dreds of thousands of Americans of Greek descent who are repaying in grateful loyalty the opportunities granted to them by their country of adoption.

Inspired by the example of the American people, we will soon begin to build up our new Charter of international security on the basis of the drafts worked out at Dumbarton Oaks and Yalta by the great powers, to whom the gratitude of this Conference is most surely due.

The Greek Government commit themselves to the adoption of these drafts as a basis of discussion, and venture to make some observations in regard to their provisions. During the initial phase, postwar security should be pursued as a projection of the solidarity maintained by the United Nations in the prosecution of the war. The United Nations owe it to their peoples and to their dead to safeguard a peace that has been won at so great a price. It is understandable that the great Allies on whom fell the main burden of responsibility for smashing the Axis aggressors should also assume the main responsibility for directing the first steps of the new Organization. Their continued unity of purpose and collaboration are the principal prerequisites of peace.

Does this mean that the small powers should resign themselves to complete self-effacement? We do not think so. On the contrary there is ample scope for their activities. The gods will help only those who help themselves, and during this war we have seen a few so-called small countries who made no mean contribution to our common victory. At a time when Britain was resisting alone the fury of the German assaults, the Greek people did not flinch from facing the treacherous Fascist attack, and for six long months victoriously withstood and overcame their onslaught, thereby provoking Hitler's wrath and calling down upon the Greek people the fury of his vengeance.

Along with the other United Nations, Greece has undertaken a historic responsibility, and one that she is determined to discharge resolutely and sincerely. Her past record is an earnest of what she may justifiably be expected to do in defense of general security and, in fairness, entitles her to an active and responsible part in our new Organization.

The Charter that we are about to draft should not create a false sense of security and complacency. We should take care that it does not lead to an individual sense of irresponsibility by promoting a confused feeling that the maintenance of peace is the anonymous concern of everybody in general, and of nobody in particular, for thus a convenient alibi would be provided for governments reluctant to shoulder courageously their share of responsibility. The undoing of the League of Nations was due also to this cause and not to constitutional shortcomings.

While reserving to itself the right of making specific amendments with the competent organs of the Conference, the Greek delegation takes this opportunity of submitting, for the consideration of the other United Nations of the Conference, the following general observations on the principles and procedures embodied in the Dumbarton Oaks and the Yalta proposals. The maintenance of peace and security, the development of friendly relations, and international co-operation for the solution of international problems, should be linked with the generally accepted precepts of justice, morality, and international law. The decisions of the Security Council should be governed by the criteria of law and justice.

In the opinion of the Greek delegation the role assigned to the General Assembly should be a more active one. In particular it should be stipulated that it shall be open to the Assembly to make recommendations on any question that is under consideration or has already been treated by the Security Council.

In view of the compromise adopted in Yalta on the question of voting, it is now open to any country to bring to the attention of the Security Council any dispute or situation likely to endanger peace by requesting that it should be placed on the agenda of the Security Council. It is not open to any one of the permanent members of the Council to veto such a step so long as seven of the eleven members of the Council vote in favor of such a procedure.

Moreover, in cases concerning the pacific settlement of disputes and situations likely to lead to international friction, the Yalta Proposals mitigate the rigidity of the power of veto of the permanent members since, when any of them is a party to a dispute, it is debarred from voting.

If, however, no settlement is reached through the procedures referred to in Section A, i.e., by negotiation, mediation, conciliation, arbitration, judicial settlement, or any other peaceful means which may be open to the parties, or through the recommendation of appropriate measures of adjustment made to the parties by the Security Council itself, and if such failure is considered by the Council as constituting a threat to peace and security, Section B, Chapter VIII comes into play, and the following important steps are then contemplated: First, the Council should determine the existence of any threat to the peace, or any breach of the peace, or of any act of aggression and should make recommendations or decide on the measures to be taken for the maintenance or the restoration of peace and security.

Second, the Council should be empowered to determine what measures could be employed to give effect to its decisions. Those measures could range from the interruption of means of communication or the mere severance of diplomatic relations to the application of sanctions by armed force.

There would be nothing to object to in the above two steps if they were not marred by the possibility of the use of the right of veto by any one of the permanent members. This right of veto appears to create a feeling of uneasiness in certain quarters. The small countries are not unaware of the necessity or unmindful of the importance of maintaining the solidarity of the "Big Three" powers, which is in the last resort the greatest guaranty of peace.

