General ROMULO stated that, whereas for the past several weeks the city of Berlin had been the focus of men’s fears, at its opening and for the duration of the session of the General Assembly, the city of Paris would be the centre of men’s hopes.
The meeting coincided with a turning point in history. The United Nations was called upon to help decide the momentous issues of the present day: whether there would be war or peace; whether men would live in greater freedom or under increasing regimentation; whether nations would eventually unite into a single community of peoples under a world charter, or divide permanently into armed and hostile camps governed only by the predatory laws of the jungle.
Those, in essence, were the problems that confronted the peoples of the world. They involved the fate of every living man, woman and child as well as of generations yet unborn.
There was something supremely ironic and yet touching in the way in which events had persisted in demonstrating the world’s need for the United Nations. Every international problem that had defied solution by individual States had brought before the United Nations, as to a court of last appeal — the problems of atomic energy, Greece, Iran, Egypt, South Africa, Korea, Indonesia, Kashmir, Palestine, Czechoslovakia, the former Italian colonies; and perhaps, before the adjournment of the session, the gravest and most difficult problem of all would come before it as well: the quarrel of the great Powers over Germany.
Inadequate as its efforts had often proved to be, hampered by indifference and sometimes by a deliberate intent to thwart its efforts, the United Nations yet remained mankind’s chief and perhaps last hope for universal peace, freedom and security. It was an experience at once humbling and inspiring to realize that the United Nations represented, at the moment, the only force that could stand between the peoples of the world and the catastrophe that threatened to engulf them. General Romulo expressed the hope that this thought might guide and sustain them at the beginning of that crucial session of the General Assembly.
He said that war was the great over-riding problem. The danger was no longer remote or hypothetical. It was real, and it grew with every passing hour. War was on the march in Asia; it chafed angrily under the uneasy truce in Palestine; it stalked with iron tread the continent of Europe. The General Assembly was meeting under its shadow and could not ignore it, any more than it could ignore a time-bomb ticking away at its feet. Even as representatives deliberated on the problem of peace, some of the great Powers were arming and girding for war.
The General Assembly had no power to impose peace. But it did have the moral authority to demand it. General Romulo was sure he was speaking not only for his own nation but for the people of every other country as well when he said that they did not want war, that they considered it to be neither necessary nor inevitable and that they believed that the Powers directly concerned could avert it if they willed to do so.
No new formula for peace was needed. One was contained in the Charter, in which nations pledged «to... live together in peace... to unite our strength to maintain international peace and security, and to ensure, by the acceptance of principles and the institution of methods, that armed force shall not be used, save in the common interest... »
They possessed not only the formula but the rules and the procedures to make it work. It was the resolution, the will to implement it, that was lacking.
The Philippine delegation was calling upon the great Powers to make a fresh and determined effort not only to resolve their present quarrels without recourse to arms but to find some means whereby they could live in peace long enough to give mankind a chance to build, through the United Nations, stronger safeguards for the security and well-being of all. It made this plea for their sake as much as for that of the small nations. War would solve nothing; it could only destroy everything of value. Such was the destructive power of modern weapons that to lose the peace at the present time would be to risk losing all.
The small nations, for their part, could help to avert war by pooling their strength and wielding their collective influence as a third force dedicated to the cause of peace. Less involved than the great Powers in the snares of the grim struggle for the political and economic mastery of the world, the small nations were in a better position to represent the true will and the real interests of mankind. The Philippine delegation called upon the small nations to close their ranks and present a solid front against any attempt to undermine the peace.
The past three years had witnessed the growth, within the United Nations, of a healthy tendency on the part of the small countries to act in conformity with those objectives. The time had come for them to assert themselves more completely, to oppose any scheme or manoeuvre which would serve the interests of any single State or group of States at the expense of others, to act for the common good whenever the occasion demanded or the opportunity arose.
The conscience of the world deserved a stronger voice than that which had spoken for it during the past three years. He wished that the small nations, speaking in unison, might be that voice. The mute millions, the common people of the world, expendable in war, forgotten in peace, cried out for a true and steadfast champion; the small nations, acting in concert, could be the advocate of their cause and the guardians of their welfare.
The great Powers, their hands tied by the inexorable demands of power politics, had been unable to make the peace. The sum total of their achievements was a political stalemate, a precarious balance between the possibility of peace and the prospect of war. It might be that the small nations, in using their moral power wisely, putting all the weight of their combined influence against war, might yet tip the balance on the side of peace.
