1. Madam President, first of all I should like to extend to you my heartiest congratulations for the unanimity of choice which singled you to preside over the
proceedings of the twenty fourth session of the General Assembly of the United Nations.
2. That inspired choice was made in recognition of your great personal and professional qualifications, as well as in testimony of appreciation and admiration for
your country, placed, since its founding, under the aegis of liberty. Your election as President is, moreover, a tribute to the African nations which so often in
this forum have joined the Latin American delegations in defence of the principles of United Nations Charter, in affirmation of the freedom of man, and in
furtherance of the great causes of economic development and social progress. Let us express our earnest hope that this General Assembly, under your guidance, will
represent a step ahead towards freedom, justice and the sovereign equality of all nations.
3. After extending our good wishes to you, my delegation cannot fail to render tribute to the memory of Emilio Arenales, who presided over the work of the General
Assembly at its twenty-third session with unquestioned political and diplomatic leadership, under circumstances which exacted from him the greatest personal sacrifice.
To the delegation of the sister Republic of Guatemala we are moved to express our deep sorrow at his early demise, which has deprived Latin America of a most effective
spokesman and of one of our greatest statesmen.
4. At the same time, allow me to recall a colleague who for twenty-three years placed his wisdom at the service of this Organization, in the cause of law. The delegation
of Brazil mourns his loss; and here today, among friends to whom he was deeply attached, the outstanding personality of Gilberto Amado is very vivid in my mind.
5. I should also like to acknowledge with deep appreciation the honour shown my country in the election of a member of my delegation to the chairmanship of one of the
Main Committees of the General Assembly.
6. When each year, on the third Tuesday of September, we gather here in order to resume our great dialogue, it is the custom, and a most opportune one, to look
around us in order to ascertain whether we are moving towards peace or towards war. In doing so, on this occasion, we are forced to conclude that we are not living
in a time of peace, for we still see the use of force in the settlement of controversies. Instead of building a world of solid peace and lasting security, we have
to content ourselves with cease-fire agreements, truces and armistices.
7. We are going through what is a clear and avowed cycle of power politics, which expresses itself not only in military force, but also through a whole range of
pressures — political, economic, financial, commercial and technological. This regrettable trend towards unilateral resort to force has severely put to test the
principles contained in Article 2 of the United Nations Charter, which has been covertly or overtly disrespected.
8. Notwithstanding progress in certain areas and a combined effort to reach understanding, which, for lack of a better name, we might call “agreements for survival“,
the confrontation between the two super-Powers had not yet given way to the desired phase of negotiation. The arms race continues, unimpeded, unchecked and more
foreboding than ever. The vertical proliferation of nuclear armaments tends to become more complex because of the development of more and more sophisticated weapons.
The destructive power of these weapons now encompasses the whole environment which sustains human life, and may even lead to the elimination of all animal and vegetable
life on our planet.
9. Meanwhile the term “disarmament“ is gradually being superseded in the lexicon of the great Powers by the concept of “arms control“. It is worthy of note that in
Geneva the Conference of the Committee on Disarmament seems to have virtually abandoned its attempts to negotiate a treaty for general and complete disarmament, the final
final objective assigned to it eight years ago by the General Assembly and by the very terms of the Zorin-Stevenson Agreement. It might be said that the matter has between
shelved as a utopian and unattainable objective The shift in emphasis from the concept of “disarmament” to that of “limitation of armaments” means a step backwards
politically far beyond the range and scope of a mere variation in semantics.
10. Also in regard to disarmament, there is another element we cannot ignore. I refer to the question of chemical and bacteriological weapons. One needs only to
peruse the conclusions of the report of the Secretary-General. It constitutes an impressive and sobering document, depicting a strange and irrational world, which goes
so far as to admit that the mobilization of germs, bacteria and viruses can be instrumental in handling frictions and dissensions among human beings.