It is in that spirit that they will no doubt sacrifice their legal scruples in respect of the application of sanctions to the superior interests of peace, and will be prepared in that connection to be resigned to-if not applaud-the exercise of the right of veto by the permanent members.

It will be more difficult for the small countries to acquiesce in the use of the veto by any one of the permanent members in respect of the determination of the existence of a threat to the peace, or of any act of aggression.

This is a point on which the small countries will feel very strongly for reasons connected with the principles of international justice and morality.

They would bear with greater fortitude their disappointments and tribulations resulting from the nonapplication of sanctions in consequence of the use of the right of veto, if at least the Security Council could determine the existence of aggression and, implicitly, of the aggressor.

Is it not too much to ask a small country, victim of aggression, to forego the moral and legal satisfaction of knowing what is right and what is wrong, and who is the wrongdoer and who is the victim?

Let no one think the small countries' earnest desire in this connection is an unprofitable and purposeless claim.

There is a very great deal in it which is of interest also to the great powers and would ultimately serve the best interests of peace. In this connection, less confusion and greater clarity are necessary, and they would have a restraining effect on the potential aggressor.

We venture to suggest a few alternative remedies to these drawbacks. The best course to take would be that the permanent members should, of their own accord, relinquish their right of veto in the determination of the existence of a breach of peace or of an act of aggression. This would make it possible for the Council "de dire le droit," a fundamental element of any charter of security worthy of that name.

Failing this, it is suggested that the permanent members should relinquish their right of veto in the determination of the existence of a breach of peace or of an act of aggression, when two or more countries, other than permanent members of the Security Council, are concerned. It is further suggested that at least a recommendation should be obtainable from the Security Council without the use by the permanent members of the right of veto.

The Greek delegation welcomes the provisions concerning an International Court of Justice as the judiciary of the new Organization. It would also welcome the extension of the compulsory jurisdiction of the Court in the settlement of legal points.

In connection with the section concerning the pacific settlement of disputes it is suggested that it should be left to the Court to decide whether or not a given situation or dispute arises out of matters that under international law fall within the domestic jurisdiction of the state concerned.

The Greek Government welcome wholeheartedly the provisions contained in Chapter IX of the Proposals, which provide for the creation of a special council to

Fourth Plenary Session...

deal with economic, social, and other humanitarian problems.

The great sufferings and sacrifices sustained by millions of people will have been made in vain unless the nations that have fought side by side in this terrible war shall have learned at last the supreme lesson that there cannot and will not be peace and political security in the world if we are unable to bring about a satisfactory degree of international economic stability and prosperity, and to assure to the peoples of all nations the conditions of health, social security, well-being, and education to which they have an imperative claim.

In particular, those people who have sacrificed all their material wealth in fighting and resisting the enemy have the right to expect that the economic solidarity and interdependence of all nations will be recognized as a fundamental principle which not only emanates from the conception of international justice and morality but is dictated by the common interest of all nations that are members of the same international society.

These are in brief the general observations of the Greek Government on the essential features of the Dumbarton Oaks Proposals as completed by the texts adopted at Yalta, and it is the earnest desire and wish of the Greek people, as indeed of the peoples of the United Nations, that this Conference may respond to their expectations and to the challenge which is made to the statesmanship of the eminent representatives assembled here. May we not fail them!

Before closing I desire, in the name of my Government, to express our fervent wishes for the success of this Conference!

MR. MOLOTOV (translation): I now recognize the Resident Commissioner of the Philippines to the United States and chairman of the delegation of the Philippine Commonwealth.

GENERAL ROMULO: Mr. Chairman, Fellow Delegates, Ladies and Gentlemen: Let us make this floor the last battlefield.

We are here to determine whether the human race is going to exist or whether it is to be wiped out in another world holocaust. Those among us who have watched the death agony of great cities, those among us who come from the foxholes of battle fronts, have no illusions as to what another war will do to all men. This may be our last opportunity to achieve peace. We are here to fight for our lives.

As one from the troubled Pacific, let me impress upon you that unless all men of good will act now and together -unless we are determined in this Conference to achieve our goal-we are but preparing the setting for another world cataclysm. If we fail, we may find ourselves in another global war, with the Pacific as its maelstrom. Peace to be an actuality must be based on the recognition of the problems that affect human dignity. We have seen the ultimate achievement of aggression in the human bonfires of Manila and Essen. These living torches lighted the road back to savagery-no, beyond a savagery we never dreamed human beings could be capable of reaching. It is impossible for minds to grasp the monstrous agony of these things. The charred bones of men, women, and children that are now being shoveled under German and Philippine earth-they are war. They are what would

be in these very streets if the advantage of Pearl Harbor had been pressed, and the Rising Sun flew today over this building and this city.