One of the saddest chapters in the United Nations record of the past three years or more, was that which recounted the long and fruitless efforts to devise a universally acceptable formula for the organization of a United Nations police force, the regulation of armaments, and the control of atomic energy. The Security Council, charged with the task of drawing up plans in these three vital fields, had admitted the futility of its endeavours up to the present time.
The absence of a United Nations police force had but recently resulted in a tragedy that had shocked the conscience of the world. That grievous incident had served to dramatize the danger that was inherent in a situation wherein the United Nations had assumed responsibility for resolving conflicts while possessing no real authority to implement its decisions. Yet that deficiency sprang not from the Charter itself, since the latter provided measures of implementation as clearly and adequately as it set forth functions and objectives. It sprang rather from the habit of pursuing the line of least resistance leading to the partial and half-hearted application of a fundamental law; for, as it was easier to recommend a course of action than to resolve upon its execution, so had it been easier, for instance, to observe Article B9 than to apply Article A3 of the Charter.
On the question of atomic energy, the Philippine representative found the stalemate complete. The one Power which at present was in full possession of the secret of the atomic bomb ad generously agreed to surrender its monopoly on the sole condition that there must first be established a system of international inspection and control. That reasonable proposal, which was nothing less than an act of supreme renunciation, had met with the counter-proposal that all existing atomic weapons should first be outlawed and destroyed before any plan of establishing a control organ with limited powers of inspection could be considered at all.
Those two utterly contradictory proposals spoke for themselves. Looking upon their respective merits, one was moved to make the candid observation that there was certainly a far greater measure of sincerity in that Power which, having the bomb, was prepared to lose an enormous advantage under the terms of its own proposal so as to establish an international authority with adequate powers of inspection and control. On the other hand, there could be grave doubts regarding the sincerity of any Power which, not being in possession of the bomb, desired merely to bind the hands of its possessor while leaving its own free to discover the secret of its manufacture behind the screen of an international convention and an ineffectual system of control and inspection.
Negotiations were at a standstill. Was the General Assembly prepared to admit total failure in that all-important phase of the United Nations’ master-plan for peace?
It had been said that no substantial progress could be achieved in the areas where there existed major conflicts of power unless a genuine political settlement was first reached between East and West. It was said furthermore that such a settlement could only be reached in an atmosphere of mutual confidence that would lend itself to honest and fruitful negotiations.
That vicious circle must be broken somewhere. A fresh start must be made. The great Powers must be called upon to put resolutely behind them the dangerous methods of challenge and reprisal and to return to the saner methods of negotiation and compromise. If it seemed ignoble to step down from the high plane of undeviating principle, it should be remembered that agreement upon the humbler plane of negotiation had often in the past given the world long periods of relative stability. Such a period was needed now to enable the United Nations to lay the foundations of a just and durable peace.
Peace, he repeated, was their paramount concern. But the problem of peace was inseparable from the problem of freedom. And freedom, too, was under attack in many parts of the world, sometimes openly and brutally by external forces, more often insidiously by the slow, undermining action of internal decay.
To meet this dual danger, the United Nations must act promptly and decisively on two levels. It must deal uncompromisingly with every threat to, or violation of freedom. At the same time, it must foster and carry through all the activities directed at the correction of the deep-seated social, economic and political maladjustments that made a mockery of the principles of liberty and equality. In the first category General Romulo would give first importance to the problems of Indonesia, Greece and Korea, and the questions concerning Trust and Non-Self-Governing Territories. In the second category, he would include all the work of the Economic and Social Council, particularly in the field of human rights, freedom of information, genocide and the prevention of discrimination against minorities; the cultural and social welfare projects; the plans of the various economic commissions for regional economic development; and the promotion of international trade.
The Economic and Social Council had done much useful work in laying the foundation for economic security, social stability, and enduring peace. The criticism might be levelled against the Council that it was trying to do too much, but it could not be accused of inaction or futility. Though it might well be necessary to trim the tropical proliferation of the Council’s activities in the hope of a more abundant harvest of results, it would be most unwise to try to reduce its authority or otherwise hamper its operation and render it ineffectual.
The Economic and Social Council had demonstrated that social and economic security, without which freedom was illusory and peace could not long endure, were world problems which could be solved only by international action. Through the rapid progress of its work, it had far outpaced the development of political stability in the world and thereby created a situation wherein the pattern of universal peace, prosperity and freedom was now virtually complete even while the great Powers were still debating whether to let humanity live or die.