11. It might not be inappropriate to recall in this connexion that, while a terrifying arsenal of weapons is continually being increased and refined, some scientists,
encouraged by Governments and international agencies, insist upon trying to dramatize the dangers of the population explosion, drawing alarming generalizations, without
regard for the specific situation of each country or region. It is my opinion that there is much more cause for alarm in a graver, more ominous problem — that of the
possibility of the disappearance of man from the face of the earth. Brazil is determined to resist any pressure directed against its demographic growth. As far as we
are concerned, life is entitled to take precedence over death.
12. Sometimes one cannot avoid the feeling that the United Nations, which will shortly celebrate its twenty-fifth anniversary, is being put aside, as though its
purposes and principles were cumbersome and its machinery and procedures inadequate.
13. There is a loss of confidence in the organized action of the international community and an abusive and unwarranted return to unilateral action, to intervention,
open or disguised. Even more serious, there have been attempts to justify some interventions by the invocation of concepts the United Nations. There is no way to
dismiss what happened in Czechoslovakia last year. In truth, if there were many who deplored and denounced the invasion and occupation of that country, there were few
— and these not necessarily the most powerful—-who impugned the barbarous and uncouth doctrine of limited sovereignty on which the act of aggression was based. It is
as if an attempt were being made to return to the situation which existed prior to the founding of this Organization, in conditions still less favourable to peace and
security, since there is a rejection of the traditional principles of international law, arising from the sovereignty and equality of States.
14. Our agenda is comprehensive and covers a large number of questions, but in vain would we seek to discover in it any reference to some of the more serious problem
which weigh heavily upon us. There even seems to prevail a curious tacit understanding to the effect that a debate in the United Nations on a given matter could
poison the atmosphere e to such a point that the question would thus become insoluble. It is difficult for us to accept this concept, lest we condemn the United Nations
to silence, inaction and impotence.
15. The same distrust concerning an open and frank debate seems to motivate the tendency, which my delegation deplores, to deal with certain questions in narrow and
ever-dwindling circles. Quite often, without any plausible reason being adduced, a transfer of forum has been favoured from a General Assembly of one hundred and
twenty-six Members to a Security Council of only fifteen, on the argument that it would be unrealistic to try to reach or even undertake a solution of a matter in
a body so broad in scope and so numerous in membership. Once on the Council level, the idea is advanced that it might perhaps be more practical and more convenient
to avoid discussion by a body consisting of fifteen members, which at this juncture likewise appears to be cumbersome. So we fall back on the five permanent members;
and, in a very short lapse of time, the five are reduced to four. Then the idea prevails that, in the final analysis, after duly weighing and measuring the realities
of power, it might be more advisable, more realistic, to set the matter aside in order to leave it to the discretion of the super-Powers, as if a new world directorate
had already been established. This is exactly what has happened in the case of the Middle East, and of other world problems as well, such as disarmament and the
non-proliferation of nuclear weapons. Such a final stage of negotiation actually has little or nothing to do with the United Nations. It seems to be inspired, in fact,
by notions of spheres of influence and of balance of power which, in themselves, are the very rejection of the principles and purposes of our Charter.
16. Formerly, the argument went that the United Nations, while in a position to play a part in solving conflicts between small nations, could net interfere effectively
in conflicts involving any of the major Powers. Now the theory seems to have been polished up so as to extend it to conflicts between small countries as well since,
it would seem, such conflicts always involve the interests of the major Powers, it is an extremely dangerous delusion to attempt to draw a sharp dividing line
between “big conflicts” and “small conflicts”. In a world continually drawn between the opposing forces of policentrism and bipolarization, the so-called small
conflicts tend to insert themselves into the context of larger and more complex ones affecting the whole international community. The Brazilian delegation called
the attention of the Security Council to this point when we emphasized some time ago in that forum that the problem of the Middle East, difficult enough to settle
on its own terms, could become downright impossible to solve if allowed to move in the direction it is
even now taking, of becoming one more chapter in the long history of confrontations between the great Powers.
