The delegation of Panama takes pleasure in extending its sincere and cordial congratulations to the President on his election to the Presidency of this seventeenth session of the General Assembly, a choice made on the basis of his unquestionable ability and merits. It is encouraging to see the representative of a small, free country guide this great and august world Organization and I hope that this practice, which has been followed year after year, will be continued as a symbol of the respect of the great, who are the minority, for the will of the small, who are the majority, by virtue of the fundamental principle of the juridical equality of all States.
96. With the exception of a small number of European States and some oriental nations with age-old traditions of sovereignty, the vast majority of the nations, represented here have at some time in their history been colonies or subjected to the domination of foreign forces, Consequently every time |he United Nations admits new Members which have thrown off the yoke of colonialism or foreign domination, that should be a source of satisfaction to all its other, members. The Panamanian delegation wishes to express its pleasure at the admission of four new Members at this session: Rwanda and Burundi in Africa, and Jamaica and Trinidad and Tobago in the western hemisphere. My delegation fervently hopes that in the near future colonies will have been reduced to a historical phenomenon hurled in the past, no longer in operation and without any possibility of resurgence in die future.
97. This General Assembly is meeting in a stormy atmosphere charged with anxiety, fear, uncertainty and anguished foreboding. We are all a prey to these feelings because we are all aware of the impending danger of a new War which would unleash the apocalyptic thermo-nuclear weapons we already know and perhaps others even more powerful which the demented mind of man may yet devise. Such a war threatens us with the total destruction of life and, would turn our planet into a vast, grim sarcophagus travelling through space, or, at the least, Would destroy a large proportion of mankind which, ironically enough, would undoubtedly include the people of the very nations which would use those weapons against each other in the same diabolical spirit of extermination.
98. The words with which the Charter of the United Nations opens are: “to save succeeding generations from the scourge of war, which twice in our lifetime has brought untold sorrow to mankind".
99. The words with which Article 1 of the Charter begins its enumeration of the purposes of the Organization are : "to maintain international peace and security".
100. Thus the very essence of the United Nations and the fundamental reason for its existence are to avert war, and to maintain peace.
101. Hence everything which endangers peace endangers the existence of this world Organization of nations.
102. The outbreak, of a new world war would compel the nations to align themselves with one or other of the belligerent camps, with no possibility of a peaceful rapprochement and the few nations which managed to maintain a precarious neutrality or indifference would not by themselves be capable of creating a viable new world organization.
103, This disquieting and distressing situation compels us to reflect. We cannot stand bemused before the danger which threatens to annihilate us, in an attitude of premature and stupid impotence, cravenly abandoning our ideals and our faith in the higher destiny of man.
104. We who love peace and want mankind to enjoy the inexhaustible benefits which peace can provide must struggle unceasingly and, untiringly to preserve, it through a constant application of the purposes and principles of the United Nations Charter.
105. History is a great teacher and it has given us valuable experience which can be of service to us and of which we must make use.
106. The situation through which the United Nations is now passing is not new in history. This Organization, which Was created with the signing of peace in 1945 after the Second World War, had as its precursor the League of Nations, created twenty-five years before with the signing of the Peace Treaty of Versailles, which brought the First World War to an end.
107. If we compare the causes which led to the demise of the earlier organization and the perils which now threaten the existence of the Organization whose Member States we represent we shall be surprised and dismayed to find that history is repeating itself.
108. Like the United Nations, the League of Nations was created on the basis of the juridical equality of States, its purpose being the abolition of war and the maintenance of peace and security among nations.
109. The political functions entrusted to the League of Nations had four major purposes; to preserve the independence and territorial integrity of its members; to prevent conflicts by their peaceful settlement; to repel aggression; and to reduce armaments.
110. When the League of Nations held the seventeenth ordinary session of its Assembly, in 1936, it had already, after seventeen years, of existence and work, demonstrated its inability to fulfil any of the above four purposes: the arms race was proceeding at an accelerated pace and the imminent danger of a second world war was looming over the world.
111. Simply in order to show the similarity of that situation with the one now confronting us, we shall venture to compare a few remarks made by the delegation of Panama at that seventeenth Assembly in 1936 and our view of the situation today.
