YouSaid · the spoken record

Arce

THE RECORD WRITES THIS SPEAKER AS ARCE

lines on the record: 100
first: 1946-09-24
most recent: 1949-09-24
sittings or episodes: 3
sources: un-general-debate

Every line below is reproduced as it was said and linked to the record it came from. Nothing here is summarised or generated. Directory · Search · Corrections

“If any of the great dictators of the past had suspected that good faith could lead to such extremes, he would certainly have decided to take the lead in setting up an international organization as the exclusive instrument of Ins campaign for domination. Some will argue, no doubt, that to counter such eventualities, we may resort to Article 51 of the Charter, which authorizes legitimate individual or collective self-defence, independently of the Security Council. I accept this and in that connexion I applaud the decision of the nations of the Western Hemisphere to form an indissoluble union by virtue of the Treaty of Rio de Janeiro for the purpose of availing themselves of this right in case of aggression. But the argument is valueless.”
1947-09-24 · UN General Assembly · General Debate, Session 2 (1947)
“It follows that' the veto is an excellent method of doing two things: preventing the United Nations from adopting resolutions for the maintenance of peace and security; and favouring any of the great Powers who decide to act in bad faith. Meanwhile, it would seem that the other nations are obliged to remain passive while they contribute their money, their efforts, the time lost in conferences, in the drawing up of rules of procedure, fixing terms of reference, constituting “committees and sub-committees, drafting wordings and rewordings” to the possible establishment of a world dictatorship.”
1947-09-24 · UN General Assembly · General Debate, Session 2 (1947)
“Now, however, if one of the great Powers decided not to carry out in good faith its obligations under the Charter, it could paralyse the action of the Council that was set up at San Francisco as a panacea for maintaining peace. Furthermore, it could, by dilatory manoeuvres, by the use and abuse of the “legal” veto, distract the attention of the other great Powers, complete its military preparations and launch the conflict when it was most convenient to its own interests. Was it for this that forty-five nations met at San Francisco and voluntarily tied their hands by a treaty from which — so it is said — they cannot free themselves without dissolving the Organisation? The great Powers were in a better position before signing the Charter, since they were not bound by a covenant compelling them to act in good faith.”
1947-09-24 · UN General Assembly · General Debate, Session 2 (1947)
“Whenever one or more States attempted to act against the interests or the rights of a great Power, that Power felt itself entitled to use its “veto”, to complain, to negotiate, to hold up the action of the other great Powers and request the convening of an international conference in order to satisfy its aspirations or its vanity. In the absence of this recourse, the great Powers resorted to armed conflict to impose their will, if the fortunes of war seemed to favour them. I will only recall two cases. One of Germany’s vetoes brought about Sedan and the fall of the Second Empire; another the Algeciras Conference. Yet neither Bismarck nor Wilhelm II possessed the “legal” veto which the San Francisco Charter has established.”
1947-09-24 · UN General Assembly · General Debate, Session 2 (1947)
“We must conclude that its behaviour has been dictated by the “do-nothing” policy which it has pursued up to now, and for which, of course, a police force is hardly necessary. I need not add that all this is due to the veto power; the power which authorizes any one of the permanent members of the Council to paralyse the action of that body. To attain such results, the great Powers did not require the privilege which has been granted to them; while the small and the medium sized nations would not have approved a Charter containing this privilege, if they had known it was going to prove useless in achieving the ends for which it was intended. The great Powers have always enjoyed what I might call a “free” veto, to differentiate it from the “legal” veto provided by the Charter.”
1947-09-24 · UN General Assembly · General Debate, Session 2 (1947)
“The Council was expressly created to maintain peace and avert or eliminate conflict; yet it spends its time carrying out tasks which are not within its province, and fails to fulfil the specific obligation imposed upon it at San Francisco, despite the wide powers granted to it at that time. The Security Council is to prepare agreements for the regulation of armaments; the Assembly last year made recommendations to this effect. Up to now it has not been able to take any decision on the matter. The Council, furthermore, ought to set up the “international police force” which is necessary to enforce compliance with its resolutions; up to now it has not fulfilled this obligation.”
