« ПретходнаНастави »
Fifth Plenary Session
It seems to me that the question is not well set before supporting the request expressed by the Soviet delegaus. Personally, I refuse to express any judgment whatso- tion, has asked that this question be postponed for a few ever regarding the Argentine Government. I am not in a days. I feel definitely that such postponement of the quesposition to state whether it is Fascist or a democratic tion would be entirely useless. For what reason can such government. Furthermore, I feel that that is not the ques- postponement be invoked? Is it desired to make a retion before us. Neither do I feel that it is a question of search or an analysis of the constitution of the Argentine principle, but rather a question of procedure.
Government? Is it desired to investigate its character? I The question that is before us is the question of invit- submit that such investigation will be contrary to the ing Argentina to take her seat immediately in our Con- principle of nonintervention and would lead to it would ference of nations.
merely be tantamount to saying Argentina is not to be Now, the Soviet delegation has merely asked that this .present. question be postponed for a few days so as to enable the MR. BELAUNDE (in Spanish): Soviet delegation to confer with the representatives of INTERPRETER (in English) : True it is that the purpose the other three great powers, in an effort to arrive at a is to maintain and establish unanimity, but this unanidecision that shall express their unanimity.
mity depends on the action of the four sponsoring nations. It seems to me that it will be wise for the assembly to It does not depend on us. We ask that they consider our grant this request, because it seems to me that the re- views and our feelings. We realize that this unanimity quest of the Soviet delegation is reasonable and legiti- does not depend on us. It is a question, it seems to me, of mate. Surely we would all welcome with joy the arrival of faith in the actions as agreed on during the Mexico City another nation in the midst of our Conference.
Conference as was so eloquently pointed out by the ForArgentina, we recognize, is a nation with a long demo- eign Minister of Mexico, Ezequiel Padilla. The question cratic tradition. It has made valuable contributions to in- for me is one that can be briefly stated. Do not the Amerternational law. Her presence here would help in our de- ican nations constitute a juridical and moral unity? I ask liberations. We would all want at this moment to be ready then why do not other nations render homage and do to say “Yes” to her coming, and thereby express our honor to the actions concluded in Mexico in the Chapulgood will.
tepec Conference. We are now faced with the fact that But it seems to me that there is another principle that Argentina has met the requirements placed upon her in we must bear in mind, equally important. It is the prin- the course of that Conference. ciple of maintaining complete unanimity between the four MR. BELAUNDE (in Spanish): sponsoring nations. I believe that this is one of great im- INTERPRETER (in English): We cannot forget, as has portance in our minds—to maintain complete unanimity been so ably pointed out by the Delegate of Belgium, the among the four sponsoring nations.
long-standing democratic tradition of Argentina. Also, let us try to be logical. We, the delegations of The South American continent was made free by two other nations, accepted, without questioning, the invita- great liberating forces of men, those from the North tions as they were sent out by the four great powers. We under the leadership of Bolívar, those in the South movaccepted also the agreement reached at Yalta by the ing northward under the leadership of San Martín. great powers regarding the representation of the Ukraine I speak with deep emotion. Peru can never forget San and the Byelorussian Republics as founding members of Martín, the Argentine, the liberation of Chile, and finally the International Organization.
the liberation of Peru. Now, regarding Poland, it seems that we must post- It is true that the Argentine Government may have depone that question because it is attached to an agreement viated from its long-standing democratic traditions. But reached between the three powers. We would all welcome now we are faced with the fact that the Argentine Govthe arrival of Poland in our deliberations and will be ernment has incorporated itself juridically and morally eager to hear her voice. However, the agreement has not into the family of American nations. This cannot be deyet been reached between the three powers.
nied. This cannot be questioned. This question, therefore, I insist again, let us try to be logical; let us make a last cannot be postponed. effort to maintain unanimity between the sponsoring na- MR. BELAUNDE (in Spanish): tions.
INTERPRETER (in English): The question for postponeI believe that it will be wise to grant the request estab- ment can only be applied in a situation that calls for an lished before you—set before you by the Soviet delega- investigation—a situation that is doubtful. But it cannot tion, because it is fundamentally a reasonable and legiti- be applied to the present situation, where there is no mate request.
doubt, where there is nothing to question regarding the MR. EDEN: Fellow Delegates, I hope that before very actions taken in the Mexico City Conference. long we shall be able to come to a decision as to whether Although the Argentine Government of that time may we want to pronounce upon this matter now or to post- have made deviations, we are now faced with the fact pone it to a later date.
that the Argentine Government has complied with the I have got still five names on the list; I thought you Mexico City Conference requirements. Argentina, furmight like to know how we were getting on.
thermore, we must bear in mind, generously furnished I have been asked to recognize the Peruvian delegation food and war materials during the war. Argentina stands and I call on Ambassador Belaunde to come to the tri- out for its great service to culture. It was one of the first bunal.
