Mr. COSTA du RELS stated that the third session of the General Assembly of the United Nations had opened in an atmosphere of anxiety and uneasiness. Optimistic words had been spoken from the rostrum, but there had also been bitter and disappointing words, to the point where the representative of one of the great Powers that had done so much for the cause of peace and for thirty years had devoted itself to the task of averting catastrophes, had stated that his country was forced to interrupt its reconstruction in order to turn its energies to that gloomy industry: the manufacture of war material.
By a strange irony, the spirit of the men responsible for world destiny seemed to be in contradiction with the admirable capital of France where, for five centuries, everything had been based on the strictest rules of logic and reason.
Nevertheless, it was to be hoped that French genius, so strongly evident in the admirable city of Paris which offered free men the very image of their ideal, could reduce the confusion which was so evident in the discussions among the nations. When passions were ruling, it was important to heed the dictates of wisdom, common sense, equity and courtesy. Gould the Assembly succeed in creating such an atmosphere of understanding, of serenity and courtesy so that the peoples of the world might find wise solutions for their problems?
It had become commonplace to repeat that the United Nations, based on the principle of power, could not survive without full and absolute agreement among the permanent members of the Security Council. The United Nations had been established on the principle of power but it must also be said that an implacable fate seemed to pursue it. No sooner had victory been achieved and the enemy defeated than the Allies, who had been united against a common foe, had separated and broken their unity. The victors had to shoulder a heavy responsibility. Never before had the word «Now, translated endlessly into every language, resounded so often in international deliberations.
The veto, a double-edged sword forged by the Anglo-Saxons and unadvisedly unsheathed at Dumbarton Oaks and at San Francisco, was, by repeated blows, weakening the foundations of the Organization. It was not alone in the Security Council that the right of veto was exercised.” Unfortunately, it was used outside the Council as well. For instance, resolutions and recommendation of the General Assembly, voted legally, in accordance with the rules, adopted by a two-thirds or a simple majority, were declared null and void when they were contrary to the interests of a given nation. Such insistence on negation was either an indication of weakness or a clever manoeuvre to use the United Nations to protect selfish interests. If that were international collaboration, the only possible conclusion was that it was a sinister farce.
Faced with the failure of the Security Council, the Bolivian Government had accepted with sympathy from the very first moment the concept of a « Little Assembly» or Interim Committee. The Bolivian delegation had co-operated with that Committee from the very beginning, fully realizing that it was necessary to have such an organ to consider carefully the important problems arising between one session of the General Assembly and the next.
Furthermore, the work of the Interim Committee had been carried out in an atmosphere of courtesy and calm, which had been helpful in the reaching of wise decisions. Its conclusions had been voted unanimously in the majority of cases, signifying that opposing points of view had been brought together by reasonable compromise, which was the basis for a true spirit of international co-operation, Reaching a compromise was the only way to solve the difficulties arising in the work of the various organs of the United Nations.
The Bolivian delegation had proposed that the permanent delegations in New York should be granted legal diplomatic status, as in the case of the diplomatic corps accredited to Washington.
In addition the Bolivian delegation would also shortly submit a draft resolution requesting the Social Commission of the Economic and Social Council to establish a commission which would study the problem of backward races in Latin America.
Turning to the question of Palestine, Mr. Costa du Reis said that his country had been elected a member of the United Nations Palestine Commission whose task it was to implement the General Assembly resolution 181 (II) of 29 November 1947 concerning Palestine. Bolivia had accepted that task, which was neither agreeable nor easy, and had carried it out with complete objectivity within the framework of the instructions given by the Assembly. The Bolivian delegation had accepted that mandate because it considered that international cooperation was not merely gathering ephemeral honours at assemblies or protecting petty interests. International co-operation had the grandeur of being of use to humanity and the servitude of being often misunderstood.
Men such as Count Bernadotte had carried that concept of serving to the point of heroism. His sacrifice as well as that of Colonel Sérot did great honour to mankind.
