It seems to me that the question is not well set before us. Personally, I refuse to express any judgment whatsoever regarding the Argentine Government. I am not in a position to state whether it is Fascist or a democratic government. Furthermore, I feel that that is not the question before us. Neither do I feel that it is a question of principle, but rather a question of procedure.

The question that is before us is the question of inviting Argentina to take her seat immediately in our Conference of nations.

Now, the Soviet delegation has merely asked that this question be postponed for a few days so as to enable the Soviet delegation to confer with the representatives of the other three great powers, in an effort to arrive at a decision that shall express their unanimity.

It seems to me that it will be wise for the assembly to grant this request, because it seems to me that the request of the Soviet delegation is reasonable and legitimate. Surely we would all welcome with joy the arrival of another nation in the midst of our Conference.

Argentina, we recognize, is a nation with a long democratic tradition. It has made valuable contributions to international law. Her presence here would help in our deliberations. We would all want at this moment to be ready to say "Yes" to her coming, and thereby express our good will.

But it seems to me that there is another principle that we must bear in mind, equally important. It is the principle of maintaining complete unanimity between the four sponsoring nations. I believe that this is one of great importance in our minds-to maintain complete unanimity among the four sponsoring nations.

Also, let us try to be logical. We, the delegations of other nations, accepted, without questioning, the invitations as they were sent out by the four great powers. We accepted also the agreement reached at Yalta by the great powers regarding the representation of the Ukraine and the Byelorussian Republics as founding members of the International Organization.

Now, regarding Poland, it seems that we must postpone that question because it is attached to an agreement reached between the three powers. We would all welcome the arrival of Poland in our deliberations and will be eager to hear her voice. However, the agreement has not yet been reached between the three powers.

I insist again, let us try to be logical; let us make a last effort to maintain unanimity between the sponsoring nations.

I believe that it will be wise to grant the request established before you-set before you by the Soviet delegation, because it is fundamentally a reasonable and legitimate request.

MR. EDEN: Fellow Delegates, I hope that before very long we shall be able to come to a decision as to whether we want to pronounce upon this matter now or to postpone it to a later date.

I have got still five names on the list; I thought you might like to know how we were getting on.

I have been asked to recognize the Peruvian delegation and I call on Ambassador Belaunde to come to the tribunal.

MR. BELAUNDE: Mr. Chairman, Fellow Delegates, Ladies and Gentlemen (continued in Spanish):

INTERPRETER (in English): I am happy to speak before you in Spanish-Spanish, the language of international law. For the founders of international law spoke in Spanish and it was in Spanish that Bolívar called on the American nations to convene at that historical congress. In Spanish, also, a great Argentinian pronounced that memorable phrase: "America for humanity."

MR. BELAUNDE (in Spanish):

INTERPRETER (in English): The delegation of Belgium,

supporting the request expressed by the Soviet delegation, has asked that this question be postponed for a few days. I feel definitely that such postponement of the question would be entirely useless. For what reason can such postponement be invoked? Is it desired to make a research or an analysis of the constitution of the Argentine Government? Is it desired to investigate its character? I submit that such investigation will be contrary to the principle of nonintervention and would lead to it would merely be tantamount to saying Argentina is not to be present.

MR. BELAUNDE (in Spanish):

INTERPRETER (in English): True it is that the purpose is to maintain and establish unanimity, but this unanimity depends on the action of the four sponsoring nations. It does not depend on us. We ask that they consider our views and our feelings. We realize that this unanimity does not depend on us. It is a question, it seems to me, of faith in the actions as agreed on during the Mexico City Conference as was so eloquently pointed out by the Foreign Minister of Mexico, Ezequiel Padilla. The question for me is one that can be briefly stated. Do not the American nations constitute a juridical and moral unity? I ask then why do not other nations render homage and do honor to the actions concluded in Mexico in the Chapultepec Conference. We are now faced with the fact that Argentina has met the requirements placed upon her in the course of that Conference.

MR. BELAUNDE (in Spanish):

INTERPRETER (in English): We cannot forget, as has been so ably pointed out by the Delegate of Belgium, the long-standing democratic tradition of Argentina.

The South American continent was made free by two great liberating forces of men, those from the North under the leadership of Bolívar, those in the South moving northward under the leadership of San Martín.

I speak with deep emotion. Peru can never forget San Martín, the Argentine, the liberation of Chile, and finally the liberation of Peru.