We know how much is being unleashed against us who are seeking to achieve a decent medium of world existence without war. We are all aware that Japan and Germany are joined in their fears and their hopes for our failure, and that their skulking protagonists elsewhere are aiding their fears and their hopes that we may not succeed. They are the haters and the degraders, and they are willing us to fail. But why should we fail? Why should peace be impractical? Why should humanity again betray itself?

Words and ideas are more powerful than guns in the defense of human dignity. Treaties are stronger than armamented boundaries. The only impregnable line is that of human understanding.

We are well aware that international understanding must rest on practical security, and that the economic structure of the world must determine the balance between nations. But of more lasting importance is the spiritual structure.

Technicalities can be ironed out. The wise and the shrewd of all lands can come to an understanding. Business and commerce can agree, or let us say that they can be made to agree, but the human pattern cannot be forced, and its settlement cannot be delayed. For it must

be determined or another war will wipe us and our bickerings and our misunderstandings from the face of the earth. Unless we can agree, we will return to the dust, for we have failed as men.

In every human being is the craving and the right for recognition. In every normal human is the longing for peace. One of the oldest prayers in the human heart is this: "Let us have peace." The mountain of man's progress is great and terrible, and they who climb must adjust their pace to the weakest or the entire chain of climbers will go down. Until the weakest link in our human chain is made safe, not one of us is safe. We must determine here and now this basic pattern of understanding that will insure world security.

We have seen in this war how effectively boundaries and nationalities and racial division have been forgotten while achieving a common stand against a common enemy. In the ultimate effort to save our lives, it is the shared understanding that matters, and not the heritage of blood or country.

Today, one billion Oriental faces are turned pleadingly toward us for recognition of their human rights. It is their hope and their prayer that the peace which this Conference is seeking to secure is one that will not neglect the uplift and development of all socially and economically depressed areas and peoples, but one that will help raise them to a plane of living where they can become not merely bystanders but effective collaborators in the promotion of human welfare and advancement. Theirs is the plea, my Fellow Delegates, that such a peace may not be appropriated for the purpose of freezing the political, economic, and social order of that part of the world.

May I pause here to pay tribute to the memory of Franklin Delano Roosevelt, the staunch defender of the human rights of these millions—a man who died an American, but whose grave is the world-the peerless leader who gave new meaning to our lives in the Far East because he was the champion not only of the forgotten man of his own nation, but of the forgotten man everywhere in the world. We turn our reverential thoughts to him today with a very deep sense of loss, because to us of the United Nations he is the symbol of all the ideals for which we are fighting in this war; and his passing away at this time deprives us of his guidance and inspiration. We find consolation and strength in the assurance that in Harry S. Truman, his worthy successor, his spirit marches on.

Paramount in Asia today is the remembrance of past hopelessness. Sections of our world are festering with resentments that will obstruct the way to peace unless they are brought out into the open and cleared away. We must give ourselves tolerance. We must ask what gave birth to those resentments and hatreds. We must ask why they are there. And we must answer these questions frankly before we can wipe away these erosions of distrust.

This can be and must be done. True, this is not a conference to frame a peace treaty. But our words and actions here can outline a future pattern that can serve for all the small nations of the world-a pattern that can be the working basis for world communal living—a pattern that will set the peace. In this plan, the terms under which the individual nations have set their manner of living must adjust themselves to the needs of the peace; power must become pliable. Each nation must be prepared to contribute its share of effort and its share of yielding. In this civilized family first one member and then another gives in or yields a little and by these small submissions they gain everything in pride and protection.

In that past war, heroic efforts have been spent in a nobility and sacrifice we pray may never be required

again. Men of all nations have shown their ability to sacrifice and to die. Now-now-is the time to show our ability to sacrifice and to live. For without mutual sacrifice now, we will only live to die.

There is a pattern to study and dissect. It is one of the spirit, of what we must call the human soul. In our hands is the tremendous responsibility to preserve the human race, or to condemn it to certain doom. Here-here-on this testing ground, cannot the victorious say: "Let us come out of our strength and our power. Let us yield to these others; let us be prepared to share our power and our opinion that victory may be sure. Our aim must be tolerance, for victory can be preserved only with tolerance. We will sign here our death warrant for the future unless we show our willingness for giving and not for grasping, a capacity for understanding and not of clinging to the set determination that has undone the past, and the ability for meeting on the common earth of understanding, the littlest nation and the littlest man."

