and chaos breeds a new colonialism or spurious forms of government which, as history shows us, are nearly always exploited by interests alien to legitimate national self-interest. 101. And this holds true not only for the new nations attaining to independence, which We heartily welcome to our ranks, but also for that vast sector of humanity wrongly known as the "under-developed world" — an expression which seems to suggest that development and progress can be measured only by technology and material wealth and not by moral achievement and cultivation of the mind, which we so often seek in vain in this vast desert of industrial cities. 102. For those who belong to that world, we must abolish the paradox of political independence and economic dependence, the luxury of freedom and the yoke of poverty. A world in which 500 million people are hungry and 1,000 million are at least suffering from malnutrition cannot continue to exist. At this stage of civilization, it is certainly neither novel nor revolutionary to assert that the wealth of this earth has been created for the benefit of all mankind, not for a particular part of it. And what that part claims as its right is„ nothing more" than the role incumbent upon it, its administrative and social task, which should be acknowledged and performed within the international community even more imperatively than within a national community. For there can. be no healthy international community so long as entire populations are still sunk in backwardness or poverty. The gap between rich, powerful nations and poor nations is even less acceptable than the gap between rich and poor within a given country, precisely because the international community is the most effective political entity — the only one able to supply mankind as a whole with adequate means for achieving happiness, which is the purpose of human life. 103. I should not like to omit a reference, however brief, to such exceptionally important subjects as disarmament and nuclear testing. It should be borne in mind that despite the valuable and constructive work being done by the United Nations in broad fields of human activity, and particularly in economic and social matters, its primary objective is still the maintenance of international peace and security. 104. It is true that if the question of disarmament had to do, as the word suggests, merely with arms, the unarmed countries which comprise the vast majority of the Assembly could have little to say. But disarmament is merely an instrument, a means, one of the aspects of peace; and peace is a question that concerns us all. Peace is not a matter of opinion, a matter of veto, or a matter of numbers of army divisions. Peace is the common good, and the question of disarmament therefore concerns us all. And this is particularly true of that aspect of it which relates to nuclear testing. For even if we, could agree, at least in theory, that the arms race, with its immense danger and the vast resources of which it deprives us constitutes neither a positive breach of peace nor a real injury, nuclear tests, however legitimate the interests held to justify them, already constitute an injury — a real, not a potential one. Consequently, with the same right as that enjoyed by the nuclear Powers in advancing arguments in defence of their national security, we advance the same arguments in opposition, since no Government can neglect its inescapable duty of protecting the lives and health of the people placed under its care — its first and, indeed, most sacred obligation. 105. We confidently hope that substantial progress will be made at this seventeenth session of the General Assembly, in the matters of disarmament and nuclear testing. Men — like countries, which after all are nothing more than communities of men — faced, as they are today with the inexorable prospect of total annihilation, are capable in the last resort of performing acts of supreme wisdom which in other circumstance? might have seemed Utopian or impossible. 106. Among the items to be considered at this seventeenth session is one entitled Consideration of principles of international law concerning friendly relations and co-operation among States in accordance with the Charter of the United Nations". We are not too sanguine as to the effectiveness of such an investigation as a real means of establishing friendship and co-operation between nations. It is not enough for men to know the truth; they must also will it, and to seek and operate truth must become a habit, a second nature, so that thought and action become one, instead of being, as seems to be characteristic of the spirit of our times, permanently dissociated. 107. In considering these principles, we must start from the basic fact that the international community has not yet succeeded in advancing beyond the stage of the coexistence of many sovereign national States. If such is the present structure of the world community — and it always seems to have been — that is because it is to some extent inherent in the nature of things and in the plan of creation; consequently, in their relations with each other, these natural entities must possess more or less the same .rights as those held by individuals in their mutual relations within their own communities. 108. States, like individuals have a right to live, to exist, to protect themselves and to develop in a lawful way. They have a right to physical integrity, i.e., territorial integrity, and to the exercise of free will, i.e., self-determination; a right to enjoy legal status and therefore to be equal before the law; a right to be respected by their peers; a right to their own culture and to the development Of their national characteristics; and lastly, a right to use the fruits of the earth for the sustenance of their populations. 109. If these fundamental rights are really inherent in the nature of the State and in the fact of its spontaneous existence within a multiple society such as the international community, we must then accept, as a corollary of those rights and, because any rule of law is essentially bilateral in its application, a series of guiding principles or standards for coexistence which, if they were effectively applied, could make a practical contribution to the promotion of friendly relations and co-operation among nations. Such would be, for instance, respect for self-determination; the principle of non-intervention, strict observance of which would be a very effective, if not the most effective way of restoring confidence between nations; the principle of self-defence, and genuine, equality before the law; freedom of communication and trade between all the peoples of the world; and finally, the duty, of the rich nations to come to the help of the poorer nations, not in pursuance of an optional unilateral decision, but in compliance with a regular legal and natural obligation. 110. That is not all, however. The international community, although a multiple society, has an entity of its own, based on ontological foundations just as firm as. those justifying the existence of a State. Consequently, because they are component parts, or members, of a greater whole, States must assume certain types of obligation which to some extent transcend those resulting from the varying legal relationships between them. However strong our national feeling, however legitimate (as of course it is) the life of each nation, the autonomy of the State is not absolute; it is restricted not only by the equal rights of other States but also by the more general requirements for the general good of the human race as a whole, without which it would, in the last analysis, be vain to seek the good of its members. 111. This optimum good, the exclusive good of the international community, itself involves duties and responsibilities which have to be discharged. It must be recognized, not only with words but also with deeds, that there are interests even higher than national interests and that the former do not exclude or conflict with the interests of each State, just as the health of the whole body does not conflict with the health of its members. 112, I could give many examples of how and when the individual good gives way to the universal good, a process which makes friendship and co-operation between nations possible and fruitful. But there is one case that is particularly important, because it relates to one of the interests which we consider vital. I am referring to the possible use of force, presented as a legitimate instrument of national policy. When we hear talk of this today, there come to mind the words written more than four centuries ago by Francisco de Vitoria, the eminent Spanish Dominican who was the father and founder of the Law of Nations. Writing for a world which still recognized war as a lawful means of resolving conflicts and whose division into ideological blocs is strangely reminiscent of our own, he had, in his Relecciones, this to say about the power of the State: "As a republic is part of the world and, in particular, a Christian province part of the republic as a whole, I think that a war which would be of advantage to one province or even to the republic as a whole but harmful to the rest of the world or to Christendom would for that very reason be unjust." 113. I do not think that I need go any further, because this is the only reply we can give today.