It is true that the Argentine Government may have deviated from its long-standing democratic traditions. But now we are faced with the fact that the Argentine Government has incorporated itself juridically and morally into the family of American nations. This cannot be denied. This cannot be questioned. This question, therefore, cannot be postponed.

MR. BELAUNDE (in Spanish):

INTERPRETER (in English): The question for postponement can only be applied in a situation that calls for an investigation-a situation that is doubtful. But it cannot be applied to the present situation, where there is no doubt, where there is nothing to question regarding the actions taken in the Mexico City Conference.

Although the Argentine Government of that time may have made deviations, we are now faced with the fact that the Argentine Government has complied with the Mexico City Conference requirements. Argentina, furthermore, we must bear in mind, generously furnished food and war materials during the war. Argentina stands out for its great service to culture. It was one of the first Latin-American nations to modify her school systems, adopting reforms inspired by the educational system of the United States.

We admire also the great literary movement of our sister republic and also the significant contributions that she has made in the Pan-American Conferences. In 1890 she came out strongly for the condemnation of all territorial conquest. In the Drago doctrine, she made a great contribution to juridical thought. It was also Argentina that made the contribution to our inter-American system expressed in the system of consultation of foreign ministers. Keeping all of this in mind we feel that we cannot

postpone this question. We voted wholeheartedly for the acceptance of the Ukraine Republic and Byelorussian Republic as initial members of the International Organization. We had expected that the Soviet delegation would support the Argentine question.

Fellow Delegates, in the flags here present there is one missing, the blue and white flag of Argentina, that crossed the Andes liberating three nations. I feel that along with the figures of Washington and Bolívar we must have the eminent figure of San Martín of Argentina. MR. EDEN: Fellow Delegates, I have been asked to recognize the delegation of the United States of America. I call upon Mr. Stettinius, Secretary of State of the United States.

MR. STETTINIUS: Mr. Chairman, Fellow Delegates, I wish to refer to the fact that last Saturday evening the Foreign Ministers of the four sponsoring governments met with a committee representing the American republics, the Foreign Ministers of Mexico, Brazil, and Chile, in my private living quarters, at which time this matter was thoroughly discussed. I also wish to refer to the fact that this matter was referred to the Executive Committee for attention on a suggestion of the Soviet Union, and was dealt with by the Executive Committee this morning. At the recent Mexico City Conference of the American republics, there was unanimously passed a resolution urging Argentina to declare war against the Axis powers and to align her policy to coincide with her other sister republics in the prosecution of the war against the Axis, and to sign the Act agreed upon at the Conference, the Act of Chapultepec, many of the provisions of which related to the prosecution of the war, as you will all recall. The American republics feel that Argentina has complied with this resolution, and earnestly desire to have Argentina associated with them at this Conference in San Francisco. The United States Government is in entire accord with this desire of its sister American republics.

Mr. Chairman, Fellow Delegates, I should like also to refer to the fact that this question was thoroughly thrashed out this morning at the Executive Committee meeting, and that at the Executive Committee meeting a favorable vote was taken that Argentina should be permitted to attend this Conference. It was then thoroughly thrashed out at the Steering Committee, which was attended by all the chairmen of all the delegations, and a favorable vote was taken that Argentina should be permitted to take her place at this Conference. Ladies and Gentlemen, I plead with you to reach a decision in this matter and act now in order that we may get on with our sacred task for which we have met.

MR. EDEN: Fellow Delegates, you have heard the appeal of the Secretary of State of the United States that we should now come to a decision on this issue. May I remind you what the decision is to which we have to come? Whether the question of the admission of Argentina should be postponed for some days, as suggested by Mr. Molotov on behalf of the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics or whether that decision should be taken now. Now, the first question I have to put to you is, "Are you prepared to take a decision upon the matter," that is to say, to vote upon whether to postpone or not? Are you prepared to do that now, without any further speeches?

Those in favor, please say "Aye." Those to the contrary? (pause) Good.

Now, therefore, we come to take our decision, and I repeat, the issue is whether we should defer the question for a few days on the motion of the representative of the Soviet Socialist Republics, or whether we should admit Argentina now. I suggest that the most convenient way of taking the vote will be if those who wish to defer decision, if the leaders of the delegations who wish to defer the decision, will first stand up when I call on them to do so, and after that I will call on those who wish admission to take place now. There are two questions. I hope that is clear. Now will those in favor, the heads of delegations in favor of postponing this issue in accordance with the motion moved by Mr. Molotov, be good enough to rise in their places? (pause) Thank you, Gentlemen. I am obliged. The number is seven.

