The basic and dominant theme of this general debate is the problem of Korea. The resolutions of the Security Council with regard to Korea, supported by fifty-three Member States of the United Nations, and the decision of various of those States to assist in the defence of the victim of aggression with their armed forces, in fulfilment of the Council’s resolution, form the first example of coherent and organized military action designed to repress the crime of aggression in the field of international relations. While Uruguay has no direct interest in the region in which the attack occurred, its main preoccupation, which is quite understandable in the case of small States, is the clear and definite establishment of the precedent that violence should not be employed in the solution of international problems; that the law of the strongest should not be used to settle differences but, on the contrary, that the principles of the United Nations Charter and the precepts of international law should regulate the conduct of peoples, the aims of governments and the relations between States. On that account, Uruguay has been one of the first countries to express its full and complete adherence to the historic resolutions of the Council and on that account also it offered, to the extent of its material potentialities, its contribution to this common fight in the interests of all, the main burden of which is today borne by the United States.
80. I pause here to express my people’s admiration and to pay homage to the youth of that great nation, a standard-bearer in the cause of justice and right. This international police action which, fortunately with growing success, is being carried out by the United Nations in Korea, is based on a recommendation of the Security Council and therefore depends fundamentally on the voluntary co-operation of Members prepared to prevent that criminal act from being carried out with impunity.
81. It is worthwhile remembering that the system of the League of Nations depended on a similar theory. But the tragic failure of that body which, in similar circumstances, never succeeded in carrying out an action such as that which has now been begun in Korea, was due to the fact that at that time it was erroneous to believe that aggression would provoke a unanimous reaction against its author on the part of those who were not directly affected by it. That, which was an error in Geneva, is today correct, and events in Korea have so proved it.
82. International aggression today provokes the same reaction, even on the part of those who are not directly affected by its immediate results. A true understanding of their interest leads each Member of the United Nations and of each free State in the international community, to oppose aggression, in whatever shape or guise, whatever the victim, and in whatever part of the world it occurs.
83. The indivisibility of peace may be the synthesis of the extraordinary and perhaps unprecedented moral and material defensive solidarity uniting the free world, which feels itself equally exposed on all flanks to the pressure of the obscure forces attempting to dominate it.
84. Collective responsibility against international aggression, moreover, finds an invincible shield in the active practice of effective democracy, as proclaimed by the Charter of the Organization of American States. Where democratic principles prevail, the force of aggression meets with immediate defeat.
85. With respect to this problem of aggression which, notwithstanding the passage of time, still continues to threaten the security of peaceful and hard-working peoples, my delegation believes that it is necessary to invoke a legal concept in order to determine who is the aggressor. If one of the fundamental rules of the Charter is the renunciation of the use of force in international relations, and, no less important, the obligation to bring about by peaceful means the settlement of all international disputes which might lead to a breach of the peace, then logically the country which refuses to admit any of the means for the peaceful settlement of disputes must be considered the aggressor.
86. Not long ago, Sir Carl Berendsen told us [280th meeting] that the Council’s effective action in the case of Korea occurred by accident. That is apparently true; but the accident only eliminated the obstacle. What is important is that there existed, and continues to exist, the extraordinary positive force which is that moral and material solidarity of the vast majority of the peoples and governments of the United Nations.
87. It is our Organization which must direct that joint aim, that defensive solidarity, transforming it into effective collective measures for the suppression of aggression, as Article 1, paragraph 1 of the Charter states. In so far as that essential basis exists on a scale unprecedented in the history of international relations, a simple recommendation is sufficient to begin the realization of that aim and to transform unity of thought into effective unity of action. Thus, if the Council is prevented from doing so, it may quite well be the supreme organ of the United Nations — this General Assembly — which, by means of its powers of discussion and recommendation, transforms that solidarity against aggression into armed punishment of international crime.
88. In his time Pascal said with bitterness that since man had not fortified justice, he had justified force. The action of the United Nations in Korea is the first step towards the fortification of justice rather than the justification of force.