112. Referring to the preservation of the independence and integrity of States, as established in Article 10 of the Covenant of the League, the delegate of Panama at that time said: "In the Sino-Japanese case, no sooner did the League decide against Japan than that country left the League and passed beyond its reach, demonstrating that the League is incapable of protecting a Member State against another State outside the League. "In the Italo-Ethiopian case, despite the League's decision against Italy that nation did not withdraw from the League, which shows that Article 10 of the Covenant was similarly incapable of protecting a Member State against another powerful one."
113. In the United Nations, too, we have seen cases- which we need not mention now — in which a Member State has been attacked by another Member State or by a State not a member of the United Nations, without this Organization having been able to avert or halt the aggression.
114. Speaking of the prevention of conflicts, the Panamanian representative said at that time: "The League of Nations has failed in the application of peaceful solutions as a means to avoid, the use of force among nations, in the following cases: the Sino-Japanese, Colombo-Peruvian, Paraguay-Bolivian and Italo-Ethiopian "As for the timely elimination of the causes likely to engender conflicts, the activities of the League of Nations are practically non-existent."
115. In the United Nations, too, there have been cases — which I need not specify — of conflicts which have broken out because the United Nations proved unable to eliminate the factors that caused them and to find, peaceful solutions which might: have prevented them.
116., Speaking of the action to repel aggression contemplated in Article 16 of the Covenant, the representative of Panama said at that time: "Article 16 has proved completely ineffective because the 'sanctions' which it provides cannot work effectively against the ’aggressor' unless they are, universally applied, and universality of application cannot be achieved while there are nations outside the League. "But", the representative of Panama continued, "the most important lesson which we have learned from the Italo-Ethiopian conflict is that, even if the League were universal, Article 16 could still not operate in the manner desired in that conflict because there is no certainty that the explication of sanctions of a general character by all nations simultaneously can have the same effect in each of the nations applying them, or that they can evoke the same interest, determination, willingness or even understanding in all of them.
117. The United Nations has seen cases here — which again I shall not mention — in which, after agreement had been reached on specific measures to settle a conflict by the use of force, not all Member States cooperated to the requisite degree in the implementation of those measures and some flatly refused to do so.
118. Speaking of the reduction of armaments in accordance with Article 8 of the Covenant, which was a burning question at that time and is even more so today in the United Nations, the Panamanian representative said in 1936: "In an unstable international environment and in tire presence of immediate dangers or risks, and even with the possibility of future perils, every nation has what we might call a biological need to prepare for the defence of its existence and its welfare. "An arms race can only come about in an unstable international environment where ambitions and suspicions are rife; underlying such a situation there are always economic, political or ideological causes. So long as remedies for those causes are not sought, all the obligations contracted by nations to reduce armaments, in whatever way these obligations may be expressed, will be completely ineffective."
119. It takes no great effort to understand that the paragraph which we have just read on the question of disarmament in the League of Nations in 1936 is applicable, mutatis mutandis, to the same question before the United Nations today.
120, The existence of but one powerful nation which is ambitious to expand or to predominate politically or, ideologically over the other nations is enough to make disarmament a pious and unattainable aspiration.
121. Curing the Seventeenth Assembly of the League of Nations, held in 1936, in the face of critical problems for whose solution the structure of the League did not provide adequate instruments, it became necessary to devote serious attention to the need to amend the Covenant.
122. Today, in the face of a similar situation., the same heed has arisen and there is already talk of the amendments that should be made to the San Francisco Charter in order to render it more functional and more effective.
123. This is without the slightest doubt a matter which should receive priority consideration. Today the international scene is different from what it was in 1945, when the Charter was signed, and the composition Of the United Nations is also different from what it was at time of its establishment, the Charter should be revised to make it correspond to the characteristics and needs of the present day, so that the veto of a single nation, no matter how powerful, does not carry more weight than the votes of all the Member States in the General Assembly and, In particular so that the large number of Afro-Asian nations which have joined, the United Nations during the last live years may be appropriately represented In its organs and may be in a position to Contribute in their just proportion towards the strengthening of the United Nations and the more effective application of the purposes and principles proclaimed in the Charter.