1947-09-24 · UN General Assembly · General Debate, Session 2 (1947)
“It did this in the case of the ratification of amendments, which cannot be considered as approved without the concurrent votes of the five permanent members of the Security Council. If we pass from the Security Council’s action with regard to the admission of new Members to a consideration of the performance of its other functions under the Charter, it must be confessed that matters have fared no better. Four countries, two of which are Members of the United Nations, are in conflict. Each blames the other for what has occurred. A commission of the Security Council has confirmed the facts; the Press has criticized the effectiveness of that commission. Yet the Security Council, after numerous and prolonged meetings, has not been able to decide what to do.”
1947-09-24 · UN General Assembly · General Debate, Session 2 (1947)
“We shall see whether the Assembly this year will defend its rights and exercise its powers when the Argentine delegation proposes the admission, of the five nations I have mentioned, all of which have obtain is seven or more favourable votes in the Council, which, in my view, is equivalent to a favourable recommendation. The Security Council can recommend the non-admission of new Members, but the use of the veto in this matter cannot be sanctioned, since in that case it would be a Security Council and not an Assembly decision. Apart from the fact that the text of the Charter is explicit, I shall mention only one argument in support of my thesis. When the Charter wished to authorize the use of the veto by the so-called “Big Five” in matters unrelated to security and international peace, it expressly said so.”
1947-09-24 · UN General Assembly · General Debate, Session 2 (1947)
“Nevertheless, the Security Council has allowed the veto to be applied in matters concerning the admission of new Members, and now the world looks on with amazement as peace-loving nations such as Ireland, Portugal, Transjordan, Italy and Austria wait at the door of the United Nations, because the Security Council persists in maintaining that their requests for admission must obtain the favourable recommendation of all five of its permanent members. With regard to the admission of new Members, the Security Council’s task is to make a recommendation, for or against; but it can only recommend; the only organ of the United Nations which can and should decide, for or against, is the General Assembly.”
1947-09-24 · UN General Assembly · General Debate, Session 2 (1947)
“Under the provisions of the Charter and in accordance with the San Francisco declaration of the four Powers which upheld the voting procedure agreed upon at Yalta, the veto is only to be applied in matters dealt with in Chapters VI, VII, VIII and XII, that is, in matters concerned with assuring security and maintaining peace. Indeed, that is the specific function of the Security Council. The use of the veto is restrictive; it should be restrictive. Its sole object is to prevent the United Nations from exerting pressure on one of the great Powers, for fear that such pressure might endanger peace.”
1947-09-24 · UN General Assembly · General Debate, Session 2 (1947)
“To obtain the majority required to approve the proposal for convening a conference for the propose of reviewing the Charter is one thing; what each of the Member States thinks of the veto is another. I venture to assert — and this is my personal impression — that the majority is now convinced that the inclusion of the veto in the Charter was a grave error, but there are some who believe that we can still wait and they recommend palliative measures, although I do not think they have much confidence in the success of such measures, even if they should manage to impose them. Worst of all, the veto has been used improperly.”
1947-09-24 · UN General Assembly · General Debate, Session 2 (1947)
“The veto was established because of contemporary political circumstances which were likely to change and, as everyone knows, have in fact changed. At that time, and in spite of favourable circumstances, only thirty States voted for the veto and seventeen against it; I am sure that if the question were reopened in the present circumstances, that proportion would change fundamentally and the decision would go against the privilege. At the time the head of the Argentine delegation stated that the court of experience would judge which side wag right. He certainly did not expect that court to pass a final and unfavourable judgment within two years. I said “unfavourable” and that is what I mean.”
