As I take the floor here, towards the close of the first stage in the general debate which the peoples of the Member States, through their delegations, initiate each year in the General Assembly, I desire once again to reaffirm the faith and hope of Uruguay in the United Nations. Both within and without the United Nations there are tensions and conflicts as strong as those of previous years, and new problems of undeniable gravity have arisen, such as the upsurge of nationalism and claims by the under-developed countries for greater equality of rights, freedoms and economic opportunities. Nevertheless, my delegation agrees with the Secretary-General that the United Nations, today more than ever, offers to all peoples the only road to the conquest of peace and the protection of civilization.
82. It is precisely because we belong to an unfortunate generation which twice in twenty-five years has witnessed the outbreak of a major war, that we see in the United Nations the only hope for peace and co-operation. That is particularly true in the present phase of world history, when the earth is growing Smaller through scientific progress and the genius of man is discovering new sources of power which, according to whether the great Powers which possess its secret succeed or fail in achieving harmony, may raise the human race to the pinnacle of happiness or hurl it into the tragic abyss of destruction and death.
83. When the actions of the United Nations are evaluated and judged, let it not be forgotten that the Organization came into the world in the most dramatic circumstances, after an orgy of violence without precedent in history, in which the freedoms of the peoples had been trampled underfoot, their sources of production destroyed, the wealth accumulated by creative labour submitted to systematic pillage, and the dignity of the human person insulted and mocked by the worst forms of outrage and humiliation. For the same reason, the United Nations must be allowed sufficient time to attempt its great mission when it is called upon to solve problems rooted deep in history, impossible of solution in the past owing to the absence of that spirit of tolerance, understanding, confidence and faith in the advantages of co-operation upon which the philosophy of the United Nations Charter is based.
84. The destiny of man cannot be raised tip out of chaos and violence and brought to order and happiness without a necessary period of transition — -the stage through which we are now passing — when the work of the United Nations must be judged rather by what it succeeds in avoiding than by what it is able to achieve. Creative action requires an atmosphere of tolerance, of peaceful relations, and of co-operation. These, we firmly believe, can be achieved by the efforts of the peoples and their governments if, while we cultivate these noble sentiments, the United Nations uproots, wherever they may appear, all seeds of aggressive ideologies, lust for power and the spirit of conquest, the tragic legacy of that totalitarianism so recently defeated on the field of battle.
85. It seems obvious that many of the present tensions and conflicts have arisen from the delay in signing the peace treaties and from the manner in which those treaties which have been signed were drafted. It was always a matter of dispute whether the United Nations should begin its new chapter in world history before or after the peace treaties had established the concrete foundation of order in the relations among States. The League of Nations, which came into being at the same time as the peace treaties which put an end to the First World War, began under apparently happier auspices; but it failed to safeguard peace and collective security because it lacked the decision and strength to punish aggression and the manifestations of international delinquency when they claimed their first victim. The guiding principle at San Francisco was the idea that the United Nations should come into being before peace was finally negotiated, because there was a hope that the great Powers would agree on foundations for that peace in line with the purposes and principles of the Charter, That hope has not as yet been borne out by experience, but the Organization cannot be denied the right to weigh and judge the conduct of the great Powers in this matter, as we are about to do once more in the concrete case of Austria.
86. It is here, in the Assembly, that the battle is waged to ensure that the principles of the Charter shall gradually permeate the organs which express the common will of the United Nations, and also the conduct of the great Powers, whose acts and decisions are of such vital importance to peace. The annual debates of the Assembly reveal a continuous and tenacious effort to inspire the life of the United Nations ever more fully with the ideal of democracy and the spirit of law. In this task we are supported by those spiritual reserves of humanity, respect for law and international morality. These are most precious reserves, which in the last war upheld all over the world, even in the darkest hours, humanity’s faith in the final triumph of the democracies. The support of these moral forces here in this Assembly has enabled the United Nations to overcome its structural defects, such as the veto, by invoking the concurrent jurisdiction of the Assembly when the Security Council, for the reasons and in the circumstances known to all, failed in its essential task as the guardian of peace.