124., The year 1936 also witnessed the phenomenon, or series, of phenomena, which today we call the "cold war". At that time the peace-loving Powers were faced with the choice between calling a halt to these phenomena at the risk of starting a war, or following a policy of appeasement in order to avoid that risk. They chose the latter course, but war came nevertheless.
125. Now, as then, we are faced with the same dilemma and there is no knowing whether the compromises and concessions made during the cold war will serve to prevent a hot war or whether on, the contrary their effect will be to make it more inevitable and more violent when it finally breaks out.
126. We have not drawn these comparisons between the world organization created by the Treaty of Versailles and that created by the San Francisco Charter for the sake of prophesying that the latter Will share the fate of the former. On the contrary, our fervent wish is that, being aware of the fate that befell the League and of the reasons and circumstances surrounding it, all States Members of the United Nations, especially the small nations who rely on it for the defence of their freedom and of their very existence, will join together, united in the name of solidarity, with the firm determination of preventing a repetition of that sad fate and of rescuing fee United Nations from fee crisis through which it is now passing, so that it may emerge successfully and with added strength from the, trial.
127. Yet amid this premonitory analogy between fee situation obtaining in 1936 and the present situation, there, are nevertheless differences which allow us to view with a certain optimism the capacity of the United Nations to save mankind from a new catastrophe.
128. In 1936 there were not among the members of the League of Nations such great nations as the United States, Germany, Japan and Brazil; and the structure of international relations at that time was such that the small nations had little influence on the decisions of fee organization or on the policies pursued by the great powers.
129. That situation no longer exists. A radical change has taken place. In the. United Nations fee power to make decisions is in fee hands of fee small nations, since they represent the immense majority; moreover they do exercise an influence, which may often prove decisive, on the conduct of the great Powers, which require the support and co-operation of the small nations for the furtherance of their political interests or economic purposes.
130. What can the small nations in this Organization do in order to save mankind from the new holocaust which is already looming over it, to save the existence of the United Nations and to ensure their own survival as States and as human groups?
131. These is but one solution: namely, to rally together round the Charter in order to restrain in time any Power which, in the unbridled pursuit of its political, economic or ideological interests, might precipitate mankind into a new holocaust, more terrible than any that has been known, and to guide the conduct of the nations along paths which will lead to the solution of the vital problems of all peoples, the only way to achieve a permanent peace.
132. We agree with Mr. Nehru, the Prime Minister of India, who said in this very hall (1051st meeting) that the "great countries ... have the greatest responsibility because they possess the biggest weapons of warfare-nuclear weapons…”.
133. But we also agree with Mr. Carlos Martínez Sotomayor, the Minister for Foreign Affairs of Chile, who said in the course of the statement that he made here last year [1019th meeting]: “... we trusted that the great world Powers would fulfil their obligations under the San Francisco Charter, which conferred upon them special privileges and special responsibilities for the maintenance of peace and security ... "We cannot go on putting our trust in the great Powers. We are in duty bound to safeguard the fate of our own countries ... Consequently, every nation and every Government must make the utmost effort to avert a general catastrophe."
134. We would also express our profound agreement Norodom Sihanouk of Cambodia during the general debate at the sixteenth session of the General Assembly: "Honour and freedom are possessions which, we prize and are determined to defend. In this respect, the United Nations constitutes the small and medium-sized countries' last hope of safeguarding their dignity." [1011th meeting].
135. Peace is the supreme objective, for only through peace can the utmost happiness for all peoples be achieved. But peace, in its political connotation of normal tranquillity through the absence of violence and force, cannot be complete and lasting at either the national or the international level, if it is not founded on economic peace.
136. Every individual has the right to obtain, through his physical or intellectual work, the wherewithal to enable him to live with his dependants on a decent and adequate scale according to the circumstances of the society in Which they are living.