1947-09-24 · UN General Assembly · General Debate, Session 2 (1947)
“I do not think that this statement needs any explanation; but, to put it bluntly, the United Nations is based on the principle of the sovereign equality of all its Members, and therefore any political discrimination, such as the veto, violates that principle. No discrimination could be more glaring. Under the Charter, the eleven members of' the Security Council represent all the Members of the United Nations and act on their behalf; nevertheless, a single State has the power to nullify the will of the other fifty-four. Even if we assume that each of the eleven members of the Security Council represents five of the fifty-five States in the United Nations, it could still be said that a single State is able to nullify the will of fifty.”
1947-09-24 · UN General Assembly · General Debate, Session 2 (1947)
“To illustrate this point, I propose, in this second part of my speech, to discuss a concrete problem of an international nature related to our Organization, and one which in our opinion should be reviewed immediately. The delegation of Argentina has asked for a reopening of the discussion on the privilege of the veto granted to those States which are permanent members; of the Security Council. It should be noted that the States enjoy a dual privilege. On the one hand they hold permanent seats on the Security Council, and on the other, they can nullify its resolutions, even those to which all the other members of the Council have agreed. The veto is contrary to the principles of the Charter.”
1947-09-24 · UN General Assembly · General Debate, Session 2 (1947)
“Such is the programme outlined in the appeal made to the peoples of the world by the Argentine Government. To those who accuse this appeal of being too ambitious or too theoretical, I would say that even the most insignificant programme appears ambitious when indolence deters us from making the effort to carry it out, and that any programme is theoretical if people do not wish to take the trouble to apply it, I should like to add that many of the items m this programme could be carried out immediately if, instead of continually losing sight of the purposes and principles of the Charter, we re-read it every day as though it were a Bible inspiting our actions which are for the most part strongly influences by our selfish interest as individuals, and by the desire for expansion and domination in the world community.”
1947-09-24 · UN General Assembly · General Debate, Session 2 (1947)
“Let us not forget furthermore that man is on a higher plane than the systems he has created, and that those systems should be made to serve him. To promote aggression or to unleash war in defence of certain systems is an outrage against humanity and in present circumstances is liable to lead to its destruction. Let us abandon systems if they do not help towards progress; let us save man, who, when all is said and done, is the best system, material or spiritual, yet created, since he is the work of God and not of man. To save him we must try every social action that is compatible with public and private resources. Such action may vary with each country, but it must create an atmosphere of well-being at home, which in the international sphere will make war hateful as a means of reconciling differences between nations.”
1947-09-24 · UN General Assembly · General Debate, Session 2 (1947)
“Finally, we must strive for all the States Members of the United Nations to give up a little more of their sovereignty by accepting arbitration as a compulsory method of settling disputes, whatever their magnitude. We believe that we have preached by example, for this peace-loving attitude has always been the policy of Argentina in international affairs. With the object of promoting the implementation of this programme, we must encourage humanity’s spiritual disarmament. A concerted effort by the men, women and children of all nations, especially the women and children, can banish the ideas, words and acts of the victims of an aggressive psychosis, which is a real disease and one that we must fight until it disappears.”
1947-09-24 · UN General Assembly · General Debate, Session 2 (1947)
“There are many small and medium sized States which have inscribed in their tradition and in their history their desire for peace and a tranquil life within the hereditary domain that fate has allotted them. Such conduct should be respected and Imitated by the great Powers, so as to give an impressive example to those smaller States which are less peace-loving. What I have said about solidarity at home, in speaking of poverty and plenty, can by analogy be applied in the international field to the «nail and great Powers of the world. Another means of ensuring international peace is respect for the right of determination of peoples, a fundamental principle which we have always upheld and which is inscribed in the sacred tablets of Chapter I of the United Nations Charter.”