87. In our opinion, which I should like to express with some emphasis, the great achievement of the United Nations has been to overcome its organic defects. Evidence of this is the resolution [377(V)] entitled “Uniting for peace,” of which Uruguay was a co-sponsor at the 1950 session of the Assembly and which is in itself the most convincing proof that the United Nations has succeeded in abolishing the privilege of immunity which, in practice, is conferred by the veto. At this point it cannot be argued here, as it was on 29 October 1946, in the second part of the General Assembly’s first session, that the principle of the veto is the corner-stone of the United Nations and that its removal would cause the whole structure to collapse. Today, on the contrary, there may be a hope that in the near future the veto will become a thing of the past, with the spinning-wheel and the bronze hatchet, and will be no more to the peoples than the sign and symbol of a vanished world based on inequality among States, the privileges of power and the denial of the rule of law and morality.
88. The United Nations requires an atmosphere of confidence, of understanding and of collaboration, and it is in that spirit that we consider and judge the upsurge of nationalism in vast areas of the world whence the cry goes up for more substantial rights, for wider freedoms, for better economic opportunities — aspirations which are all implicit in the ideal of the self-determination of peoples expressly formulated in the Charter. No one can fail to be aware that nationalism, that mystical expression of the right to self-determination of peoples in all fields in which they can develop their personality under the aegis of liberty and progress, is one of the great forces of history, deeply rooted in the most powerful emotions of the human race — love of family, home and country. Inspired by a spirit of solidarity, the peoples of the world have embodied these aspirations in the United Nations Charter, with the noble purpose of opening up to the peoples a way towards all forms and possibilities of freedom and progress — political, economic, social, cultural and humanitarian.
89. After the United Nations had been set up, we saw the birth of the State of Israel. India, Pakistan, Ceylon and Burma have achieved full independence. Indonesia, an independent member of the Netherlands-Indonesian Union, has become a Member of the United Nations, with equal status and sovereign rights. The associated States of Vietnam, Laos and Cambodia have achieved their independence within the French Union and have applied for membership of the United Nations. If we remember also the work of the United Nations in Libya and Eritrea, we shall have to admit that the world has seldom witnessed a peaceful revolution, on such an enormous scale and of such profound significance, in such a short time.
90. Unfortunately, heavy burdens have been laid on the sincerely peace-loving peoples by the need to repel aggression and organize their lawful and collective self-defence under regional arrangements — certainly a more onerous method than the creation of a common international force, which has been rendered impossible by certain intransigent attitudes. These burdens have diverted valuable resources from the economic development of the under-developed countries. Undeniably this is the long-range problem of the greatest importance for the destiny of the world; and we wish to define our attitude towards it and to explain in advance the position which we shall take up, repeating from this platform the statements which we have frequently made on the subject in the Economic and Social Council. In order to arrive at the satisfactory and effective solutions which we are seeking, it is necessary, in our opinion, to make use of all the resources available and of the new methods which have been evolved — although, inevitably, they are inadequate in the face of a problem so vast and of such long standing — taking into account the obvious inequalities which exist and which are the result of differences in strength of economic structures and of the national per capita income which, in some countries, enables people to amass private fortunes while, in others, it is not even enough to enable them to meet their most elementary requirements. There are countries which are in process of economic development, where progress has been and still is possible although the pace at which it proceeds is often far from satisfying the wishes of the population. Side by side with these countries are the economically under-developed countries, where the chances of improvement are greatly hindered, if not wholly blocked, by meagre resources and low standards of living.