Latin-American nations to modify her school systems, MR. BELAUNDE: Mr. Chairman, Fellow Delegates, La- adopting reforms inspired by the educational system of dies and Gentlemen (continued in Spanish):
the United States. INTERPRETER (in English): I am happy to speak before We admire also the great literary movement of our sisyou in Spanish-Spanish, the language of international ter republic and also the significant contributions that she law. For the founders of international law spoke in Span- has made in the Pan-American Conferences. In 1890 she ish and it was in Spanish that Bolívar called on the Amer- came out strongly for the condemnation of all territorial ican nations to convene at that historical congress. In conquest. In the Drago doctrine, she made a great contriSpanish, also, a great Argentinian pronounced that mem- bution to juridical thought. It was also Argentina that orable phrase: “America for humanity.”
made the contribution to our inter-American system exMR. BELAUNDE (in Spanish):
pressed in the system of consultation of foreign minisINTERPRETER (in English): The delegation of Belgium, ters. 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 ...
Address by Alberto Lleras Camargo
CHAIRMAN, THE COLOMBIAN DELEGATION
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
tion which stand out as examples of efficiency took place know full well that another world war, breaking out in in two cases centering in the Americas: In the conflict another continent for whatever reason foreign to our between Colombia and Peru, countries which submitted direct interests, would still be our war. It is our unequivo- to the decision of the League and one of which had part cal duty to sit with you to discuss the best means of mak- of its territory administered by authorities of the League ing such a war impossible precisely because we are small, until the end of the incident, and the other, with less brilalmost defenseless, countries as compared with the great liant results, in the Chaco War. powers but with an undeniable place in the front ranks of But, so far as Colombia is concerned, it understands peace-loving nations, that is, of those nations who neither
that no regional system like the inter-American one, or seek nor welcome wars and renounce them as an instru- any other that might be established on a similar basis, ment of national policy.
can and should suffer any setback or detriment as long as, The Dumbarton Oaks Proposals are based on an exact like ours, it shows that it is fully consistent with the aims and practical evaluation of this truth; the small nations of the general organization and, in addition, shows its cannot guarantee the peace and security of the world; efficacy in maintaining the peace and security of part of only the large ones can. We are all in agreement. But the the world. The inter-American regional system is an old basis for this truth lies in the fact that it is only the great and excellent political institution and it was so recognized powers which can menace the peace and security of the very clearly, although badly defined, by the Covenant of world. When, in the fall of 1944, the Dumbarton Oaks the League of Nations as the typical regional system. We Proposals were discussed and approved it did not seem as citizens of the Americas will never ask for special priviclear as it does today that the three aggressor nations of leges for our system and I believe that we all agree that, the Axis would not again be in a position to attack for if there were three or four similar ones which guaranteed a long time, perhaps never. The mechanism set up in the regional peace with the efficiency which ours has shown, draft Charter is influenced by the war effort against a great progress would be made toward permanent univerdefinite enemy; it is and always will be sufficient to deal sal peace. The regional system must be co-ordinated with with that enemy. But is there any among us who believes the sole world system and it cannot have different obthat, when the capacity of Germany, Japan, and Italy is jectives than those of the world organization. But the destroyed, another war will be impossible ? No. We are regional methods, pacific and coercive, which the regional realists and we fear another war the source of which is
system may employ to guarantee peace or to prevent absolutely unforeseeable. The mechanism should be effec- and punish aggression, so long as they are applied within tive for any war, against any aggressor. The pointing out the spirit of the procedures of the world Organization of deficiencies in the Proposals which has taken place and with the sole purpose of preserving a just peace and here is only the indirect expression of the fact that none the rule of justice, should not be subject to the veto of a of our governments believes that aggression can be ban- single nation if, as is the case with the Pan-American ished from the world simply by the unconditional sur- system, this right of veto is not granted to any of the render of the present aggressors.