1947-09-24 · UN General Assembly · General Debate, Session 2 (1947)
“What I have just explained with regard to internal affairs should serve as an example for international affairs. In the name of the Argentine Government I wish to state that we are ready to add our resources to those provided in the general plans for the material and spiritual rehabilitation of the world, and especially of Europe. Spiritual forces and, if need be, material strength and wealth must be placed at the service of the powers of good, to counteract the efforts of those who, through vice or temperament, conspire with what is evil. To achieve peace in the international sphere, we must first condemn all aggression, whether territorial, economic, or political. Those who have power in the world should realize that fate has placed in their hands all that they need to bring happiness to their peoples.”
1947-09-24 · UN General Assembly · General Debate, Session 2 (1947)
“Social security should ensure protection for all human brings, from the cradle to the grave; safeguarding tire health of mother and child; looking after the education of the young; providing work for the adult and ensuring the tranquility of the aged, so that even the most humble may enjoy at least the essential minimum compatible with human dignity. Social security is the great remedy for creating internal peace and solidarity. The climate of social injustice is too harsh to compel man to live in it without rebelling. Poverty and plenty cannot live together; that is why the fortunate ones who have more should hasten to give a part of their surplus to better the lot of the needy. Indeed, they should realize that by such action they are taking out an insurance policy, so that they may enjoy in greater tranquility what remains to them.”
1947-09-24 · UN General Assembly · General Debate, Session 2 (1947)
“The applied sciences have not yet found efficient methods of correcting these inequalities and reducing the diversity to a common denominator. Hence the difficulties to which I have referred are created by the instinctive end inevitable expression of each personality. Fortunately, those which may be considered discordant dements are in the minority. Our most efficient method of dealing with such difficulties so far has been general, public education — and I would add: free, compulsory education at State expense. But all other methods of awakening and developing in man the concept of good neighbourliness, tolerance and respect, first within the family and then within the community, should be tried and encouraged. Furthermore, we must end, or at least mitigate, the sufferings of the “have-nots”.”
1947-09-24 · UN General Assembly · General Debate, Session 2 (1947)
“The Argentine delegation feels that it is doing its duty by repeating that appeal in the Assembly where the majority of the nations of the world are represented. The main idea of this appeal is contained in a single word: solidarity. Solidarity must be our basis for achieving internal and international peace, and peace is the only atmosphere in which civilization may exist and develop. To achieve internal peace we must overcome the difficulties artificially created by man. Inequality is a law of nature and man cannot escape it; he does not escape physical inequality; nor can he escape spiritual inequality. Atavistic traits transmitted by heredity, environment, inadequate or badly directed education, the imponderable factors that colour human personality, all these, combined in different degrees, create diversity in the human species.”
1947-09-24 · UN General Assembly · General Debate, Session 2 (1947)
“On behalf of the Argentine delegation, I should like to refer first to the general problem of the maintenance of peace, and later to the concrete question of the greatest obstacle facing the United Nations in the effective accomplishment of its specific functions. The two problems are linked together. I am sure that if we could solve the second, even partially, we should be able to make swift progress towards the solution of the first. K minds were at peace and men were freed from physical fear, they would be able to find harmonious if not identical means whereby all peoples might ensure peace at home and abroad. Let me consider these questions in turn. On 6 July 1947, almost on the eve of the anniversary of our independence, President Peron issued an appeal to the whole world and especially to the peoples of America.”
1947-09-24 · UN General Assembly · General Debate, Session 2 (1947)
“Let us pledge ourselves to work with enthusiasm, but also with the tolerance needed to co-ordinate the tasks entrusted to us. This continent of America, whose welfare we all have at heart, should not be the permanent home of a civilization which has fled from a shaken and devastated Europe, but merely the temporary refuge in which people from the old world, who have come here to face the task of preserving and developing its civilization, may find peace of mind. We can and must show the peoples of the world, who are now at peace and are striving for welfare and progress, that in planning the future happiness of the young nations — our own happiness — we do not contemplate the downfall of the old-established human civilizations, which preceded us in history and to which we owe a large part of what we have and what we are.”