Mr. Costa du Reis went on to say that the results of work done in the United Nations were not always very encouraging. He wondered if some day, on looking back, it was not found that the experience of the small Powers consisted only of the sum total of their disappointments. However, Bolivia’s faith remained undiminished. He recalled that, in 1942, despite the wall of silence and steel which Germany had set up between France and the rest of the world, he had the honour of receiving a letter from a great French thinker, who had since died, in which he said: «Our unhappy Europe is almost destroyed. You, the peoples of Latin America, must gather the torch which is falling from its hands. »
The Bolivian representative said that while he did not claim that the wishes of Paul Valéry had been fulfilled, it was nevertheless true that since that time all the peoples of Latin America had made an effort to reach a higher degree of understanding and co-operation within the framework of the Charter and regional agreements, upon which depended their security and their future prosperity.
The Bogota Conference had been both a test and a proof. Out of Bogota had emerged union, tested as in a furnace, in defence of an ideal continuously under threat.
The Latin origin of the American countries was the mainspring of their hopes and confidence in their future high destinies. He therefore fully associated himself with Mr. Schuman, the head of the French delegation, who had said at the 146th plenary meeting that the United Nations must be universal or cease to exist. That was why he regretted to note that the group of Latin countries, which had done so much for civilization for so long, had become weaker within the United Nations. The absence of Italy and Spain was therefore the more to be deplored.
Italy was waiting in the lobby. For political reasons, which did not call for further explanation, that great Latin country would not be permitted to take the seat due to it in the conclave of nations, unless the Assembly acceded to the somewhat subtle, but courageous and correct, arguments advanced by the representative of Argentina, who had pleaded that the Charter should be interpreted in the broadest, most liberal, most chivalrous manner in order to allow Italy, a great Latin nation, to enter the United Nations.
Mr. Costa du Rels might, under given circumstances, share the view of the head of the Belgian delegation that it might be possible to ask the International Court of Justice for an advisory opinion. But it was no longer possible to bar a great nation such as Italy from the United Nations for petty reasons repugnant to all good reason.
With regard to Spain, Bolivia was linked to that country by bonds of blood, language and faith; his country once again deplored the fact that Spain was not a Member of the United Nations. Despite the feelings of Bolivia in the matter, the Bolivian delegation had voted for the General Assembly resolution 39 (I) passed at Lake Success in 1946, which recommended that certain steps should be taken against Spain. Bolivia had fully implemented that resolution. Two years had passed since that resolution had been adopted, and Mr. Costa du Reis asked whether the measures contained in it had been effective. Had they not rather acted as an irritant? Had they not proved inappropriate? Under present world conditions, it might be asked whether they should be continued. He was aware that the Security Council had declared repeatedly that Spain was not a danger to world peace and security. Yet one of the most frequent arguments heard in the First Committee had been that Spain was in fact a threat to world peace.
But everyone would agree that Spain was not a threat to world peace. That threat, judging from what had been said in the Assembly, appeared to come from another quarter.
During the discussions at the congress of the Universal Postal Union in 1947, Mr. Costa du Reis had had the opportunity of opposing the view, dictated by political prejudice on the part of most delegations, that certain nations should be excluded from the United Nations specialized agencies. If necessary, he would repeat all the legal arguments he had used at that congress before the First Committee. In any case, he had received definite instructions from his Government to propose immediately that the General Assembly admit Spain, as well as Italy, to the specialized agencies of the United Nations and suspend the measures recommended in the Assembly resolution 89 (I) of 12 December 1946.
He asked the General Assembly to consider those suggestions, for the time for denunciation and measures of exclusion had passed. Formerly, political considerations had been predominant. The dominating argument should now be the need for peace; peace above all.
The terrible realities of war, which was the main topic of conversation in the humblest homes, everywhere loomed like a thundercloud over the world. Faced with that fear, an attempt must be made to rally the nations by an appeal to their courage in facing their responsibilities rather than to appeal to their fear of them.
A form of suicidal mania had led to war in 1989. It might be said that fear of war had led to war. The men of 1948, with their mind’s eye fixed upon the proud but grievous loss of their kin, should destroy that war psychosis. The spectre of the inevitability of war should be laid by resolution and co-operation.