Mr. VITERI-LAFRONTE recalled that during the six years of the war — which had been referred to with so much certainty as the «last» war — when the whole world was terrified by the horrors of the massacre, when the most powerful nations of the world feverishly concentrated all their activities on war production, when peoples did not hesitate to spend in an hour what in peace time they would not have dared to spend in years, there was a general belief that, following the destructive conflict, there would rapidly follow a real, just and creative peace. While war scourged the world, men cried for a new way of life, in which tolerance and understanding would predominate, and hoped that nations, stimulated by the desire to repair rapidly the damages caused by the war and by the hope of ending forever the threat of a new conflagration, would realize the sincere yearning for international co-operation.
When war broke out, nations were not prepared for it; similarly, when peace ensued, they were not truly ready to accept it or to make it into a reality.
In criticism of what statesmen had done at the conclusion of the First World War, it had been said that it had been a grave error to include in one act the treaties of peace and the creation of the League of Nations. To correct the supposed mistakes of the Treaty of Versailles, in 1945 it was decided to keep entirely separate the conclusion of the peace treaties and the establishment of the United Nations.
More than three years had elapsed since the end of the war, and it still could not be said that peace reigned on earth. There were still armed conflicts in various parts of the world. The use of force and violence in international relations had not disappeared. Aggression and invasion were still repeatedly taking place and countless human beings continued to be deprived of those guarantees and rights which were considered to be fundamental and inalienable. And above and beyond all other considerations, the nations which, confronted by a common enemy, had joined forces in the war, were no longer united by that frank spirit of understanding and agreement which had made victory possible. All that was happening concurrently with the existence and activity of the United Nations, an institution of which so much had been expected but in which the world’s confidence was beginning to be shaken.
In the opinion of the world, peace depended exclusively on the United Nations; there was a general conviction that the United Nations could establish peace. If up to the present that had not been achieved, it was due to a lack of interest and will to ensure universal tranquillity, or perhaps to the fact that the United Nations did not have at its disposal the adequate means to establish peace and the sense «of security which all desired to have.
It was necessary to emphasize, however, that the realization of peace had never been, and was not now, in the hands of the United Nations. That difficult task had been reserved for itself, by that limited group of nations which had intervened directly in the war, whereas the United Nations Organization was entrusted with the task of maintaining a peace which had still not been proclaimed or established.
In days gone by, repeating the apt expression of Mr. Litvinov, people used to say that peace was indivisible. The present peace was divided and fragmentary, and peace with the very country which had been the central agent of the war was still an unsolved problem.
He recalled that according to the Charter, the United Nations’ principal task was to maintain international peace and security, and to that end, to take effective collective measures with a view to avoiding the threat of a new war. Three years previously it had been impossible to conceive such an eventuality, whereas at present it was talked about as an immediate menace. It was at such times that the United Nations was accused of uselessness, ineffectiveness, timidity or blindness.
In reality, in the three years of its life, Mr. Viteri-Lafronte found that the United Nations had perhaps left undone certain things it should have done, and done several things it perhaps should not have done but, at any rate, an impartial and detailed analysis of its accomplishments up to date did show a positive credit. There was hope for the future at the thought that the representatives of the peoples who formed the United Nations would discuss their problems, rights and interests in an atmosphere of cordiality, with a desire for understanding, with the help of intelligent and conciliatory measures, encouraging co-operation among all, in the interest of humanity.
Those who accused the United Nations of ineffectiveness should consider thoughtfully what direction the difficult problems and complex tensions of the post-war world would have taken if there had not existed the moderating and stabilizing influence of the Organization which had been set up in San Francisco.
Referring to the Secretary-General’s report for the period of 1 July 1947 to 30 June 1948, Mr. Viteri-Lafronte expressed the opinion that it constituted a good over-all description of the work of the Organization in its various aspects: political and security, economic and social, trusteeship and legal. It presented a valuable historical basis for the items included on the agenda.
Many of those items were not new; in one form or another, they had been discussed previously by the General Assembly, by the Security Council or by other bodies. The point of view of the Ecuadorean delegation on those matters had been made known at the appropriate occasions and defended in the respective Committees and in the General Assembly, so that Mr. Viteri-Lafronte saw no necessity to come back on that score. He thought that it would be sufficient to recall that the wish of his delegation had at all times been to support the most liberal and humane solutions, those which were in greatest conformity with the principles of justice and equity and with the standards of authentic and effective democracy.
What his delegation did think indispensable was to comment briefly on the report of the Interim Committee, a body set up by resolution 111 (II) of the General Assembly on 13 November 1947, and inaugurated on 5 January 1948.
