It is generally agreed that this twelfth session of the General Assembly has been convened in circumstances less tense than have obtained in many a season, and certainly far less so than those which attended the preceding one. We can look back on the two great crises of Egypt and Hungary last year and candidly note that the United Nations, bespeaking the conscience of mankind, succeeded in resolving the first because the voice of that conscience was heeded, but failed to resolve the other because that same voice was scornfully disregarded.
2. As we begin the work of the present session, it is well to bear in mind two lessons that may be drawn from this experience. The first of these is that the General Assembly has indisputably become the supreme custodian of the principles of peace, justice and freedom in the world. The second is that the moral authority of the General Assembly is bound to gather strength as much from the negative actions of those that wilfully flout that authority as from the exemplary behaviour of those that sincerely respect it.
3. These developments augur well for the future of the United Nations. We are not among those who look with dismay on the growing ascendancy of the General Assembly. That ascendancy was inevitable from the moment it became clear that the Security Council, immobilized by the "cold war" and hamstrung by the veto, would default on its high responsibilities under the Charter. The powers of the Security Council, which are defined with precision and with an impressive panoply of form and procedure by the Charter, have not been successfully brought to bear on the grave conflicts that have lately arisen among nations. Inversely, the broad and diffuse powers of the General Assembly have acquired increasing force and definition, partly from the obvious need to fill the vacuum of authority, and partly from the conviction that in a divided world, and so long as the world is divided, we must accept the moral sanctions of the General Assembly as the only available substitute for the un enforceable political and military sanctions of the Security Council.
4. I believe we are entitled to note with satisfaction that, on the whole, the General Assembly has successfully met the ever-growing challenge to its responsibilities. As one who has participated in the work of the General Assembly since its inception, I would agree to the observation that the deliberations of this body appear to have undergone a certain mellowing. Some may attribute this to the fact that we all have grown somewhat tired of speeches, especially angry and vituperative speeches. But I would go further and say that most of us have become increasingly aware, in recent years, of the gravity of many of the issues that confront the world today, and have been sobered by the prospect of the mortal consequences of our failure. More and more, we are beginning to realize the need to use this body, not as a debating society or as a forum of propaganda, but as an instrument of conciliation, a veritable "centre for harmonizing the actions of nations in the attainment of ... common ends." The greatest and most imperative of these ends happens to be the survival of the human race.
5. In these days of peril for all mankind, who is there so reckless as to risk our common fate on an angry word, a haughty challenge or an implacable threat? Who is there so foolhardy as to gamble away our hope of survival on a witticism or a clever turn of phrase, on the winning of a debating point or the besting of an opponent? There may have been a time when these little triumphs could yield a certain excitement, like heady wine. But that time is no more. The time has come When we must listen carefully, think deeply, speak deliberately, and act with all possible moderation, eschewing the dubious satisfactions of a cunning argument or an effective stroke of propaganda in favour of the lasting benefit that would come to all men from every step, however modest, that is taken towards mutual understanding and the accommodation of conflicting or divergent interests.
6. The principal task of this Assembly is to help free mankind from the nightmarish fear of war.
7. The Philippine delegation represents a small country that cherishes its freedom and respects the freedom of others. We covet nothing that belongs to others, and we threaten no one. We entertain no ambitions of power or glory in the world. Our highest hope and our sole object in the international sphere is to unite our efforts with those of friendly countries and the United Nations in order to preserve the liberties and enhance the material and spiritual welfare of our people in circumstances of greater prosperity and larger freedom for all.
8. It is in this spirit that our delegation approaches the tasks of the General Assembly. It is in this spirit also that we shall try to indicate briefly our views on some of the principal questions before 's body.
9. We all agree that the prevention of a third world war is the principal task of the United Nations, and that disarmament is the necessary condition for the accomplishment of that task. Both the General Assembly and the Security Council have therefore given the highest priority to the question of disarmament and the regulation of armaments. I believe we can all agree that nobody wants to start an atomic war. The three great Powers possessing atomic and nuclear weapons certainly know that it would be sheer madness to do so. Yet, after years of discussion, no agreement on disarmament has been reached. The proposals and counter-proposals submitted to the Sub-Committee of the Disarmament Commission in London mid now presented to the Assembly show one thing clearly: the Powers have not been able to agree because mutual confidence is lacking and, specifically, because of the fear of a surprise attack.
10. It Is no discredit to the Powers to say that it is natural for them initially to submit proposals on disarmament which tend, to a lesser or greater degree, to afford themselves a certain advantage. It is in the nature of any negotiations on disarmament that they should do so. But it is precisely the function of such negotiations to reduce their differences and gradually to equalize the sacrifices and obligations as well as the benefits and guarantees accruing to all the Powers concerned.