Will those who wish for the present, immediate admission of the Argentine, please rise-leaders of delegations -please rise in their seats to be counted? Thank you, Gentlemen. The number is 28.

Is there a representative of France that we did not recognize? Thank you. The representative of France declares the desire of his delegation to abstain from the vote. Isn't that right?

MR. BIDAULT, head of the French delegation: I request an explanation on a point of procedure. In what manner should a delegation manifest its decision to abstain from voting?

MR. EDEN: If any delegation wishes to abstain it remains seated on both occasions. Fellow Delegates, we have now taken a vote on whether the matter should be postponed or not, and we have decided it shall not be postponed. Now I shall put the positive question to the Conference. Those in favor of the admission of Argentina in accordance with the terms previously agreed at our Steering Committee this morning, please stand up. The heads of delegations. Thank you, Gentlemen. Thirty-one. Those against? Heads of delegations, please stand up. Thank you, Gentlemen. Four against. The resolution as moved before our Steering Committee is therefore, I declare, approved in plenary session this afternoon.

Now sir, I will call upon our rapporteur, who I think is still patiently waiting to continue to read his report.

MR. BELT: Report on the organization of the Conference: The meeting refers to the Conference in plenary session and recommends approval of its report on the organization of the Conference referred to by the rapporteur of the Second Plenary Session, April 27, 1945, point 5 of the rapporteur's report of that date.

Mr. Chairman, Fellow Delegates. If you will allow me, I shall not now read this report, a copy of which has already been sent to every one of you. I do this in order to save time.

MR. EDEN: I hope my fellow delegates are impressed by the last suggestion. I ask them whether they are prepared now to approve the report on the organization of the Conference which has been circulated to us all which has been referred to by the rapporteur. Are there any objections? I declare the report approved.

Fellow Delegates, we now resume the speeches in our Fifth Plenary Session. I recognize the Minister of Foreign Affairs and chairman of the delegation of Colombia.

Fifth Plenary Session...

MR. LLERAS CAMARGO: Mr. President, Fellow Delegates, Ladies and Gentlemen: It is already easy to understand, from the addresses we have heard in the first few days of the Conference, the spirit which moves us.

We are under the tremendous influence of the most devastating war which humanity has ever endured. We sense the anxious vigilance of the soldiers and sailors of the United Nations, of our peoples, of the humble folk of the world, watching over each and every one of our acts and words. Fresh in our minds is the memory of-one might better say remorse for-the dismal failures of the prior world organization in the preservation of peace. For that very reason we are more realistic and far seeing and, at the same time, we feel obliged to be more audacious in our experiments. We do not believe today, as in 1919, that this has been the last war; rather, we share the prudent fear that others may occur if we do not act here with care and energy. For the purpose of preventing another war we are prepared to subordinate sentiments, and even principles, which we deemed, and still deem, to be fundamental. We are ready to deposit part of our individual sovereignty as nations in the common treasury in order to build up capital against possible future aggressors.

Furthermore, with the aim of adjusting our conduct to reality, we have talked of international hierarchy more than at any previous conference. It almost seems as though none of us has used the word "nations" without explaining that there are large, middle-sized, and small nations. We have said that some have more responsibility and greater duties than the rest for the security of the world, and must consequently, be in possession of better means to comply with their responsibilities adequately. Juridical equality seems thus to be subordinated to political responsibility. We small nations well understand that otherwise the world organization would be feeble and we are ready to accept the fact that security, which is based on the force to be employed against the violators of international law, should be likewise a question of hierarchy in responsibility.

Nevertheless, I have thought that it would not be completely lacking in interest to present the point of view of an American nation, a small nation, of course, as to the possible agreements which may emerge from our deliberations. Colombia early entered into the fraternity of the United Nations. It has not been neutral in the war since December, 1941. Like the other republics of the Hemisphere, it declared its solidarity with the United States, attacked at Pearl Harbor. Its little Army, recruited from a people dedicated to the arts of peace, has not had the painful privilege of fighting at the side of the large armies. Its cities have not been bombarded, its women have not suffered the sad absence of their men under arms, its territory has not been invaded nor its people enslaved. It has offered but modest co-operation to the war effort of the United Nations, compared with the sacrifice of other countries, but it has given everything that has been asked of it. On the other hand, as in the case with any other republic of our continent, we can affirm without fear of contradiction that the peace and security of the world would have never been endangered by any conflict which originated in intrigues or machinations on the part of the American nations or through their foreign policy, nor has any person beyond the seas found any reason for anxiety in our political structure.

