It is a great pleasure for us to be meeting in this capital of France, the country of generous hospitality, brilliant culture, noble and majestic monuments and the country which, for all Latin delegations, has the incomparable merit that through its ideas the light of Mediterranean civilization has radiated through time and space. I pray that France may be able to continue its mission to mankind in peace and that neither the people nor the shrines of France may ever again face the threat of destruction.
2. The function which is the true raison d’être of the United Nations is the preservation of peace. We might well reduce the agenda of this sixth session to the single but all-important item: ensuring world peace. For if our efforts result in a step forward in that direction they will be amply justified. Mankind, having endured in one generation enough suffering to suffice for centuries, and being now threatened by a new flood of barbarism, only looks to us to achieve peace.
3. To accomplish this purpose, a number of proposals are being put forward, such as limitation of armaments, collective security measures and the improvement of the standard of living of all peoples. I should like to explain my delegation’s views on these important subjects.
4. It is obvious that the limitation of armaments reduces the chances of war. When the nations in their armaments race reach their peak effort they are exposed to a temptation to use in actual war the resources marshalled for the purpose of preventing it, as the only possible way of putting an end to continuous privation and of substituting for permanent fear and sacrifice what they believe will be a tragedy of short duration. That is the real source of the danger of the competition in means of destruction. Colombia is in favour of any action or proposals for the limitation and control of armaments.
5. Mr. Acheson has made a concrete suggestion for the limitation of armaments [A/1943], To reject it out of hand and to consign it with scorn to the waste-paper-basket is obviously neither an act of practical common sense nor a manifestation of good faith.
6. My delegation also thinks that agreements should not be limited to the control of new weapons such as the atomic bomb or chemical or biological means of warfare, but should cover armaments generally. It is true that nuclear fission and bacterial warfare are more effective and far-reaching methods of destroying human life, but the basic fact remains that ordinary explosives can and do achieve the same fatal purpose.
7. My country’s attitude in these matters is, of course, that of a small nation with no military power, prepared to give moral support to the work of limitation and control, but incapable of exercising any material influence on limitation.
8. With respect to collective security measures, my delegation is of the opinion that they are the essential feature of the United Nations. If their adoption were not possible, this Assembly would be nothing but a literary academy whose praiseworthy purposes would be quite without any real influence on human destiny. This is clear from the unhappy fate of the League of Nations. Ideas are very powerful and can penetrate far. In time, the idea prevails. But where political realities are concerned, facts are more directly decisive. To leave the United Nations without the weapons enabling it to intervene effectively and decisively at times of crisis, would only add one more to the many disappointments which the world has suffered in its unavailing search for peace.
9. Colombia is anxious to co-operate actively in a policy likely to ensure to the United Nations prompt, effective and genuine means of action. Not only that, my country has, as far as it is able, participated, and continues to participate, in the collective effort to restore peace in Korea. Colombian blood has been freely mingled with that of the champions of freedom, and my country’s respect for international agreements, accepted in good faith, has always been true and indisputable.
10. My delegation is of the opinion that, in order to obtain sound practical results in the organization of collective security measures, it is surely desirable that such measures should be negotiated within the framework of regional agencies, allowance being made for the true capabilities of each country. Owing to the similarity of problems, geographical proximity and the hopes and dangers common to nations bound together by real ties, regional agencies are bodies with an intrinsic reason for existence, fit to be the first links in the chain of the universal defence system.
11. Clearly, the small countries cannot take the decision for peace or war at the crucial moments. Interests, concepts and responsibilities of a magnitude far beyond our command must finally turn the balance, but once it is turned, the small countries must inevitably suffer the consequences. That is one obvious reason why they should be given a particularly careful hearing and if the problem is to be considered impartially, the opinions of the small countries should receive most attention because it is precisely their lack of world power which enables them to be impartial.
12. In the western hemisphere our experience with the Organization of American States has shown us that regional associations are conducive to agreement and of proved efficiency as peace organizations. In America, the Organization of American States has succeeded in substituting good faith for distrust, and true friendship for suspicion.
13. The fact that better standards of life for the peoples and improvement in the general condition of underdeveloped countries are major factors in attaining world peace has been repeated ad nauseam. This is true enough, always provided that a general war does not destroy even the possibilities of improvement. It is obvious that peoples suffering from ignorance and want fall an easy prey to war and thus constitute a permanent reserve of explosive material. It is a matter of the utmost urgency to raise them to the status of truly human dignity. On this subject I venture to make two comments.