11. The Foreign Minister of the Soviet Union told us the other day that the Governments of the Western Powers have the wrong approach to the question of disarmament because they are looking for the kind of disarmament agreement which would be advantageous to themselves and detrimental to the security of others. This is obviously untrue because, while the Western Powers would certainly prefer such a one-sided agreement if they could get it, they know better than to expect the alert negotiators of the Soviet Union to be thus so easily taken in. What is true, as I said a moment ago, is that both sides are bound -- indeed, they are expected — to advance initial proposals that afford them a certain advantage over the other. It will be recalled that the Soviet Government itself once proposed the withdrawal of Soviet and American troops to a distance of 500 miles east and west, respectively, of the Rhine, a proposal which would push American troops beyond the Atlantic coast, while the Red Army would retire to outposts within easy marching distance of Western Europe. The Soviet Government has also indicated that it would accept an agreement for inspection of Soviet Siberia in exchange for a reciprocal right covering United States territory west of the Mississippi. Now, such proposals are obviously advantageous to the Soviet Union and detrimental to the security of others. Yet they were not scornfully dismissed for that reason, but on the contrary formed the basis of counter-proposals by the Western Powers. However inequitable such proposals may appear, they serve a useful purpose in indicating acceptance of the need for military disengagement and mutual inspection as essential elements of an over-all agreement on disarmament.
12. The Soviet Government continues to advocate an agreement to renounce forthwith the use of atomic and hydrogen weapons in advance of an adequate control system over fissionable material and in advance of an agreement on the reduction of armed forces and supervision of stocks of armaments. But the position of the free world on tills question has been made clear and it rests on a candid appreciation of the actual situation. The free world must rely on these terrible weapons as its only defense against the Red Army, which, combined with the armies of the Warsaw Treaty countries and of Communist China, the free countries can never hope to equal. Soviet statesmen are well noted for their realism and they must surely understand that an agreement to outlaw atomic and hydrogen weapons would be of no value whatever in a situation where the free world would be compelled to use these weapons in order to repel an invasion by vastly superior enemy forces, even if such forces are armed only with conventional weapons. It should, therefore, be utterly clear to them that the free world would agree to relinquish these weapons only if such agreement were accompanied by an agreement to ensure, by means of an adequate control system, that fissionable material would never again be produced for weapons purposes, and by an agreement to reduce armed forces and to place existing stocks of armaments under international supervision.
13. From these considerations it is clear that the military posture of the free world is a purely defensive one. The existing military alliances like the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO), the South-East Asia Treaty (SEATO) and the Baghdad Pact are no more than manifestations of that defensive posture. Surely, no Soviet statesman really believes that these alliances would initiate an attack against a Power like the Soviet Union which possesses atomic and hydrogen weapons and now boasts that it has developed the means to deliver them to any point on the globe. Nor is it anything but ludicrous to suggest, for example, that tiny Luxembourg and little Denmark, along with Iraq and Iran, are plotting to attack the Soviet Union or that Thailand and the Philippines are planning to invade Communist China. All these weak and small countries have formed alliances with the Western Powers because they have been and continue to be menaced by Communist military power as well as by the subversive policies of international communism. I know that the Communist States are trying to allay our fears by assuring us that they are dedicated to the principles of peaceful coexistence and of respect for the political independence and territorial integrity of other States. But, only a few years ago, the Philippines nearly succumbed to communist subversion and rebellion, and hundreds of Philippine lives were sacrificed in the struggle. In our vicinity, we have seen what happened in Korea and Viet-Nam. Only the other day, the representative of the Federation of Malaya spoke to us from this rostrum, in a moving speech, of the sufferings and sacrifices endured by his people in their long struggle against the forces of militant communism. Is it suggested that all these are mere hallucinations and that we should heed the siren call of peaceful coexistence by renouncing the protection which the defensive alliances afford us?
14. It is no secret to the Soviet Government that these alliances have imposed onerous military and financial burdens upon all the Member countries — but especially upon the United States — of which their peoples are eager to be relieved. Nor is it a secret to the Soviet Government that these alliances, together with the military bases agreements that implement them, have become a source of no little irritation between the peoples and Governments of the countries belonging to these defensive arrangements. No country likes to have foreign troops indefinitely stationed in its territory, and this is true of all foreign troops, whether Soviet or American, But in the case of my country, as in that of all countries where foreign bases are located, we are under the imperious necessity of suffering the inconveniences and irritations as well as the risks of having such bases in our territory in exchange for security against the incomparably greater danger of communist subversion and attack.
15. Peaceful coexistence and the relaxation of tension are certainly desirable goals towards which we should bend our common efforts. But it is not enough to repeat these phrases day after day and year after year, as if those conditions would materialize by the sheer power of verbal incantation. The honest and reasonable thing to do is to accept the state of mutual distrust which exists between the great Powers as one of the harsh and bitter realities of our time, and to move forward doggedly, step by step, away from there.