It is true that there is no way of giving sufficient recognition to the spirit and sacrifice of the peoples who have fought the war to re-establish justice. But, in considering a world peace organization, it is well also to remember the importance in preserving peace, of the fact that there is a whole continent which has known how to maintain it and is, day by day, perfecting the rules of international law in order to apply them rigorously in the relations of its states among themselves, as well as with the other states of the globe.

Our contribution to the war has been of two sorts: One moral and inestimable, when we declared our solidarity with the United States at a moment when the outcome of the war was not only uncertain but seemed to indicate clearly the triumph of the powers of despotism. The other, strategic: When all of the American states formed a united front and established strict vigilance over the activities of the Axis in America, we discouraged any effort to breach the defenses-then still weak-which the United States was endeavoring to erect throughout the world to check the attacks of Germany and Japan. If there had been an opening in America for the pacific or military penetration of an enemy who at that time had the most ambitious of plans for world dominion, who can say that the course of the war would not have been longer or perhaps more doubtful?

But we do not wish to overestimate our role nor even that of the Latin-American troops and the Latin-American aviators who are fighting overseas. As a whole, we are a group of small nations from the military point of view. But peoples who are growing, like ours, do not have a static place in the international community and they should be thought of as a potential force, still undefined but capable of transforming themselves, as the United States did in a century, to a higher scale of development.

From another point of view, war comes closer to our shores as the world gets smaller through the expansion and growing. rapidity of communications. It is not easy to understand why, as we become more actively and intensively linked to the western civilization from which we drew our language, our tradition, our religions, our culture, we should pay greater tribute to force and uncertainty, but we accept it as an inescapable fact. In the Napoleonic wars in the last century, which were also world wars, we took advantage of the European bedlam to obtain our independence. But in the first World War of this century some of us American states were belligerents and other neutrals. In the present war there was no neutrality nor could there be any. In the next one, if unfortunately there should be one, we would be unconditional belligerents and we are fully aware of the fact that the devastation and suffering which have been inflicted on most of the countries here represented would fall on all of the Americas, without exception, from pole to pole. Our concern with universal peace and security is, therefore, no less than that of those countries which have known insecurity and war in its most cruel manifestations. The countries of Latin America experienced violence and instability in a century and a half of domestic strife over the political principles to dominate in each state; if they hate war it is because they have undergone it; there is little difference between dying from a bayonet wound on an Andean plateau and being smashed by an ingenious robot bomb. But we have been able in general

to banish war from our international relations. And we know full well that another world war, breaking out in another continent for whatever reason foreign to our direct interests, would still be our war. It is our unequivocal duty to sit with you to discuss the best means of making such a war impossible precisely because we are small, almost defenseless, countries as compared with the great powers but with an undeniable place in the front ranks of peace-loving nations, that is, of those nations who neither seek nor welcome wars and renounce them as an instrument of national policy.

The Dumbarton Oaks Proposals are based on an exact and practical evaluation of this truth; the small nations cannot guarantee the peace and security of the world; only the large ones can. We are all in agreement. But the basis for this truth lies in the fact that it is only the great powers which can menace the peace and security of the world. When, in the fall of 1944, the Dumbarton Oaks Proposals were discussed and approved it did not seem as clear as it does today that the three aggressor nations of the Axis would not again be in a position to attack for a long time, perhaps never. The mechanism set up in the draft Charter is influenced by the war effort against a definite enemy; it is and always will be sufficient to deal with that enemy. But is there any among us who believes that, when the capacity of Germany, Japan, and Italy is destroyed, another war will be impossible? No. We are realists and we fear another war the source of which is absolutely unforeseeable. The mechanism should be effective for any war, against any aggressor. The pointing out of deficiencies in the Proposals which has taken place here is only the indirect expression of the fact that none of our governments believes that aggression can be banished from the world simply by the unconditional surrender of the present aggressors.