17. If we cease to apply the Charter and if we no longer avail ourselves of the Organization to deal with the larger world problems, with the questions of peace and war,
disarmament and collective security, we shall end up with either a useless Charter or a pointless Organization, or both, incapable of settling any conflicts whatsoever.
Furthermore, if we abandon the principles of the United Nations and procedures through which it acts, both of which are the very raison d'étre of this Organization, then
we shall end by drawing the logical conclusion that dialogue even between two parties, is futile and that international negotiation has become purposeless.
18. Here we feel bound to stress a point: no one can have any reasonable or valid objection to the super-Powers continuing their attempts to bring about a harmonization
of their interests and responsibilities. The hopes for peace in the world rest on the assumption of a détente in the antagonism and rivalry between the two super-Powers.
19. Many times, in different forums, Brazil had insisted upon the need for a permanent understanding between the United States and the USSR in order to lay the groundwork
for nuclear disarmament, or at least for a diplomatic process that would lessen the risks involved in the vertical proliferation of nuclear weapons. And, more than once in
the debates held in the Security Council on the question of the Middle East, Brazil had the opportunity of stressing and emphasizing the special responsibilities of the major
Powers, to which we have addressed an appeal — which has so far been ignored and unheeded — for a reduction or balance in the supply of armaments and war material to the
parties in the dispute. In all these matters, agreement between the super-Powers is of the essence.
20. But such an agreement can contribute to a true and lasting peace and to the progress of mankind only if fully consistent with the principles and purposes of the Charter
of the United Nations, which means that due attention should be paid to the legitimate rights and aspirations of the non-nuclear, non-developed countries. Unfortunately,
we could allude to some questions in respect of which this has not occurred.
21. We could mention, for instance, the bilateral talks which led to the conclusion of the Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons [resolution 2373 (XXII)].
We could mention the fact that at the twenty-third session of the General Assembly the nuclear Powers opposed the establishment of an ad hoc committee to co-ordinate
the implementation of the results and conclusions of the Conference of Non-Nuclear-Weapon States, held in Geneva from 29 August to 28 September 1968. We could also
mention the fact that the super-Powers could not set a deadline for the resumption of the talks in the United Nations Disarmament Commission in order to consider,
inter alia, the question of co-operation of States in the non-proliferation of nuclear weapons and the peaceful uses of nuclear energy, two inseparable aspects of
the same fundamental problem. In this case, however, since the arguments then put forth have lost much of their validity and cogency, we are hopeful that the question may
now receive adequate and constructive consideration.
22. Before leaving the question of disarmament, I wish to point out that this might be the appropriate opportunity to refer to the decision taken by the two
co-Chairmen of the Geneva Conference of the Committee on Disarmament to enlarge its membership. We do not wish to question the legality of the decision, nor have
we any objection to the choice of the new members. On the contrary, we are gratified by the admission of the eight new members, including another Latin-American
country, Argentina, which I am sure will be a valuable addition to the Committee. We do hold, however, that the procedure followed by the co-Chairmen was politically
ill-advised, since the normal method would have been to bring the matter to the attention of the General Assembly as it was the Assembly which endorsed the
Zorin-Stevenson Agreement and which, since 1961, has annually assigned specific terms of reference to the Eighteen-Nation Committee on
Disarmament.
23. On another important matter, the attitude of the major Powers would not appear to take into account the most legitimate aspirations of the international community.
I am referring to the problem of the peaceful uses of the sea-bed and the ocean floor. As far as the developing countries are concerned, this area constitutes the
common heritage of mankind and, as such, cannot be the object of claims of sovereignty or of appropriation. It must be regulated and administered by the members of the
international community, which should be entitled to share in the benefits obtained from the exploration and exploitation of the resources of the sea-bed.