91. In the first case, that of the countries which are already in process of economic development — a category which we feel includes Uruguay and other countries with the same or similar characteristics — where the level of the national income makes it possible to save and to accumulate private fortunes, the requirements of economic development can be met with the aid of the International Bank for Reconstruction and Development. If we take it that the Bank makes loans only to governments, or to private undertakings which can be guaranteed by governments — the latter requirement being difficult to satisfy for obvious reasons of internal policy with regard to the need to respect the independence and freedom of private enterprise — it would appear that the action taken to promote economic development could be greatly expanded if private capital could.be mobilized and directed towards those investments which really furthered such development, thus helping to implement programmes sponsored by private initiative in. each country, that is, by free enterprise. An institution operating in that way, maintaining close contact with and establishing standard operating procedures in agreement with the Bank, Would, in our opinion, enable us to overcome the present lack of confidence which is discouraging this kind of investment.
92. As regards the second category — the under-developed countries whose people live in economic and social penury — the best service we can render their unfortunate inhabitants is to refrain from reminding them, of the misfortunes they suffer and to offer them the means of removing or alleviating their suffering. Here the measures already mentioned must necessarily be supplemented by other types of assistance, such as interest-free loans and even subsidies. My delegation wishes to state that it will welcome most warmly the provision of new funds for this purpose.
93. This year the General Assembly has on its agenda, as at its last session, two items typical of that atmosphere of distrust and hypersensitivity which so often leads to distortion and misinterpretation of efforts to achieve understanding and co-operation. These items relate to the war in Korea and the future of that country, and to policy regarding armaments. With regard to the first of these matters, the deadlock which has existed since the aggression was repelled, has not yet been broken. When the Minister for Foreign Affairs of the USSR, in his recent speech [383rd meeting], reproached the Secretary of State of the United States because, after speaking of an honourable peace, the Secretary of State had then referred to a just peace, our only reaction was that justice and honour are two inseparable elements in any plan for terminating hostilities and restoring peace.
94. We here state in all frankness that the proposals presented to the General Assembly by the representative of Poland [A/2229] do not, in our opinion, meet that requirement. Moreover, they add nothing new or constructive to the debate. In regard, in particular, to the repatriation of prisoners to their countries of origin, it is neither just nor honourable that, as the price for breaking the present deadlock, the United Nations should renounce its own principles and agree to deny to more than 30,000 human beings their right to choose freely the place where they are to rebuild their happiness in the peace of their homes.
95. The delegation of Mexico has proposed a solution of this problem which safeguards the freedom of the individual. My delegation warmly supports this proposal, without relinquishing our opinion that an equally honourable and just solution would be for the United Nations, through its competent bodies to which the Charter entrusts the protection of human rights, to assume responsibility for those prisoners who refuse to return to their countries of origin. It would be neither logical nor reasonable that the United Nations, because of its status as a belligerent, should be prevented from fulfilling the tasks entrusted to it by the Charter and assuming the care of these prisoners. The military action undertaken by the United Nations is sui generis. It is a police action by a collective body whose essential purpose is to prevent breaches of the peace and acts of aggression. Consequently the rules regarding prisoners which have been made for belligerent States are hardly applicable to it. Moreover, although all are Members of the collective body which is taking action, a distinction can admittedly be drawn between those States which have taken up arms and those which have merely supported the action by their votes or are passively bound by it.
96; With regard to policy concerning armaments and armed forces — a problem fundamental to the peace and progress of the world — we are again at an impasse. And it must be conceded that no substantial progress can be made in the matter so long as the effective control of disarmament and the duty to see that atomic energy is not used for purposes of war are still in the hands of the Security Council, that is, subject to the privilege of impunity constituted by the veto.