But Colombia, like the other countries of America which expressed their thought in the resolutions of Mexico City, has confidence in the will for peace of the United Nations, large and small, victorious in this war. It believes that, in general, the mechanism of Dumbarton Oaks assures a long peace but a provisional one. Colombia believes that the generation which waged the war, which led it and backed it, is capable of keeping the peace. But it also believes that this system is a compromise, as has been said here, between the realities of 1945 and the aspirations of humanity. No American state can think otherwise because the inter-American system, functioning, of course, in a less complex continent, is unquestionably more perfect. The inter-American system proscribes all violence, all acquisition of territory by force, all intervention or interference of one country in the internal affairs of another, all aggression and, furthermore, unequivocably defines the aggressor. Should the latter appear on the scene, the Pan-American community would condemn it and apply sanctions by the democratic majority of its representative bodies; there is no privileged vote nor right of veto against such a decision. In accepting a different and less perfect system, we citizens of the Americas would not renounce our system; on the contrary, we would conserve the hope that the whole world might some day be ruled by the principles and procedures which have guaranteed peace, security, justice, and respect to all our nations and which have permitted us to live unarmed. But we are fully aware that if we did not join this world Organization, inadequate and imperfect though it might be, we should not be contributing to the peace of the world and that, in any event, we should have to face any war which might break out beyond our Hemisphere, through no fault or responsibility of ours.

It was with this criterion that we participated in good faith in the League of Nations. It may not be out of order to recall that the only two interventions of that organiza

tion which stand out as examples of efficiency took place in two cases centering in the Americas: In the conflict between Colombia and Peru, countries which submitted to the decision of the League and one of which had part of its territory administered by authorities of the League until the end of the incident, and the other, with less brilliant results, in the Chaco War.

But, so far as Colombia is concerned, it understands that no regional system like the inter-American one, or any other that might be established on a similar basis, can and should suffer any setback or detriment as long as, like ours, it shows that it is fully consistent with the aims of the general organization and, in addition, shows its efficacy in maintaining the peace and security of part of the world. The inter-American regional system is an old and excellent political institution and it was so recognized very clearly, although badly defined, by the Covenant of the League of Nations as the typical regional system. We citizens of the Americas will never ask for special privileges for our system and I believe that we all agree that, if there were three or four similar ones which guaranteed regional peace with the efficiency which ours has shown, great progress would be made toward permanent universal peace. The regional system must be co-ordinated with the sole world system and it cannot have different objectives than those of the world organization. But the regional methods, pacific and coercive, which the regional system may employ to guarantee peace or to prevent and punish aggression, so long as they are applied within the spirit of the procedures of the world Organization and with the sole purpose of preserving a just peace and the rule of justice, should not be subject to the veto of a single nation if, as is the case with the Pan-American system, this right of veto is not granted to any of the nations in the regional group. If there were to be an act of aggression in or against the Americas, all of the countries of the American system should come to the aid of the victim in accordance with our undertakings at Mexico. No nation of the Americas, still less if it were the aggressor, could veto the action taken to prevent or repulse the aggression. On the other hand, within the world organization, a nation foreign to the conflict could do so and arrest the action at any moment with only a single negative vote. Some of us of the American states have well-grounded fears that the presumption that the regional group would be in error and that, on the contrary, the state which has the right to paralyze the group's action cannot be wrong, is too forced a presumption to be a guarantee of peace, and would instead contribute to disorder.

It is clear that the defect lies in the voting procedure in the Security Council and not in the relations of the world organization and the regional one. But Colombia is prepared to concede that this voting procedure may be necessary to maintain the unstable equilibrium of another part of the world, destroyed by the barbarity of Nazism, which will enter once more, from now on, into a new experiment to try to find a solution for its age-old conflicts. In this part of the world, miraculously spared from catastrophe and miraculously stable, which has settled its territorial problems, which relies on perfected and respected public treaties, which consequently is in a position to ascertain who is the aggressor and when there is aggression, such a procedure might unleash war instead of assuring peace. In accord with its undertakings at Chapultepec, Colombia believes that if the system of voting in the Security Council be approved as recommended, because it is deemed necessary for the security of the world, autonomy of regional arrangements like the inter-American one should be amplified so that its decisions could not be vetoed by a single nation in the Security Council.