16. Here, it seems to me, is the real difference between the Soviet and the Western approaches to the question of disarmament. The Soviet proposals appear to start from the premise that sufficient mutual confidence already exists between the great Powers to enable them to agree forthwith to prohibit the use of atomic and nuclear weapons. The Western proposals, on the other hand, start from the premise that progress towards disarmament and the regulation of armaments must be made step by step, each step to be taken as mutual confidence develops following the successful implementation of the preceding one.
17. Despite this divergence of approach there is evidence in the discussions of the Sub-Committee of the Disarmament Commission in London of the willingness of both sides continually to narrow down the differences between their actual proposals. Any move to adjourn the conversations indefinitely cannot possibly be in the interest of anyone.
18. In all fairness it can truly be said of both sides that they have made concessions to each other’s point of view in the course of their prolonged negotiations. It would be a grave disservice to mankind and to the United Nations to call off the conversations at a time when the possibility of agreement is brighter than it has been in many years. The General Assembly should therefore express its earnest desire to see the disarmament talks resumed at the earliest possible moment and urge the Powers concerned to re-examine the proposals with a view to further narrowing down their differences until an agreement -- even a limited initial agreement on a limited number of points — is reached.
19. A hardly less crucial problem of our time is the need to liquidate by peaceful means and as speedily as possible the remnants of colonialism in various parts of the world. In the twelve years since the United Nations was founded, this process of liquidation has progressed at a pace which no one could have anticipated. There are those who deplore this development as unwise or dangerous, representing a reversion to a species of nationalism leading to political and territorial fragmentation which has been outmoded by the powerful drifts towards international or even supranational modes of co-operation in the twentieth century. Those who advance this objection seem to forget that Europe itself provides historic proof of the fact that nationalism is a necessary weapon in the liberation of peoples from oppressive domination of one kind or another. If nationalism was necessary to ensure the freedom of the European peoples, it can hardly be less so in the case of the peoples that have come under their dominion.
20. But whether wise or dangerous, the speedy release of peoples from colonial rule is one of the stubborn facts of our time, History may well record this phenomenon as the principal distinguishing mark of the political biography of the twentieth century. You cannot wish this fact away, and you ignore it only at your peril.
21. It is unfortunately true that international communism has all too often subverted national freedom movements and taken them over for its own ends. But where this has happened, the colonial Powers have not been without blame. By condemning the native peoples to a life of ignorance and poverty, and by forcing them to take up arms in order to win their freedom, the colonial Powers have virtually opened the front gate to let the Communists in even before they themselves have had time to make a hurried exit through the back door. The disastrous consequences of a policy of refusing to recognize a people’s right to self-government and independence or of a policy of "too little and too late", are evident in the contrasting experiences of Viet-Nam and Malaya, as well as of Indonesia and the Philippines. Where the United Kingdom and the United States gained friends and allies, the other Powers not only lost their territories anyway but also missed the chance of retaining the loyal friendship of their peoples. Moreover, the experience of the Federation of Malaya and Viet-Nam conclusively proves that colonial peoples seeking their freedom will defend that freedom against communist interlopers, provided they are not driven to the extremity of accepting communist aid in order to throw off the colonial yoke.
22. There is still time to revise the policy of nonrecognition of the right to self-government and independence or the policy of "too little and too late". The problem of Algeria is certainly one which imperiously demands such revision.
23. International communism is often condemned as the principal instigator of national freedom movements. The Communists are guilty, of course, but rather less so than Powers like the United Kingdom and the United States which, by liberating their colonies, have shown other subject peoples that colonialism is no longer in fashion and that there is a way of liquidating it without bloodshed and without an after-math of hate. Each day which marks the peaceful grant of freedom to a colony is certain to make harder still the job of keeping the others in continued subjection.
24. Nor will the example of the United Kingdom and the United States be lost to the peoples that have fallen under the yoke of communist imperialism. They are bound to realize that whereas the classical Western imperialism is on the way out in Asia and Africa, they now find themselves under a new form of Imperialist domination more potent and oppressive than any that the world has ever seen. Among them also the same spirit of nationalism, which the Communists have fanned in other places for their own ends, will remain alive and grow in strength until it explodes in their own faces.
25. This is not an idle prediction. In the souls of the peoples that have lost their freedom and independence and succumbed to communist domination, the pride of national identity and the will to freedom are not dead. Of them it can truly be said that their heads are bloody but unbowed. Soon or late, they will rise again to claim the freedom and dignity they have lost. We know that whatever happens, the Soviet empire will never again be the same after the ruthless crushing of the Hungarian revolution.
26. The twin scourges of war and imperialism remain the two outstanding questions on our agenda. The General Assembly has no task more important than to help encompass their speedy elimination. The Philippine delegation, I assure you, will join in the earnest effort to accomplish that task.