137. However, the growth of the world's population at an unprecedented rate, which reaches its peak in the under-developed regions or countries, has brought in its train a total, and serious imbalance between the production of supplies and the needs of the consumer populations. Whereas in the few rich and highly developed countries there is over-production and surplus stocks are accumulated, in the less developed countries, which are in the majority, production is so inadequate as to be unable to meet the needs of the increasing population, even by the lowest standards.
138. At the international level, the nations — as is the case with individuals at the national level — require as a corollary of their elementary right to exist that the world economy should be so organized and constructed as to enable each country to develop its productive capacity at least to the level needed in order to meet the basic needs of its population and of its progressive development.
139. Modern science and technology have shown that the land and water of our planet have the capacity to go on producing the supplies-needed by the world's population indefinitely.
140. We must avail ourselves of this capacity and coordinate its use for the benefit of all peoples, in order once again to disprove the Malthusian theory that the rate of growth of the population outstrips the production of essential goods and that, when the imbalance reaches a critical point, equilibrium is restored through the wholesale extermination of entire sections of the population by disasters, pestilence, poverty and war.
141. These questions must be given careful and preferential consideration by the United Nations, because they are at the root of the evils that endanger peace; and the co-operation of all other international, regional and national organizations which conduct or direct activities in the fields of development, financing, and technical and economic assistance must be obtained in order to seek adequate solutions to these questions and to apply them within the framework of a co-ordinated world-wide plan.
142. The Republic of Panama is also a member of the Organization of American States and its status as such imposes on it, within that regional system, obligations which are not incompatible with those incurred under the Charter of the United Nations.
143. The inter-American regional system is governed by conventions which were subscribed to by all the Latin American nations and by the United States of America, and is based on three fundamental principles. Two of those principles are also basic to the San Francisco Charter: namely, those of the self-determination of peoples and of non-intervention in the domestic affairs of another State. The third principle, which is typically inter-American while being an internationally recognized norm, is that of representative democracy.
144. In this regional system, the principles of self determination and of representative democracy are so closely interrelated as to be inseparable. This was very ably, clearly and concisely explained by two illustrious Latin American representatives during the general debate at the sixteenth ordinary session of the Assembly.
145. The representative of Brazil, Mr. Arino de Melo Franco, expressed himself as follows: "But self-determination, to be genuine, pre-supposes the free exercise of the people's will, in the only possible form — namely, the expression of the will of the majority." [1011th meeting, paragraph 16.]
146, A few days later, the Minister for Foreign Affairs of Chile, Mr. Carlos Martínez Sotomayor, reaffirmed that same idea in the following words: "For we firmly believe that representative democracy is the best system of internal government; we likewise hold that the fate of peoples cannot be determined without consultation of their sovereign will. This is the basic tenet of Self-determination ...” [1019th meeting, paragraph 48.].
147. With regard to the principle of non-intervention, this can only refer to unilateral or individual intervention by one State in the internal affairs of another State because collective interventions are contemplated and expressly regulated in both the United Nations Charter "and the Inter-American-Treaty of Reciprocal-Assistance.
148. The Latin-American concept of non-intervention is directed not only against armed intervention but also against any form of foreign intervention inside the frontiers of another State whether it is of an economic, ideological, doctrinal, political or other character.
149. Under the conventions of the inter-American regional system, the observance and operation of representative democracy is a prerequisite for membership in the system. All the inter-American States have committed themselves to defend, their regional system against any act or intervention from within or outside the continent which might undermine, weaken, subvert or destroy that political system.
150. For the reason given above, the establishment of a communist government in an American country necessarily places that country outside the inter-American system. But this in itself does not constitute a danger to the internal peace of that country, or to the peace of the continent", or to World peace, if such a government remains within its own frontiers, with the approval and acceptance of its own, people freely expressed without fear or pressure, and if such a government refrains from organizing campaigns or movements of propaganda, infiltration, subversion or other measures aimed at undermining, weakening or overthrowing the system of representative democracy of the, other inter-American countries or threatening their security or existence. If such campaigns or movements are carried out, however, the other States in the system have not only the right but also, the duty to take whatever, action may, be necessary to eliminate the danger which this communist government represents for their institutional life, their internal law and order and their security.