24. It is equally indispensable that the sea-bed and the ocean floor be reserved exclusively for peaceful purposes, preventing an arms race from developing in the
area to the prejudice not only of the exploitation of the sea-bed resources but also of the traditional activities on the high seas, such as navigation and fishing.
It is difficult to accept the position taken by the great Powers, or by the technologically advanced countries, in favour of a laissez-faire régime of unqualified
and indiscriminate freedom. Such a régime would be potentially anarchic and dangerous and would result, above all, in widening the gap which already prevails between
those who possess an advanced technology and those who are striving to develop one: We should then see a small number of nations with full access to the riches of
the marine environment, enjoying all its advantages, while the majority of nations would helplessly witness the utilization, by that privileged minority, of resources
which belong to all.
25. All these positions add up to an open rejection of the commitments undertaken in other organs of the United Nations, and the over-all philosophy of our Organization,
aimed at narrowing down the economic disparities among nations. Let us hope that an objective examination of the problem will bring about fair and reasonable solutions.
26. I have just referred to economic disparities: no examination of the present world scene could fail to include those questions which refer to economic development and one
of the means of achieving it — international trade.
27. The balance of the last decade — the United Nations Development Decade — is conclusive: the relative underdevelopment of the developing countries has clearly increased.
And it is against this sobering background that the programme for the next Development Decade will have to be examined, making full use of the lessons we have learned
from our experience in the last ten years. If we really wish to do so, this is the way to avoid incurring the same mistakes. The errors of the past are linked to some facts
which it might be pertinent to recall.
28. As a matter of fact, we have roughly three quarters of mankind simultaneously attempting to accelerate their development. To a large extent this effort is an internal
one, and finds expression in an increase in production and in a reduction in consumption so as to liberate resources for investment. However, a substantial portion of the resources
created and not consumed are channeled to the developed countries — a quarter of mankind — to serve as payment for goods essential to the development process. When primary
goods are involved in the transaction, there is a constant deterioration in the terms of trade of the underdeveloped countries; when the export of industrial goods is involved,
quantitative restrictions have been established, in a more or less disguised fashion, so that the end result prevents the essential rise in value of the exports of the underdeveloped
countries.
29. Efforts by the developing countries to improve the commercial rules of the game have been frustrated by the lack of understanding on the part of the developed
countries. Under present conditions, a good part of the exports of the underdeveloped countries are dashed against the barrier raised by import quotas, or have a
part of their value transferred to the developed countries, in the form of unfair prices.
30. If this state of affairs is allowed to prevail, development can expect little from external incentives and will have to turn inwards. Some countries will have to
resort to a policy of full employment and protectionism, others will have to do the same by way of regional arrangements, likely to secure them adequate economic dimensions.
But then we shall have to conclude that international co-operation in this field makes no practical sense, and its usefulness is a fallacy.
31. It is indispensable that plans for the Second United Nations Development Decade should be conditioned to the need for accelerating development by having the
underdeveloped countries use their own resources; they should foresee the maximum of assistance compatible with the balance of payment of the recipients and above
all, the restrictions imposed on exports from developing countries must be reduced to a minimum. It is pointless to attempt development with resources that simply
do not exist. The goals must be realistic and attainable by procedures linked to the social, political and economic realities of the developing nations.
32. Economic domination and technological monopoly are not conducive to peace and the same should be said of the balance of arms. What we seek is the participation
of all the members of the international community in peace, progress and development.
33. A joint participation in which all voices can make themselves heard is just as necessary in connexion with problems such as that of the Middle East. Security Council
resolution 242 (1967) in our view still provides us with the best basis for a constructive and enduring political settlement. It is regrettable that more effective action
on the part of the Security Council has been thwarted by the fact that its individual members, including the permanent ones, each give a different interpretation to
a text which was unanimously adopted. We urge a renewed effort to achieve in interpretation the same unanimity accorded the enunciation of principles. It is urgent
that a permanent political solution should be arrived at, lest we move inexorably into a new cycle of “open warfare”, to quote the expression used by Secretary-General, U Thant.