This war has given us a new yardstick by which to judge the stature of nations. Nations are no longer judged by their size or by their wealth or by their population. In the darkest hour for civilization in Europe-in the darkest hour for civilization in Europe-8,000,000 Greeks, in number insignificant, their country in size inconsequential; and yet because they refused to give in, because as worthy descendants of the heroes of Thermopylae they stood their ground and refused to surrender their principles and ideals, the Mediterranean Sea was not made into a German sea.

We were able through our forces to invade North Africa from where German bombers could have been based to attack the Atlantic seaboard; but the Greeks resisted and because they resisted they saved civilization in its darkest hour in Europe, for you as well as for me. But that was in Europe.

In the Pacific, let us review the events of the recent past. Let us recall how nations in that section of the globe collapsed one after another before the Japanese onslaught. And it was dark indeed for civilization in the Pacific. But 9,000 American soldiers-9,000 American soldiers and 75,000 loyal Filipino troops stood their ground in Bataan. They held at bay 300,000 Japanese troops and 500 Japanese planes that at that time could have been used for an outright invasion of Australia. They resisted. They held. They fought, and behind them 18,000,000 loyal Filipinos. And in the words of Chief of Staff George C. Marshall, of the United States Army, later confirmed and substantiated by that great Australian leader, Prime Minister Curtin, these four months that we resisted the Japanese in Bataan and Corregidor gave the United Nations time to prepare in Australia. So that in the darkest hour for civilization in the Pacific, 18,000,000 Filipinos, insignificant in number, their country a mere dot on the map, helped to save civilization, for you as well as for me.

In Athens, the ancient Greeks sculptured the goddess who brought them victory as an angel with clipped wings (Nike Apteros) because they did not want her to fly away. They wanted to keep her safe with them with her feet on the ground. To them as to us, victory represented power, but they were willing to curtail that strength for they did not want to lose all that they had won. We can find no wiser formula for the lasting victory which will be the lasting peace. By yielding to the common good, by a civilized recognition of the mutual advantages that will be given to us all, by trimming the wings of power, we can hold to our victory, with her head so proudly among the stars, and her feet set firmly on our earth! MR. MOLOTOV (translation): I now recognize the Minister of Foreign Affairs and the chairman of the delegation of Uruguay.

Fourth Plenary Session ...

MR. SERRATO (translation): Mr. President, Delegates: I have the honor to address my first words at this meeting place in a tribute to the memory of Franklin Delano Roosevelt, the great democrat and citizen of the world, whose death is lamented by all men and all peoples of the earth, both free and oppressed. His name will have a prominent place in the history of humanity because of his self-immolation in the service of mankind without limitations, without rest, fear, or suspicion, and with noble and lofty inspiration in their legitimate and mutual aspirations for freedom and welfare.

I also wish to render homage to the heroism and the glory of the great fighting peoples-the United States of America, the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics, and China-to whose victorious efforts we owe the defeat of the forces of the Axis powers and the calling together of all peace-loving nations in order to organize international society and create the system of world security to protect and guarantee the legitimate rights of all peoples.

The courage, daring, and spiritual greatness of these peoples merit the gratitude of civilized humanity and they shall always be remembered by history. Their blood, sweat, tears-to recall the memorable words of Winston Churchill-have brought to the world, after noble sacrifices, this birth of justice.

But I also wish, in the name of the Government and of the people of Uruguay, to pay tribute to all countriesof any status or power-which have accompanied in their heroic crusade the United States, Great Britain, the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics, China, and Brazil; have taken risks through the conflict; and have sacrificed the lives of their sons, whose fighting and suffering have known no limit and no truce, in order to assure and establish the triumph of civilization. This tribute is also extended to the French people, which arose in the fight against Nazi-Fascism despite the faint-hearted surrender of their leaders in 1940, and whose Committee of Liberation the Uruguayan Government was the first to recognize.

