Mr. CASTRO thanked the French people and Government for the manner in which the United Nations had been received on French soil and expressed the gratitude of his Government and country.
He then paid tribute to the memory of Count Bernadotte, whose death had caused everyone deep grief.
The present session of the Assembly was important; it was taking place in the midst of a world crisis. In their anguish, the peoples of the world, nevertheless, hoped that the Assembly’s work would help to re-establish international co-operation and good-will, and lead to better understanding between the Members of the United Nations, in particular between those which, because of their greater material strength, were usually called the great Powers. Otherwise the work of the General Assembly would only increase the pessimism and despair of many peoples, especially those who had suffered most in the Second World War and had seen their fate improving only very slowly during the post-war period.
To bring humanity its lost security through efficient international co-operation, to ensure the peace and well-being of the world, seemed a goal beyond the reach of man, and yet it was possible to attain it if Governments would apply themselves to it in a sincere desire for mutual understanding and with unceasing good faith.
In many parts of the world surpluses of production were being wasted while in other parts people were starving; an understanding between Governments would do much to make poverty disappear. To that end, it was necessary to renew the Christian spirit and the spirit of brotherhood of nations. Humanity thus needed a real spiritual renaissance in order to heal its wounds and ease its suffering.
Among the extremely complex problems on the agenda were several left over from previous sessions.
Greece was in a better situation than in the previous year, but its internal security required neighbouring and other States to respect its sovereignty.
Korea had recently formed a national organization in the southern part of the country, but efforts of the United Nations to restore the political unity of the country had remained fruitless in the industrial regions of the north, into which the Temporary Commission, specially created by the General Assembly of the United Nations, had been unable to penetrate.
Palestine continued to be a theatre of military operations where the peace of the world was jeopardized. The Security Council was studying that serious situation. Events had shown that the General Assembly should have studied that problem carefully instead of trying to find a rapid and perhaps hasty solution which had merely led to a worsening of the conflict of interests in that part of the Middle East, the cradle of Christianity.
The delegation of El Salvador had proposed that all means of peaceful settlement at the disposal of the United Nations should be used to draw the two peoples together and reconcile their divergent interests; it had asked that the General Assembly should act with great caution and with absolute respect for the right of self-determination of peoples. Palestine, like any other nation, should be able to determine its fate in accordance with the principle laid down in Article 1, paragraph 2, of the United Nations Charter.
The delegation of El Salvador had proposed that the General Assembly should appoint a conciliation committee consisting of representatives of the contending parties in Palestine. That committee was to have been charged with finding the means of reaching a compromise acceptable to both parties. There was only one alternative possible for the United Nations in conformity with the principle of self-determination; a plebiscite permitting the people of Palestine to organize their political life in accordance with the will of the majority, or else a decision by the General Assembly of the United Nations acting as a body of conciliation. None of those solutions had been adopted and it was to be feared that the conflict in Palestine would last for a long time. The failures of the moment were resounding. In spite of those obstacles, however, the lessons of the past should help to avoid new mistakes if there were still unquestioned faith in the United Nations — the organ whose duty it was to maintain peace in the world.
Admission of new Members was another question of capital importance for the very existence of the United Nations. Several States which had met the requirements of Article A, paragraph 1, of the Charter, had submitted their requests for admission. Mentioning especially Portugal, Ireland, Transjordan, Italy and Austria, Mr. Castro noted that the first two countries had been neutral during the Second World War, an argument which one of the members of the Security Council had used to oppose their admission. But the small nations could not be refused admission merely on account of the fact that they had remained neutral. The two countries in question had had an absolute right to preserve their neutrality and it was absurd to say that a nation which remained neutral and did not want to take part in a conflict thereby became an enemy of peace.
Portugal and Ireland should be admitted as Members of the United Nations if the latter wished to become — and that was the desire of all — a legal community of States. Otherwise it would be an alliance of nations and not a peaceful association of all nations. The international organization would then lose its prestige and lack the universal authority which the Charter should give it.
The delegation of El Salvador would vote in favour of any measure leading to the admission of all peace-loving nations to the Organisation. Article A, paragraph 1, of the Charter explicitly accorded them the right to be admitted. The veto of a great Power had prevented the Security Council from recommending that the General Assembly should admit those nations. Article A, paragraph 1, of the Charter authorized the admission of Portugal, Transjordan and the other above-mentioned countries. Was the right of deciding upon the admission of new Members, a right which belonged to the General Assembly in accordance with the provisions of Article 18 of the Charter, to lose all significance for the mere reason that the Security Council could not recommend an admission because of the negative vote of two of its members, one of whom only had the power of veto?
Such a conclusion did not seem to be legally valid. If it were, it would mean that peace- loving nations were to be denied the right to be admitted to membership in the Organization, which would constitute a violation of the provisions of Article A of the Charter. The General Assembly had, without doubt, the right to determine whether the Security Council’s action was legally valid or not, for such a recommendation was tantamount to declining to decide on the admission of a new Member.
If the applicant State was peace-loving, if it met the conditions specified in Article A, paragraph 1, of the Charter, the United Nations had the right to accede to that country’s request and to invite its representatives to come to the Assembly. If that were not done, the United Nations would be acting against its own aim, which was to establish a universal peace organization.
The International Court of Justice had already given its considered opinion on the matter, namely, that no Member State of the United Nations had the right to present to the Security Council arguments against the admission of an applicant State which were not based on Article A, paragraph 1, of the Charter (A/597). The Court had also expressed the opinion that no member of the Security Council had the right, when it was a question of admitting new Members to the United Nations, to make the admission of one State conditional upon the admission of other States. Those two opinions of the International Court of Justice refuted all the arguments and objections which had been brought forward in the Security Council against the admission of Portugal, Ireland, Transjordan, Italy and Austria. Such arguments were alien to Article A, paragraph 1, of the Charter, and the General Assembly had only to reaffirm its right to admit the States in question to membership in the Organization.
Mr. Castro repeated that the. delegation of El Salvador would support any draft resolution which, instead of turning it into an illusory right, would render effective the General Assembly’s right to make a final decision in the matter of admission of new Members.
In taking part in the work of the General Assembly, the delegation of El Salvador had always felt that the United Nations did not constitute a kind of super State. It was merely an international peace association, with no other powers than those which had been conferred upon it in the Charter by the States Members. Consequently, if a resolution was not in conformity with the Charter, the States opposing that resolution were under no obligation to respect it. His delegation further considered that the General Assembly was not justified in intervening in the domestic affairs of States. Article 2, paragraph 7, prohibited such action in vigorous terms, and if, in spite of that provision, the General Assembly were so to act, its decision would not be valid since it would constitute a flagrant violation of the Charter. In the case of threats to the peace, breaking of the peace, or acts of aggression, the measures of coercion provided in Article 2, paragraph 7, could in no way be applied by the General Assembly; it was for the Security Council to take such steps in accordance with the provisions of Chapter VII of the Charter. Finally as regards the territories which were not independent at that time, but whose peoples had already achieved the degree of maturity necessary for them to be allowed an independent life, the United Nations should respect the principle of the right of self-determination of nations which was recognized in Article 1, paragraph 2, of the Charter.
Those were the general views of the delegation of El Salvador with respect to the essential problems submitted for discussion by the General Assembly at the present session. His delegation reaffirmed its determination to work with other delegations in a spirit of understanding and collaboration in order that it might be possible to attain those objectives which all the countries of the world had set themselves.