151. True representative democracy, exists in those countries where the system of government, whatever it may be, by which they are ruled is freely chosen and expressly maintained by the will of the majority of the peoples and where the right of other peoples to the same free self-determination is respected.
152. Within its own borders the Republic of Panama is faced with international problems arising out of the existence on its territory of the Panama Canal, built, operated and ruled by the United States of America. Relations between the two States are governed, basically, by a "treaty concluded in 1903, when colonies and the occupation of small countries by powerful ones was. a common practice in the world, that is to say, by a treaty which does not conform to the principles, precepts and rules of law, justice and, international morality which are universally accepted today.
153. Because of the form and the circumstances in which this Treaty of 1903 was signed, and because of the humiliating, injurious, unjust and inequitable terms for Panama which were included in it, relations between the Republic of Panama and the United States Government have not been Cordial, although Panama has always scrupulously fulfilled the obligations which it entered into, with the specific object of preserving the necessary moral authority which would enable it to seek a better understanding.
154. Its struggle against this iniquitous treaty, which is prejudicial to Panama's dignity as a sovereign State, began on the very day on which it was signed, has continued without pause or respite and will go on until Panama’s Just claims are satisfied, although it will not fall to recognize the rights and privileges to which in all justice the United States of America is entitled.
155. Panamanian diplomacy achieved its first triumph in 1936, when during the administration of President Franklin D. Roosevelt a treaty was concluded which removed from the 1903 Treaty certain clauses which were shameful both to Panama as a small nation and to the United States as a powerful one .“Further changes were obtained by Panama in another treaty concluded in 1955, but the basic provisions of 1903, which are the cause of the resentment felt by the people of Panama still remain.
156. At the, beginning of his administration, Mr. Roberto F. Chiari, the present President of Panama, personally addressed the President of the United States, Mr. John F. Kennedy, informing him that it was impossible to continue relations on die basis of the Treaty of 1903 and inviting him to initiate a discussion of all the existing differences with a view to reaching solutions which would be just and equitable for both parties. President Kennedy, in a gesture which revealed his high statesmanship, his clear view of international problems and his quality as a just man, acceded to the request of the President of Panama and agreed to an open discussion on all the points connected with the Canal with which Panama had expressed dissatisfaction.
157. It has been the custom frequently followed by representatives of Panama abroad to make use, whenever they have had an opportunity to do so of all international tribunals — including this one the highest of all — to expound in detail their just claims and protests against the Government of the United States on Account of the Panama Canal and the treaties which govern it. In view of President Kennedy's conciliatory and sincerely friendly attitude, however, the Panamanian delegation considers it wise to wait patiently, in the sincere and0 frank hope that it has found a North American leader who, with a clear vision of present and future problems, will be able to reach an agreement which will guarantee the permanent establishment between the two Governments of the same relations of respect, esteem , and sympathy which exist between their two peoples.
158. The delegation of Panama cannot fail to record its Government's sincere gratitude for the expressions of sympathy and support with respect to this question of the Panama Canal which it has received from other Governments, and in particular from those of its Sister-nations of the inter-American system.
159. The delegation of Panama reaffirms its faith in the United Nations and in the ability of this Organization to fulfil, its mission of peace and security among nations.
160. The Republic of Panama remains faithful to the Purposes and Principles proclaimed in the San Francisco Chapter; it confirms its unshakable resolve to spare no effort and to do its utmost to collaborate in the strengthening of this Organization and of its authority in the regulation of international relations; and it urges all Member States in particular the small nations, to unite in a solid front in order to put an end to the atmosphere of danger, uncertainty and fear which characterizes the present time and to replace it with an atmosphere of confidence, calm, sincere cooperation, wellbeing and progress which will make it possible to restore peace of mind and thereby ensure the increasing and lasting happiness of all the peoples of the world, without distinction as to region, race, colour or creed. Only in this way can we succeed, each and every one of us, in carrying out our duties and responsibilities to ourselves, in the depth of our own consciences, to our fellow men in our social behaviour during our period on earth, to mankind as a whole, of which we form a part, and to God in eternity.