It was not his purpose to renew discussion on the constitutionality or legality of the establishment of the Interim Committee. The various points of view of the Member States bad become crystallized and no one would be able to persuade anyone else through the mere repetition of known arguments. The objective and palpable fact was that by way of an experiment the Interim Committee had existed and worked for eight months. Its activities had served to back up many of the arguments which had been invoked for its creation, and to dispel many of the objections which had been raised against the establishment of the new organ.
In truth, the Interim Committee had not tried to invade the jurisdiction of the Security Council nor of any other organ of the United Nations. It had maintained a purely technical character, as could be seen from a perusal of the interesting reports concerning the problem of voting in the Security Council and the question of the pacific settlement of international disputes.
Mr. Viteri-Lafronte recalled that the veto had been the source of acrimonious and vehement discussions ever since San Francisco. As soon as the Charter had been signed, there was an immediate general reaction to the fact that the vote of a single State could void the contrary wishes of all the other States, Members of the United Nations.
The so-called abuse of the veto had excited even greater opposition to the rule of unanimity among the permanent members of the Security Council. The urgent need for revision of the Charter had even been envisaged, but the revision would not be feasible without the affirmative vote of the five permanent members, who possessed the right of veto and could even veto any proposed revision. Eloquent though they might be, speeches against the veto were completely powerless, faced by the situation which had been established by the Charter at San Francisco. Judging from the repeated declarations which had been made concerning that matter, it would seem that not one of the five great Powers was disposed, at present, to renounce the power of the veto.
Therefore, the representative of Ecuador expressed the view that the advisable and practical thing to do would be to study the possibility of obtaining a limitation in the use of the veto on the part of the five great Powers themselves, a regulating action of a technical nature, which would serve effectively to ensure that the veto, in accordance with the spirit of the Charter, should be used only as the last and supreme resort, in cases of extreme gravity.
The technical study of the matter carried out by the Interim Committee was the first concrete step realized up to the present time, and it merited the wholehearted attention of the General Assembly and the Security Council. The same could also be said with respect to the studies carried out by the Interim Committee on the methods of pacific settlement of international disputes.
According to Article 2 of the Charter, the Members of the United Nations were obliged to settle their international disputes by peaceful means; those means, according to Article 33, were principally, mediation, conciliation, arbitration, judicial settlement and resort to regional agencies.
Once the principal peaceful methods were determined in the Charter, it was necessary to establish the general procedures to be used in the application of the measures and methods recommended in the Charter. The work done by the Interim Committee on the basis of the draft proposals presented by the representatives of Lebanon (A/AC. 18/15), Dominican Republic (A/AC. 18/30), Belgium (A/AC. 18/18), United Kingdom (A/AC. 18/39), China and United States of America (A/AC. 18/24), Canada (A/AC. 18/49) and Ecuador (A/AG. 18/63) constituted already a very useful basis either for resolutions which the General Assembly could adopt or for a subsequent consideration of a complete code governing the peaceful solution of international conflicts among Members of the United Nations.
On the other hand, the preparatory studies carried out by the Interim Committee, duly examined by the General Assembly, would constitute a standard for the interpretation and development of the Charter, which, though a juridical instrument worthy of respect, was neither perfect nor unalterable. The Charter represented a serious effort in international organization and conciliation, but it did not represent the ultimate point of that which was desirable. On the contrary, it was a point of departure, leading to subsequent developments which would continue to improve the functioning of the Organization.
In speaking of the accomplishments of the Interim Committee, the Ecuadorian representative regretted sincerely that that body would have lacked the co-operation of an important group of countries, among which was one of the permanent members of the Security Council. The collaboration of those countries would have contributed effectively in the improvement of the projects drawn up and in adding to the authority of the work accomplished.
In so far as the «resort to regional agencies or arrangements » was concerned, it was worthwhile to recall that the twenty-one American republics, which constituted the oldest and most advanced regional System in the world to date, had approved, among other important conventions at the Conference of Bogota, a charter and the American Treaty on Pacific Settlement (A/AC.18/72). Those acts deserved thorough study because they represented a magnificent effort, which combined a scrupulous desire to respect the provisions of the Charter with a full recognition of the juridical personality of the regional organism, which claimed to have established within its systems the most advanced principles of contemporary international structure.
Mr. Viteri-Lafronte expressed his delegation’s sincere hope that the spirit of cordiality and understanding similar to that with which the American republics had solved their regional problems might reign in the Assembly, a spirit of friendship such as that which those countries brought to the deliberations of the United Nations.