Uruguay, in the most bitter hours of the conflict, had the honor to be faithful to the call of a civilization in danger. Without hesitation or fear of the power of the Axis, disregarding risks and reprisals, its people enlisted in the fight against aggression from its very beginning. It prevented within its territory treason against the fighting nations; it vigorously suppressed the Fifth Column; it granted the status of nonbelligerency to the countries fighting for liberty; it opened its ports and bases to the ships and airplanes of the Allies; it placed its raw materials at the disposal of the peoples at war against the Axis; it broke diplomatic and commercial relations with the members of the Tripartite Pact; it promptly declared a state of belligerency with Germany and Japan; and it did not officially send its troops to the theaters of war because they were not requested, but its volunteers-an unforgettable group of earnest young men-left their sacred remains in the battlefields of Africa and Europe.

America feels honored by the fact that the peoples of the Western Hemisphere did not hold back, nor did they hesitate. They contributed with measures of political defense, nonbelligerency procedures, democratic loyalty, raw materials, broken relations, and declarations of war,

to the struggle and triumph against the Axis powers. And at the bitter moment of the treacherous attack on Pearl Harbor on December 7, 1941, they tightened their bonds and intensified their efforts to express, materialize, and maintain, without defection or hesitation or fear, their fullest active solidarity toward the United States, the great and heroic nation of the continent, which was attacked in an unpardonable act of treachery. Another sister republic, Brazil, has sent forward its courageous expeditionary Army to the Italian front, where it is co-operating honorably in the Allied triumph.

Thus, the American peoples have been loyal collaborators in the struggle against aggression and conquest; and just as they have rendered an efficient and undeniable support throughout the struggle, within their means and resources, they also wish to co-operate, living up to the high ideals of their history and international conduct, in the tasks of organizing the world and consolidating the peace and welfare of mankind.

The so-called Latin-American countries cannot rival the great powers in population or military and economic might; but, on the other hand, they possess an unfailing and precious moral strength derived from adherence to law, love of freedom, and respect for democratic ideals, a strength which cannot be ignored or set aside without injury to the human destiny.

The small countries lacking in military power constitute at all times a power for the good of peace and international justice, because they depend entirely on law and must inevitably abolish aggression, threats of aggression, and violence. The sword of the conqueror and the ax of the executioner are banished by them. Consequently, in the future Organization of the world these peoples without vanity and without aims of conquest can and must be considered as a great new power at the service of peaceful living among the nations, the rule of international law, and the ethical and juridical principles of civilization. Between the just and the unjust, they have always declared themselves for justice; between the lawful and the illegal, they have always decided in favor of law; between violence and security, they have always struggled for the maintenance and strengthening of the realm of peace. To assure the participation in international society of countries small in size and military strength, the enforcement of their rights, and the natural sway because of their large proportion in the earth's population, their spirit, their moral orientation, their wealth, and possibilities in international trade, would be equivalent to establish and consolidate an effective and unshakable guarantee for the fulfillment of the essential and supreme purposes of the organization for solidarity and peace which is to arise out of the historic deliberations in San Francisco.

The Latin-American countries constitute an eloquent proof of all that I have said. They had not been attacked directly in the First World War, nor in the present war; they had no territorial problems or boundary disputes with the aggressor countries; they did not entertain plans for expansion nor did they covet territories; but in both cases they did not hesitate in deciding in favor of liberty against oppression, or justice against iniquity, siding strongly with the nations which defended in the world what Woodrow Wilson aptly called "the treasures of law."

Uruguay, in whose name I speak, has kept and still keeps unswerving fidelity to that spirit. It has not come

to San Francisco to defend private or selfish interests, nor to discuss pre-eminences or win honors, nor to hinder with trivial obstacles the fundamental agreements on which will rest the solemn and greater function of the maintenance of peace after the approaching final victory. Urugua; has come to San Francisco to collaborate loyally in the organization of the world and of international security with constructive aims, without prejudices or illusions contrary to reality, but with the desire and hope that the world of the future will respond to and satisfy the ideal of justice which inspires the nations and men of all continents.

Victory is not a desideratum. if it is not used for the benefit of humanity; and the cruel effort of years of struggle would be of little avail if the United Nations did not demonstrate that they are capable of winning the peace as well as the war, by their acts, by incarnating into living reality, and perfecting whenever possible, every day and every hour, the spirit of universal co-operation and concord which inspired the Dumbarton Oaks agreements and proposals.

Uruguay accepts those proposals and agreements, convinced that the essential and first thing to do is to create in the world an organization and a system of security which will suppress international banditry and prevent a return to the law of the jungle; but, together with its brothers of America-in accordance with what was agreed upon at the Inter-American Conference on Problems of War and Peace, recently held in Mexico Cityit wishes the future world organization to gain the maximum efficiency and not to suffer from omissions or cleavages, but to perfect its structure to the greatest possible extent.

