Mr. BLANCO (Venezuela) asked to be excused for saying that the peoples of the world were still waiting to see the word «determination» used in all sincerity in international parlance. In the Preamble to the Charter, the peoples of the United Nations affirmed that they were «determined» to save succeeding generations from the scourge of war, to proclaim anew their faith in fundamental human rights, in the dignity and worth of the human person, in the equal rights of men and women and of nations large and small, and to promote better living standards based on wider and greater freedom. At the same time they declared that they were resolved to combine their efforts to accomplish those aims, a decision which was backed by the pledged word of the nations. Inspired by a deep sentiment of human affection, and in the fullness of his love for the countries and peoples represented at the Assembly, he called for a display of real sincerity which alone would render possible the fulfilment of their pledged desires.
There was a whole world, as yet inchoate, but full of promise, behind present-day blindness and fatality, behind contemporary political thought. And it was that world, which, in the noble words used by Mr. Trygve Lie in the introduction to his report, the United Nations had been set up to create and raise from the bitter memories of the war through the combined faith of the peoples of the world.
The representative of Venezuela had not come to the Assembly with a message of pessimism. Amid the difficulties of the present time, it could not be denied that the United Nations offered a balance sheet of achievement that gave cause for optimism, and he fully shared the well-considered and high hopes expressed in the Secretary-General’s report. The United Nations had interposed law and human decency and conciliation between the peoples and the naked desire for power. Basing its efforts on an ardent desire to convince all and sundry, it had striven to conciliate opposing interpretations of history and life, by a full understanding of the diversity of systems and cultures; it had striven to find solutions for intricate problems by the peaceful means of mediation; it had called for a truce to hate and misunderstanding; it had admitted many Members who contributed to its universal character; it was trying to broaden those provisions that conflicted with the concept of equality of Members; in some cases good results had been achieved which argued well for the future of the international trusteeship system. Finally, recognition had to be given to the positive achievements of the Economic and Social Council which had been accomplished through the economic commissions, by the Human Rights Commission in its endeavour to establish a charter reflecting universal aspirations, and by the various subsidiary bodies engaged in promoting the economic, cultural, social and humanitarian advancement of the nations.
But while they were bound to recognize such progress they could not but admit that what remained to be done was far greater than what had been achieved so far. What remained to be done was to ensure practical results. The only enemy of determination and resolution was fear. Fear, that ancient creator of myths, had seized humanity in its grip. The main weakness of the United Nations was that it had to be not only an organization against war, but also an organization against the fear of war. Fear did not make for friendship, although danger united men when they had to defend themselves against others. But when they had to defend themselves against a common disaster such as war, mistrust and fear were mortal enemies of mankind. He was referring to the world’s fear, not to one nation’s fear of another. The dread that oppressed mankind and innocent people in all countries, the nullification of plans by a sense of insecurity, the inability to foresee what tomorrow might bring, and a lack of faith in the meaning and reason of life, all those stood in the way of world reconstruction. The antidote to those fears was in their hands, and it lay in their determination to understand each other so as to understand and respect others.
Like the Secretary-General, the Venezuelan representative felt it would be a grave mistake to believe that the world had to accept a single economic system whether based on the Communist doctrine of a classless society or on the capitalist version of free enterprise. In a world where so many forces were at work and so many cultural traditions intermingled, domination by any single ideology, whether political or economic, was unthinkable. World unity depended precisely upon clear differentiation between its various components and upon proper knowledge of its various groupings, so that its integration might be carried out deliberately and freely as between equals. There was no political or economic doctrine which had not been bitterly criticized. Each people must find the doctrine that suited it best. It was essential that neighbouring peoples should not try to impose their ways, views and doctrines on each other.
Let the main blocs agree to disagree concerning their different and opposing systems of living, in order to save the world from war. It was the fervent desire of all that the great Powers should work out ways and means to that end. The strong and the weak had to collaborate unhesitatingly as in one family where the older children tried to prevent the younger ones from fighting, and the younger ones tried to settle the disputes of their bigger brothers and sisters. Let there be an end to the practice of castigating any delegation which in the Assembly happened to vote in favour of a motion supported by some Western Power, for having yielded unconditionally to capitalist orders, and then, when the next day that same delegation happened to support a proposal for which the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics was also voting, of suddenly transferring it to the Communist camp. Governments should be able to discuss all matters relating to the United Nations for in so doing they would evince greater concern and desire to do all in their power to implement the recommendations of the Assembly. He believed they were all agreed as to the necessity for rejecting everything which might hinder mutual understanding.
The United Nations Charter was the beacon, the torch which lighted their path. If they followed that path with constancy they would be able to deal as was required with the various items on the agenda. The speaker then proceeded to review a few of those points in order to define the attitude of his Government. The question of the admission of new Members was bound up with the very life of the United Nations, with the problem of strengthening and developing it until it achieved the ideal of universality. His delegation had maintained and still maintained that, in accordance with Article 4 of the Charter, agreement between the Security Council and the General Assembly was indispensable to the admission of applicant States. At the same time, however, his delegation took the view that when applications for admission were under consideration an unbiased and broadminded attitude should be shown in deciding whether the applicants accepted the obligations of the Charter and were able and willing to fulfil them. His delegation wished to submit once again that the United Nations would be the richer for the collaboration of certain States which, like Italy, desired membership in the community of nations. Linked, as his country was, with Italy, by language ties from the’ same Latin origin, it was fulfilling its historic duty by not subscribing to the concept of nations united by origin yet divided by destiny. In connexion with all applicant States, his delegation thought it essential to disregard political prejudices and, presuming good faith and peaceful intentions on their part, to adopt a favourable attitude towards them.