nations in the regional group. If there were to be an act But Colombia, like the other countries of America of aggression in or against the Americas, all of the counwhich expressed their thought in the resolutions of Mex- tries of the American system should come to the aid of ico City, has confidence in the will for peace of the United the victim in accordance with our undertakings at MexNations, large and small, victorious in this war. It be- ico. No nation of the Americas, still less if it were the lieves that, in general, the mechanism of Dumbarton Oaks aggressor, could veto the action taken to prevent or reassures a long peace but a provisional one. Colombia be- pulse the aggression. On the other hand, within the world lieves that the generation which waged the war, which led organization, a nation foreign to the conflict could do so it and backed it, is capable of keeping the peace. But it and arrest the action at any moment with only a single also believes that this system is a compromise, as has negative vote. Some of us of the American states have been said here, between the realities of 1945 and the well-grounded fears that the presumption that the reaspirations of humanity. No American state can think gional group would be in error and that, on the contrary, otherwise because the inter-American system, function- the state which has the right to paralyze the group's acing, of course, in a less complex continent, is unquestion- tion cannot be wrong, is too forced a presumption to be ably more perfect. The inter-American system proscribes a guarantee of peace, and would instead contribute to all violence, all acquisition of territory by force, all inter- disorder. vention or interference of one country in the internal It is clear that the defect lies in the voting procedure affairs of another, all aggression and, furthermore, un- in the Security Council and not in the relations of the equivocably defines the aggressor. Should the latter ap- world organization and the regional one. But Colombia pear on the scene, the Pan-American community would is prepared to concede that this voting procedure may be condemn it and apply sanctions by the democratic ma- necessary to maintain the unstable equilibrium of anjority of its representative bodies; there is no privileged other part of the world, destroyed by the barbarity of vote nor right of veto against such a decision. In accept- Nazism, which will enter once more, from now on, into ing a different and less perfect system, we citizens of a new experiment to try to find a solution for its age-old the Americas would not renounce our system; on the con- conflicts. In this part of the world, miraculously spared trary, we would conserve the hope that the whole world from catastrophe and miraculously stable, which has might some day be ruled by the principles and procedures settled its territorial problems, which relies on perfected which have guaranteed peace, security, justice, and re- and respected public treaties, which consequently is in spect to all our nations and which have permitted us to a position to ascertain who is the aggressor and when live unarmed. But we are fully aware that if we did not there is aggression, such a procedure might unleash war join this world Organization, inadequate and imperfect instead of assuring peace. In accord with its undertakings though it might be, we should not be contributing to the at Chapultepec, Colombia believes that if the system of peace of the world and
hat, in any event, we should voting in the Security Council be approved as recomhave to face any war which might break out beyond our mended, because it is deemed necessary for the security Hemisphere, through no fault or responsibility of ours. of the world, autonomy of regional arrangements like the
It was with this criterion that we participated in good inter-American one should be amplified so that its defaith in the League of Nations. It may not be out of order cisions could not be vetoed by a single nation in the to recall that the only two interventions of that organiza- Security Council.
I am well aware that the old nations whose beginnings by reading the pages of the history of our civilization as and history are interwoven with the history and the be- it was unfolded on the other side of the ocean. We are ginnings of mankind may listen with certain explicable not and should not be regionalists and we could not be, doubts to us of the American states when we proclaim even if we wished. We speak today of the continent as our confidence in the juridical and political methods which of a unit, it is true, but this is for one reason: Because we have adopted in the international field. Nevertheless, we will not be able to say that the world is a unit unthese doubts are not justified. In reality, we are only a til the task which we are beginning now, in San Franyoung branch of the civilization of Christianity and of cisco, becomes perfected and a long peace permits us the West. There is nothing in our culture nor in the forms to have a little more confidence in our capacity to of our political and social life in which a man of the make it a permanent one-without need for recourse old world cannot recognize the basic roots, which are the to force. nature or the will of his own forebears. However, through But, Fellow Delegates, any explanation as to the feelan understandable phenomenon, the great antitheses ings of America regarding the problems of the world is which were created in the political thought of the West unnecessary. One by one, the representatives of all the nawere resolved without great struggles in American syn- tions meeting here have rendered tribute to the memory theses and in an atmosphere more favorable to the un- of Franklin Delano Roosevelt. Each one has found a spelimited growth of man. The first clashes in modern times cial reason for affection, for admiration, for gratitude, between democracy and autocracy took place in England; interpretating the sorrow of his nation because Roosevelt while the struggle continued fiercely and cruelly on the was a friend of all the nations and the good neighbor of other side of the Atlantic, here, in the broad reaches of humanity. Franklin Delano Roosevelt was an American, the British colonies the conflict was settled with mar- the greatest of our times, the most American of all. We velous ease. None of the concepts of international law owe the development of our regional system to his genwhich govern the relations of the peoples of this Hemi- erous, straightforward and fortunate policy as a true sphere can be termed a typically American creation. American but the old world owes him more, the victory But how much effort, how many wars, how much pain, of the United Nations, the liberation of many oppressed how much misery has it cost European civilization for peoples and the peace which we must guard zealously at centuries to implant a principle which, among us, is ac- this Conference. cepted at a Pan-American meeting as a natural accord of MR. EDEN: Fellow Delegates, while the hour is late, I wills without opposition from any important national think that you all feel we should hear one more orator interest? We are not, because of this, better or worse but tonight. The list is still a long one and we must get on. only more fortunate. And we do not feel, nor shall we I propose therefore to call one more speaker tonight. Befeel, it to be unjust or arbitrary that every time that the fore calling upon him, I would like to announce to the old Hemisphere is shaken by a new conflict, caused by plenary session the decision taken unanimously by the complications dating back through the centuries, the Steering Committee this morning that at the opening American continent should interest itself in its settle- of our next session, that is tomorrow afternoon, the first ment, including the shedding of its blood. If classical speaker should be one who is esteemed in his knowledge, civilization were to undergo a disaster, ours, which is wisdom, and experience, Field Marshal Smuts of the identical, would be tied to its destiny. The short experi- Union of South Africa, ence of America is that the past and present of Europe I now call on the Minister of Foreign Affairs and are the immediate future of America and not the reverse. chairman of the delegation of Ecuador, whose speech will Thus, we have the privilege of foretelling our destiny be translated later into English by Ambassador Ballen.
Fifth Plenary Session ...
Address by Camilo Ponce Enriquez
CHAIRMAN, THE ECUADORIAN DELEGATION
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