89. I should like to refer briefly to other essential points of our programme on which the position of our country should now be made clear. At this time our Government repeats its firm intention to co-operate in the establishment and maintenance of an international force to serve the United Nations in preserving peace and resisting aggression. As far bade as the Second Peace Conference in The Hague in 1907, the Uruguayan delegation, through the honoured words of Mr. Batlley Ordoñez, maintained that if so many alliances had been concluded in the interests of arbitrary rule and war, an alliance to defend justice and peace could very well be signed.
90. In its vote on the problem of Chinese representation, the Uruguayan delegation has been guided and will continue to be guided by its traditional policy concerning the recognition of governments. A new government must meet three requirements in order to gain recognition: it must exercise effective authority, be willing to fulfil its international obligations, and be established in accordance with international law. The current agenda of the General Assembly contains the accusation that the regime of the People’s Republic of China relied for its establishment on effective aid from a foreign government, that is to say, that it was established in a manner contrary to international law.
91. So long as this charge is pending, our Government will be unable to recognize the Chinese communist regime and therefore to vote in favour of its admission to the United Nations. We have not said “no” to the Chinese government at Peiping; we have said “no” for the time being or better still we have said “not yet”.
92. Our delegation supported and will continue to support the system of international control of atomic energy prepared by the Atomic Energy Commission and approved by General Assembly resolution 191 (III) in 1948, as the essential basis for the prohibition of this weapon of mass destruction, with confidence and assurance that no state will be able to manufacture it or use it secretly. In this matter it would be improper to run any risks whatever. The first blow might be decisive. In one of his classic anecdotes, Lincoln told the story of a newspaperman who interviewed a condemned man to find out his feelings before going to the gallows. The reply was: “I think this will teach me a lesson”. The free world cannot run the risk of this type of posthumous lesson.
93. With regard to the responsibility for and promotion of human rights, our country will take part in the discussion of the draft international covenant on human rights in order to defend the broadest and most effective systems of juridical protection. This does not prejudice the fact that Uruguay believes that, by virtue of the Charter, Member States have already undertaken the positive juridical obligation to promote respect for and exercise of those rights within their borders.
94. Our delegation regrets that it is unable to concur in the recent advisory opinion of the International Court of Justice in the matter of the Treaties of Peace with Hungary, Romania and Bulgaria.
95. The results of that opinion might be that the vast majority of treaties of arbitration which are now in force would become optional in character. Our Government, a firm advocate of arbitration, through historical tradition and through its constitutional precepts, believes that any State which has assumed the obligation of submitting its controversies to this method of peaceful settlement cannot evade the fulfilment of such obligations by resorting to the simple expedient of refusing to carry out the instrumental actions which are necessary to implement the principal obligation. Anyone who has committed himself to a certain policy is thereby committed to the accessory actions required to implement that policy.
96. Nevertheless, because of higher principles, our delegation considers that the opinion of the Court should be respected in this case. The prestige of this supreme judicial institution must be placed above any accidental difference that may arise with regard to any of its decisions.
97. In the field of technical assistance for the economic development of under-developed countries, Uruguay took an active part in the preparation of the programme which was adopted by General Assembly resolution 304 (IV) in 1949 and has recently offered a contribution of $US100,000 to be invested in the first part of that programme. Thus, it has placed at the service of the United Nations the experience and the services of its experts, its institutions and teaching centres in those fields in which the achievements of Uruguay might perhaps be of use to nations now facing similar problems.
98. Despite the seriousness of the moment, the present situation inspires confidence in the future.
99. A great Uruguayan jurist, Mr. Irureta Goyena, said: “Aggression becomes more concentrated as it becomes more rare; it progresses from the individual to the family, from the family to the city, from the city to the State. We see it retreating along the infinite road of history. The State is the last bulwark of aggression. If it could be defeated in its last refuge, justice would take Its place and the atavistic suggestion of the cave man would disappear forever. And why not? If any sociological principle has any sense, that principle is the sense of history. If family justice has replaced individual justice, if the justice of the city has replaced family justice, if the justice of the State has replaced the justice of the city, why should not the justice of the world community of States replace the justice of the State?”