Brazil continues to place great hopes in the mission entrusted to Ambassador Gunnar Jarring and appeals once again to the parties directly involved not to permit
isolated incidents, condemnable as they may be, to aggravate a situation which is already pregnant with danger.
34, As one of the largest Catholic communities in the world, Brazil attaches particular importance to the question of the Holy Places. We continue to maintain the necessity
of implementing Security Council resolution 267 (1969), unanimously adopted on 3 July 1969, and we cannot remain indifferent to the measures, unilaterally adopted, which aim
at altering the status of the City of Jerusalem.
35. The basic concept of the United Nations is a primary concern with the condition of man and with social progress. The premise of our activities, the central idea
of our efforts in all fields, the reasoning behind the decisions we take, is the desire for justice, freedom, social welfare and the betterment of all peoples.
On several occasions we have explicitly reaffirmed this concept, and we have adopted many declarations, conventions and resolutions to implement it. However, we
must recognize that the progress made in certain areas, such as the affirmation of the rights of women, the protection of the rights of children and the eradication of
slavery, have not found their counterpart in efforts to meet the insolent challenge of the odious practice of racial discrimination.
36. Brazil — a country in which inequality and hatred between races are unknown — would not be true to itself if it were not always in the forefront of the fight against
discrimination. As the spokesman of a people who have equal respect for all others, the Brazilian Government cannot fail to fight, wherever the opportunity arises, the
policies and practices of discrimination which lead to apartheid, the object of our formal condemnation and abhorrence.
37. As we gather here today we have before us the prospect of the tenth anniversary of the Declaration of the Granting of Independence to Colonial Countries and Peoples.
As we look around this chamber, we can see how great has been the contribution of the United Nations to building a new world. Offsetting the undeniable difficulties
faced by this Organization, and lightening the pessimism induced in us by the prevalence of power politics, we have the reassuring reality of the presence at our debates
of some fifty States awakened to sovereign life since the creation of the United Nations, in many cases with the encouragement and support of our Organization. The
contribution we have made to the process of decolonization will be inscribed with special distinction, among our more positive achievements. I am particularly pleased
to point out the consistent participation of Brazil in all the diplomatic and parliamentary phases of the moral and political action of the United Nations on behalf of
the self-determination of peoples. The valuable contribution the new States—African, Asian and American — have made to our work is proof of their political maturity and
of their noble purpose in the cause of peace and international co-operation.
38. A year from now we will celebrate the twenty-fifth anniversary of the United Nations, which will give us a good opportunity of taking stock of our achievements and
planning our future. The world of today, in which the boldness of science and of the human spirit has carried man beyond the limits of our own planet, is very different
from the world of a quarter of a century ago. The Charter of the United Nations is a document of the year 1945. But the purposes and principles enshrined in it have not
lost their validity and continue to represent a clear expression of the ideals which should guide international life.
39. The sovereign equality of States, good faith in international relations, the use of peaceful means for the settlement of disputes, the abandonment of the use of
force, strict adherence to obligations arising from treaties and other international agreements, co-operation to maintain peace as well as to achieve economic, social
and cultural progress, non-discrimination, respect for the self-determination of peoples, non-intervention—these make an impressive programme, to which we can still
today give our most conscientious and firm support, as we did twenty-five years ago.
40. This continued adherence to basic principles does not prevent us from recognizing that it is possible to improve the structure and machinery of co-operation at our
disposal. As soon as possible, it would be well to revise our Charter so as to consolidate and reinforce the ideas crystallized over the last quarter of a century,
particularly in regard to defence against the new insidious forms of pressure and intervention, and co-operation on behalf of peace and the enunciation of a universal
obligation for solidarity in development.
41. The Charter is a document that signalled the close of a war. By revising it and adapting it to the needs of our times and, whatever happens, faithfully applying it,
it is incumbent upon us to make of it a document signalling the beginning of an enduring peace.