Through the Commission on Human Rights and the Conference on Freedom of Information, progress had been made in defining and enlarging the scope of the rights and freedom of man. The text of a proposed declaration of human rights and various conventions and resolutions guaranteeing freedom of information were awaiting final action by the General Assembly. They constituted a vital portion of the pattern of peace and freedom the validity of which did not depend on the conflicts and prejudices of the moment. They called for immediate action, and on no pretext whatever should they be made to await a prior political settlement. Though fear and suspicion might tarry awhile, the forward march of humanity towards freedom as an end desirable in itself must remain unimpeded.
Another bright page in the United Nations record of the past two years was that which dealt with the evolution of the principle of trusteeship for the backward areas of the world. The Trusteeship Council represented a body which had demonstrated its fidelity to a new revolutionary concept: the principle that the welfare of the inhabitants of the territories was the collective responsibility of the international community. The reports of the Administering Authorities had been examined and their policies subjected to the most rigorous scrutiny. Petitions from the inhabitants had been considered and visiting missions organized. The steady progress of the trusteeship system under the supervision of the Trusteeship Council represented a high-water mark of political morality in the modern world.
General Romulo recalled that that progress had not been achieved without a struggle, a struggle which began at San Francisco and was still continuing. It might be supposed that a tendency to place all Non-Self-Governing Territories under the trusteeship system would be the logical consequence of the evolving principle and practice of trusteeship. But, as everyone was aware, a reaction had begun to set in and there was now a contrary tendency to annex former mandated territories or to convert them into colonies.
The General Assembly had more than once categorically indicated its opposition to this regressive tendency. The Philippine representative said he would never encourage or permit such designs to prosper.
At the present time, many Non-Self-Governing Territories in Asia and the Far East were torn by political turmoil and violence. The Governments against which those risings were directed were under strong temptation to brand them all as foreign-inspired and thus discredit them and justify the ruthless use of force. There was undoubtedly some truth in the accusation. To condemn them all on that account, however, would be an unfair and dangerous over-simplification. They were nearly always motivated by legitimate grievances or aspirations, including political independence and social and economic changes, which could have been met by the institution of judicious reforms.
It was not an easy matter to apportion responsibility for these violent upheavals. Chapter XI of the Charter set forth the pattern of just and enlightened treatment for the inhabitants of Non-Self-Governing Territories. To the extent that those peoples were wilfully denied such treatment, the metropolitan Powers must assume responsibility for the violence and for their defection from the democratic fold. But to the extent that those peoples might have allowed themselves to be misled by the illusory promises of an anti-democratic ideology and to become the tools of a foreign Power seeking its own selfish ends, they alone were to blame for their tragic misfortunes.
The true goal of all dependent peoples was freedom and not enslavement by a new master.
The last war had brought about a revolution in values. In the darkest days of the struggle, when it had seemed as though the sun of freedom might go down to shine no more upon this earth, a new concept of the relations between men and among nations had taken shape. As the enemy’s attacks had already forced them to act, confronted by a common danger, the peoples of the United Nations began to think and plan on a global scale and in terms of the enduring welfare of mankind.
Greater and more significant than any military victory was this liberation and enlargement of the human spirit. The hour of travail that had seen the death of millions and the devastation of wide areas of the world witnessed also the birth of new hope for a life of greater freedom and security for all peoples.
Idealism had played its part in the creation of the United Nations. But the decisive factor had been the realization that peace could no longer rest securely on the old foundations. A new order of international relations had to be established. Events had demonstrated again and again that the requirements of peace, economic security, cultural progress and social stability held the nations in bonds of interdependence which political cleavage could not sunder without disastrous consequences. Every international crisis, every act of aggression, every case of oppression or injustice but served to dramatize the need for a new order based upon enforceable world law.
General Romulo felt that that must remain the goal of the United Nations. If it seemed remote and inaccessible, that was not due to a lack of good-will but with the circumstances which for the moment had disturbed their vision and concealed it from view. All that humanity needed, all that it asked for, was that the ominous cloud be lifted, that it be given a little time to take its bearings and work out its own salvation, and the chance to live.
The General Assembly had not the power to grant this boon, but it had the moral authority to demand it of those who had the power to do so.
General Romulo therefore urged that, in the course of the deliberations, it should be made unmistakably clear that that was the purpose of those who spoke for peoples whose innermost desire was peace.