I am well aware that the old nations whose beginnings and history are interwoven with the history and the beginnings of mankind may listen with certain explicable doubts to us of the American states when we proclaim our confidence in the juridical and political methods which we have adopted in the international field. Nevertheless, these doubts are not justified. In reality, we are only a young branch of the civilization of Christianity and of the West. There is nothing in our culture nor in the forms of our political and social life in which a man of the old world cannot recognize the basic roots, which are the nature or the will of his own forebears. However, through an understandable phenomenon, the great antitheses which were created in the political thought of the West were resolved without great struggles in American syntheses and in an atmosphere more favorable to the unlimited growth of man. The first clashes in modern times between democracy and autocracy took place in England; while the struggle continued fiercely and cruelly on the other side of the Atlantic, here, in the broad reaches of the British colonies the conflict was settled with marvelous ease. None of the concepts of international law which govern the relations of the peoples of this Hemisphere can be termed a typically American creation. But how much effort, how many wars, how much pain, how much misery has it cost European civilization for centuries to implant a principle which, among us, is accepted at a Pan-American meeting as a natural accord of wills without opposition from any important national interest? We are not, because of this, better or worse but only more fortunate. And we do not feel, nor shall we feel, it to be unjust or arbitrary that every time that the old Hemisphere is shaken by a new conflict, caused by complications dating back through the centuries, the American continent should interest itself in its settlement, including the shedding of its blood. If classical civilization were to undergo a disaster, ours, which is identical, would be tied to its destiny. The short experience of America is that the past and present of Europe are the immediate future of America and not the reverse. Thus, we have the privilege of foretelling our destiny

Fifth Plenary Session...

by reading the pages of the history of our civilization as it was unfolded on the other side of the ocean. We are not and should not be regionalists and we could not be, even if we wished. We speak today of the continent as of a unit, it is true, but this is for one reason: Because we will not be able to say that the world is a unit until the task which we are beginning now, in San Francisco, becomes perfected and a long peace permits us to have a little more confidence in our capacity to make it a permanent one-without need for recourse to force.

But, Fellow Delegates, any explanation as to the feelings of America regarding the problems of the world is unnecessary. One by one, the representatives of all the nations meeting here have rendered tribute to the memory of Franklin Delano Roosevelt. Each one has found a special reason for affection, for admiration, for gratitude, interpretating the sorrow of his nation because Roosevelt was a friend of all the nations and the good neighbor of humanity. Franklin Delano Roosevelt was an American, the greatest of our times, the most American of all. We owe the development of our regional system to his generous, straightforward and fortunate policy as a true American but the old world owes him more, the victory of the United Nations, the liberation of many oppressed peoples and the peace which we must guard zealously at this Conference.

MR. EDEN: Fellow Delegates, while the hour is late, I think that you all feel we should hear one more orator tonight. The list is still a long one and we must get on. I propose therefore to call one more speaker tonight. Before calling upon him, I would like to announce to the plenary session the decision taken unanimously by the Steering Committee this morning that at the opening of our next session, that is tomorrow afternoon, the first speaker should be one who is esteemed in his knowledge, wisdom, and experience, Field Marshal Smuts of the Union of South Africa.

I now call on the Minister of Foreign Affairs and chairman of the delegation of Ecuador, whose speech will be translated later into English by Ambassador Ballen.

MR. PONCE ENRIQUEZ (in Spanish):

MR. DURAN BALLEN (in English): Mr. Chairman, and Fellow Delegates, Ladies and Gentlemen: To occupy this history-making rostrum to express with loyalty and precision the concepts which inspire the Ecuadorian attitude at this United Nations Conference on International Organization is indeed an honor and a privilege.

We, the representatives of 46 nations, have not come to San Francisco to lay down a set of conditions leading to another war but to build the foundation for an enduring peace. And so it is that our responsibility emerges, as creators of an international structure equipped with essential elements of preservation and defense, without recurring in the original mistakes which so mortally affected the old League of Nations, whose brief experience demonstrated to the world, in a pathetic way, that the spirit of peace which it sheltered lacked the positive means to live and to survive in a universe charged with unrestrained appetitites and pitfalls.

To win the peace is a more complex task than to win the war because whereas victories are inspired by the

firm will of those who achieve them, aided by all sorts of destructive techniques, to win the peace moral disarmament is necessary, that is to say, the instinct of violence of which men and states are possessed must be uprooted. The findings of the Dumbarton Oaks Conference merely suggested the path along which the San Francisco Conference was to travel in order to achieve its transcendental task.

There were gathered in its text, by way of experiment, the elements of a system of world organization, fortified to be sure, by the high prestige of the powers who attended that memorable meeting.

Yet, inseparably allied with its text, the Atlantic Charter had already stated the moral substance of certain guiding principles of international good neighborliness, which the San Francisco Conference cannot afford to disregard without nullifying itself.

There is, furthermore, as a background, as far as the guidance and behavior of America in this great assembly are concerned, the Mexico Conference recently held by the republics of the Western Hemisphere, where among other subjects, a chapter on international organization was