14. First, a limitation of armaments would be the best contribution to the development of under-developed countries; secondly, as Mr. Acheson has rightly said, the possibilities of improving the lot of mankind are very great and, in many cases no very revolutionary techniques need to be applied.
15. The first of these statements is self-evident. If a minute part of the vast sums now being spent on death dealing devices were applied to the effective promotion of human advancement, the means of life would be unbelievably multiplied. With the money spent on the equipment of a modem division, which becomes obsolete after a few years, Colombia’s fundamental transport problems could be solved. Hospitals could be provided for a whole region with what it costs to build a battle cruiser. The equivalent of the cost of a heavy bomber would endow a university; and, to follow Mr. Acheson’s line of thought, we reflect upon the millions of metal ploughs and sacks of seed that could make land productive and so assuage the hunger of the peoples, if the enormous technical and industrial capacity of our century were turned to constructive uses instead of to the preparation and consummation of a catastrophe.
16. I do not subscribe to the materialist philosophy that holds world wars inevitable and regards them with the icy detachment of the geologist surveying a delta. I still believe in the practical possibility of action by men of goodwill, and I am one of them. If we were not convinced of the possibility of peace-making action, this Assembly would fee a deplorable farce. We must, therefore, work for a system of international relations in which peoples can live together and man’s efforts may be directed to constructive ends.
17. The work of civilizing the world, which means nothing other than raising the general standards of life of the peoples, is not a Herculean task beyond the bounds of practical possibility, but a mission relatively easy of fulfilment and, in any event, less formidable than the tremendous sacrifice demanded by warlike preparations. Technical assistance is already, by itself, producing positive results, as has been witnessed in Colombia, where experts if the International Bank for Reconstruction and Development and of the United Nations, in close and cordial collaboration with the competent national circles, have effectively contributed not only to the preparation of a reasonable and feasible programme but also to facilitating its early execution.
18. I should now like to digress for a moment and turn to a matter with which my country is also concerned. Colombia would like to see the doors of the United Nations thrown open to admit Italy, and, in fact, all those nations which, like Spain, are truly desirous of acting in accordance with the fundamental principles of the Charter: “...to save succeeding generations from the scourge of war..., to reaffirm faith in fundamental human rights..., to establish conditions under which justice... can be maintained..., to promote social progress and better standards of life..., to practice tolerance and live together in peace with one another as good neighbours..., to unite our strength to maintain... peace In a world so desirous of applying the rule of law for settling disputes, a nation would surely be welcomed which centuries ago laid the legal foundations for human relationships so soundly that they are still the source of half the laws of mankind.
19. Our agenda speaks of methods which might be used to maintain and strengthen peace. That, I repeat, is the fundamental task of the United Nations, the only one that justifies its existence, the task for which it was created and on which its future depends. Limitation of armaments, the fight against hunger, ignorance and poverty, collective security measures, friendly mediation between peoples — all such action must be tried and applied for the achievement of that vital objective. But all these efforts will be unavailing unless there is the will to peace. A world war to prevent another war gives a moral purpose to the awful holocaust but does not make it less calamitous. Destruction remains destruction, the abyss continues to be an abyss, and culture and civilization will suffer untold damage, whatever the reasons for the disaster. In the final analysis, peace or war will depend on the conscious will of the few, the very few men who, by virtue of their position in the world, bear the tremendous responsibility of deciding. If it is their will, we shall have peace; if it is not, we shall have war and any measures we might devise to prevent it will be as naught in the face of the crushing reality of events.
20. There is still time for the great leaders of mankind to pause and reflect. Positions cannot be regarded as irreconcilable so long as the desire for conciliation exists. The fact that proposals have been made makes it clear and indisputable that there is material for study and room for negotiation. In the normal course of events, a war ends by the conclusion of a peace treaty. Would it not be more wise and less fatal to conclude the treaty without waging the war?
21. But there is more to it than that. The whole world desires peace and the war with which it is threatened will bear little resemblance to former wars. Its political consequences can so outstrip military possibilities that the only possible outcome would be world chaos. It is to avoid such a situation that the peoples of the world have been summoned to Paris.