With regard to the Interim Committee of the General Assembly, Venezuela took a favourable view of the experiment represented by the latter’s work. The studies carried out in connexion with the establishment of adequate machinery for the pacific settlement of disputes augured well for the improvement of political conditions and the enhancement of the juridical authority of the United Nations. The recommendations concerning the relaxation of the right of veto were directed towards the regulation or voluntary limitation of that right, a view which his delegation was the first to proclaim.
The continuation of that experiment appeared useful for the United Nations, but if the Committee’s activities were to be prolonged its aims would be attained only if all Members of the United Nations took part in the work of the Committee. Such co-operation would help to keep the Interim Committee in its place as a subsidiary organ and would save time for the regular sessions of the main organ.
The work done by the United Nations in connexion with disarmament and atomic energy revealed a regrettable contradiction. While all Member States, including the five permanent members of the Security Council, had undertaken to eliminate all weapons of mass destruction, to reduce and regulate armaments and armed forces and to establish systems of international control to prevent violations, the deliberations of the bodies responsible for implementing those decisions of the Assembly had achieved no positive results and, owing to the disagreement of the great Powers, had reached a stage which gave rise to grave fears for international security. International distrust continued to prevent the discovery of a formula calculated to solve those serious problems. Once again there was discussion as to whether security should precede disarmament or whether the latter was a prior condition of the former. Moreover, it was maintained in some quarters that the establishment of a system of international control should precede the prohibition of the manufacture of atomic weapons and the destruction of those already in existence; elsewhere it was maintained that prohibition of the manufacture of those weapons and the destruction of those in existence should recede international control. Thus, the heavy burden of war budgets and the perpetual fear of atomic devastation continued to weigh heavily on the peoples, a fact which made it most desirable that there should be established some means of combining a system of unrestricted international control with the prohibition of manufacture of those weapons and arrangements to destroy those that existed.
The reconstruction of the war-devastated areas and the economic development of underdeveloped areas were inter-dependent problems which had been the subject of special attention by the Economic and Social Council and its functional and regional commissions. That international action had been supplemented by the efforts of groups of States with a common desire for rehabilitation and advancement, but the results obtained in both cases had not been sufficiently satisfactory as a result of the influence of political factors. The solution of economic problems could only be achieved by co-operation. The idea of exclusion of systems and opposition of interests had to be set aside in order to make possible the discovery of paths leading to collaboration and understanding. The signal success achieved by the Economic Commission for Europe proved the possibility of such co-operation.
But the need for economic reconstruction was inseparable from the need for social progress. Economic progress or the increase of the material wealth of a people was of no avail, unless accompanied by a rise in the standard of living of the workers and opportunities to improve the nation’s human potential in health and culture.
Speaking of the nations that required aid, Mr. Blanco said that the United Nations should not forget those, like Venezuela, that did not require money, as they had currency of high exchange value, and were large producers of primary commodities, but which did need equipment to enable them to invest their present income in the establishment and financing of an economic system based on agriculture, stock- breeding and industry. In such conditions, when their present methods of production came to an end, or were replaced by another, they would be able to count on a surer and more stable source of national wealth.
With regard to the Spanish question, the representative of Venezuela declared it was hardly a problem of government; it was mainly a problem of people. The existence of a dictatorial regime in Spain was certainly more dangerous than the advent of a democratic republic. Most Venezuelans considered that their hostile attitude to the political regime in Madrid was a proof of their deep affection for the Spanish people.
As to the non-self-governing territories, Mr. Blanco wished to clarify the position of the Venezuelan Government, which had been somewhat misunderstood. That position was in complete accordance with the principles of the Charter. It was not to be expected that nations that were born of an anti-colonial movement would be in favour of colonization. Therefore the Venezuelan Government adhered to the principle of the right of self-determination of peoples and appreciated the loyalty of those nations which respected the Charter by raising the level of populations under their administration and led them along the path of self-government.
The representative of Venezuela made a vibrant appeal for good understanding, not in the name of a group of peoples residing in a given hemisphere, but in the name of the weak nations and even in the name of the weak in all nations. He would not call attention to the achievements of America in international law, but to the need for the world to listen to America’s voice. The culture of the Old World was the common inheritance of humanity. It should not be said that modern man wished to destroy the master works of the past. Such works had to be saved, as in the story of Selma Lagerloef, in which Jesus made some clay birds fly away, to save them from the anger of a child.
Roosevelt had created the most powerful war machine in order to destroy an « anti-principle »; but if it had been within his power, the bombs would have fallen only on the «anti-principle» and not on beautiful things and people.
It might be said that Venezuela also had a colony in Europe. It was a symbolic colony which consisted of those who might have one day come to work and live in Venezuela. In the name of those persons, Venezuela affirmed that the world did not want war or the fear of war. The rights of doctrine must not destroy the doctrine of rights; the noble blood of Colonel Sérot and of the Mediator for Palestine should not be allowed to have been spilt in vain. The peoples, well-governed and always in possession of their sovereign will, had to achieve an international policy under which peace would not be a state of equilibrium but a state of mind. There should be no attempts to improve the distribution of wealth resulting in a perfect distribution of poverty. The aim should be a world with a great capacity for life, not a world with a great capacity for death. Men should not be allowed to say that the Atlantic Charter was written on water.
Mr. Blanco said he wished to finish his speech with words of hope. The family of the United Nations had returned to Europe and were united in their love for Paris, the city that was loved by those who had been there, were there and would be there. Within the walls of the «City of Light», the Venezuelan representative affirmed his faith in life. He prayed to God that the ship of human hopes, like the ship on the arms of Lutetia, might at length be able to inscribe forever on its flag the watchword: Nec mergitur.