97. Finally, my delegation would like to comment on the remarks made by Mr. Vyshinsky in his speech to the Assembly on Saturday [383rd meeting], when he declared that in the opinion of the Soviet Union there was nothing to prevent the peaceful coexistence of capitalism and communism. That opinion coincides with the general feeling expressed many times in other quarters. The Charter Was certainly not established to impose systems or ideas upon men or nations. It was established to safeguard the right of peoples to the respect of their freedom and the right of each individual to-the respect of his person. But the world is too varied and complex for the destiny of each of its peoples to be bounded solely by the dilemma of capitalism or communism. Nor can it be reduced to the dilemma of free enterprise and a socialized or State-controlled economy, for private capital everywhere is subjected to greater or lesser restrictions, which subordinate it to the general welfare in accordance with the dictates of justice, and which sometimes even replace it by State-controlled enterprise for the better organization of the necessary public services. Indeed, it may happen, as in Uruguay, that the process has been a long one, dating from the opening of the century, and carried out with full respect for the law and the property of others. My country has nationalized or placed under State control sources of production and of wealth upon which a people’s independence is based.
98. The differences which may arise between nations and systems in the world today correspond to different and opposing concepts of the individual before the law and in his relations to the State. As applied to peaceful relations among peoples, these ideas are an expression, certainly, of differing concepts of life.
99. Is man the chief end of the law, the State the servant of man, and he the sole sovereign? In that case, the human person is as much under international as under national law. Or is man subject only to national law, receiving his liberties from the State and remaining the servant of the collective systems which express the Will of the State? This is the first difference of concept. Is man a product of history, subject to the inexorable laws of determinism? Or is he the master and architect of his own destiny and, as such, able to influence history, to build it, to live it, like the men of good will who, in the United Nations, are endeavouring to show the peoples of the world the bright and blessed paths of peace, tolerance, friendship and brotherly co-operation, thus correcting the effects of the blind forces of history? There is no doubt that these two concepts can coexist in peace. But it must be agreed that such coexistence requires of all nations a sincere respect for the purposes and objectives of the Charter, which, by reflecting the ideal, represent what is eternal, and the necessary spirit of tolerance in working to achieve these ends through the constitutional bodies created to serve and further them.
100. For example, the Success or failure of our work for the freedom and dignity of man will depend upon the use or abuse of die privilege of national sovereignty. The liberation of man as a member of a nation is a sad illusion when as an individual he lives subject to the omnipotence of the State. What is to become of this great idea! called human rights, which we honour and venerate in all the organs of the United Nations, if in the end we make of it the first of the stateless refugees, closing the doors of home and country against it precisely on grounds of attachment to national sovereignty?
101. Although the Charter refers often to domestic jurisdiction, we should remember that Article 2, paragraph 7, makes that reservation only in regard to matters which are essentially within the domestic jurisdiction of a State. In our opinion there can be no doubt that all matters which are part of the substance of an international covenant such as the United Nations Charter have by that very fact ceased to be essentially matters within the domestic jurisdiction of States.
102. Freedom of information is part of the precious heritage of the great human freedoms. Let us all be agreed that If systems founded upon different concepts of human life are to coexist in harmony, freedom of information is the best school in which a man may instruct his spirit and choose in freedom the way of life he deems best suited to his ideas, his ideals and his experience. If this peaceful coexistence of peoples separated by fundamental ideological differences is to result in lasting peace and security, it becomes daily more essential that a spirit of mutual confidence should banish forever from the life of the United Nations the concept of absolute and inviolable sovereignty, at least in the crucial field of control of effective disarmament and the use of atomic energy for peaceful purposes. Nothing practical or effective can be done to that end if the great Powers, which are recreating in our time the legend of, Prometheus by their possession of the sacred fire which can bring progress or death, invoke the principle of sovereignty in order to resist international control.
103. The voice of grieving humanity, whose destiny is still shackled by the bonds of insecurity, fear, misery and destitution — wretched legacy of the hideous war which we have just experienced — makes known in these halls its hope that the great Powers will understand their grave responsibilities and recognize their obligations. Today, more than ever, this rostrum of the United Nations General Assembly seems to be the appropriate place from which to recall the words of the distinguished sociologist: “The choice is not between Utopia and the world of our fathers, but between Utopia and hell.”