Uruguay is pleased by the creation of a world Organization in which the participating nations are recognized as being juridically the equal of one another, and the purpose of which is to guarantee international security; but it also desires that, among their more definite and precise aims, they may have those of permanently realizing the ideals for which free nations have fought and suffered in this war: the supremacy of law, the triumph of liberty, respect for the dignity of the human being, the outlawing of violence in any of its forms as an instrument for the settlement of disputes, and repudiation of doctrines of racial division and discrimination.

To this aspiration it adds the hope that the world Organization will expressly and categorically adopt the principle of the inviolability of the independence, territorial integrity, frontiers, and rights of nations, and that it will create adequate machinery for preventing or repressing acts of aggression.

For Uruguay, the country which attacks any member of the peaceful community of nations must be considered an aggressor by all of them collectively, and all of them, in turn, must act to find a juridical settlement of the dispute and, in lieu thereof, to defend the state attacked, with arms if necessary.

The Act of Chapultepec, approved by the American nations at the Mexico City Conference, has adopted this principle and organized procedures for the prevention and sanction of threats of aggression, at the suggestion of Uruguay, Brazil, and Colombia. My country fervently hopes that that memorable international instrument will be integrated with the world Organization and will lay the necessary foundation for studying a way to see that defense, both material and in respect to acts involving the independent personality of the countries and the quarantine and punishment of acts of aggression, will be effected by regional organizations, with the support of all the members of the International Organization.

Continental regionalism must be connected with the world Organization and should mobilize forces only upon

the acquiescence of the latter. We shall thus avoid creating new forms of conflict later.

Security must be collective, universal, and coercive. (The proceedings of the Conference were interrupted when a paper bearing the headlines "Nazis Quit" was brought into the room and shown to the Conference. Mr. Molotov, being informed that the report of Nazi surrender was without official confirmation, shortly directed the translator to proceed.)

With respect to the framework itself of the Organization to be established, Uruguay accepts the Dumbarton Oaks agreements as a system imposed by the needs and contingencies of the state of war and of what will follow in the immediate future, in the character of a first imperfect stage, but one that can be perfected in the future, transitory and provisional in nature, and lasting only until the final consequences of the conflict are liquidated and it is possible therefore to restore a statute of international society without the deficiencies which appear in those agreements.

It is not the peace of force that we desire, but that of harmony, justice, and the general welfare.

The contention for organized coercive action—the only effective form in its case-against the aggressor who resorts to force in seeking aims which justice denied him and which he could not attain by regular peaceful juridical means, is a reality which we must also contemplate. The order that is to be established for regulating institutional life will not be perfect, but it must indeed be effective.

Only through collaboration of all large and small nations, weak or strong in military might, whatever their creed, race, or political organization, will it be possible to build a secure system of peace in the world. For this, it is indispensable, before all and above all-and I expressly emphasize it to fulfill loyalty and correctly what is agreed upon.

Uruguay accepts the organization of an Assembly as a body that is fully representative of the nations, in the understanding that all of them will act therein under the same juridical category and on a level of perfect equality that is to say, that there will be no superior states and inferior states, nor states with privileges and states without them, nor states which have a form of hierarchy and quality and states which appear in a rank-and-file line of countries with lesser rights. In this same concept, it deems it advisable that the powers of the Assembly be strengthened in order to promote and facilitate solutions tending to consolidate the peace and stimulate international co-operation.

With respect to the projected Security Council, my country affirms that, in keeping with its old traditions, it sustains the hope that the Council will be formed by procedures of democratic origin, it being necessary that it be directed by members chosen by the Assembly without distinction as to prerogatives or rights.

In the present circumstance, however, Uruguay accepts, as a transitory situation, that the four great powers-the United States of America, the United Kingdom, the Union of Socialist Soviet Republics, and Chinawhich have borne the heaviest load of the war, have contributed most decisively to victory and will have the most serious duties and responsibilities for the maintenance of the future peace, should be assured seats on the Council, but not indefinitely and only for a period which may be judged advisable, say eight or ten years, for example.

But, as it already maintained in a statement of September 28, 1944, it desires that France be included in the category of big members of the Council not subject to election by the Assembly, as a tribute to her role champion of liberty, to her moral significance, to her