1946-09-24 · UN General Assembly · General Debate, Session 1 (1946)
“For reasons which it is not fitting to dwell upon here, the League failed; but not to the extent of preventing statesmen from returning to the idea after the second world war. Most of the free nations of the world are represented here. The United States of America, which at that time preferred to remain aloof, is now taking a leading part and working with the greatest enthusiasm. The material assets of the former League have been transferred to us; and dominating the whole scene is the spirit of that great visionary of peace and enlightened democrat, Woodrow Wilson, whose life unfortunately came to an end in the midst of the onerous task which he had undertaken. We are in the country of his birth. Let us raise our thoughts towards him and place this Assembly under his auspices.”
1946-09-24 · UN General Assembly · General Debate, Session 1 (1946)
“We are confronted by serious problems; reconstruction of the devastated areas; codification of international law, so that the principles of freedom and justice, for which the second world war was fought, shall be universally established; and, above all, the establishment of social security, so that by one means or another and in proportion to the economic resources of each country, free men throughout the world may know that they are indeed equal and may exercise the right to live, while enjoying the essential minimum standard of decency compatible with human dignity. I do not wish to conclude this address without making an appeal to the highest sentiments of my colleagues here. After the first world war, the Allied and Associated Powers laid the foundations of the League of Nations.”
1946-09-24 · UN General Assembly · General Debate, Session 1 (1946)
“This system should operate for the executive organ, namely, the Security Council. The privilege has, however, been extended to the question of the reform of the Charter, which cannot be effected without the unanimous approval of the same five Powers. I maintain that in this case it becomes not a privilege but an absurdity. The first time an attempt is made to exercise such an unjustified right, there will be no other practical solution but to dissolve the Organization and set it up again immediately on a non-privilege basis: that alone demonstrates the absurdity of the situation. However, pending the solution of this difficulty, we must not remain idle.”
1946-09-24 · UN General Assembly · General Debate, Session 1 (1946)
“Experience has eloquently proved that, so far, this privilege has not operated in defence of the basic principles underlying the United Nations Charter. This is not the time to attempt a demonstration of this point. As, however, I know something of the motives which led to the approval of the clause which I am criticizing I shall restrict myself to saying that the privilege referred to is not conducive to reasoned discussion such as will lead to compromises and agreements; on the contrary, it invites obstinate defence of one-sided points of view and therefore leads to differences and to the abandonment of any constructive action. This privilege should be suppressed and replaced by the system of a two-thirds or three-quarters majority vote by the body concerned.”
1946-09-24 · UN General Assembly · General Debate, Session 1 (1946)
“Experience has shown that the privilege granted to five Powers to invalidate even those resolutions which have been unanimously adopted, has not yielded the results which was expected of it when it was established. It should not therefore be retained, especially as it openly contradicts the very provisions of the Preamble and the purposes and principles upon which the Charter is based. The Argentine delegation has already said that at San Francisco; the only reason why it did not object to the original text, as approved, was because it acknowledged that in certain given circumstances, what is legally just and desirable may not be politically possible. But it added that experience would show whether a reform was appropriate or necessary.”
1946-09-24 · UN General Assembly · General Debate, Session 1 (1946)
“Passing to another subject, I wish to affirm our solidarity, first and foremost, with all the nations of America from Cape Horn to Hudson Bay, and to state that we support the purposes and principles set forth in the San Francisco Charter for the establishment and the maintenance of international peace and security and that we have co-operated, and shall continue to co-operate, in the material rehabilitation of the world. That is why we are here. I have just referred to the San Francisco Charter, the multilateral international treaty that binds us together. No one can pretend that it cannot be improved. For our own part, we maintain that it must be improved.”
1946-09-24 · UN General Assembly · General Debate, Session 1 (1946)
“As long ago as December 1902, this Argentine Prime Minister, by denying the great European Powers the right to obtain, by the presence of their fleets in the waters of the debtor nation, the repayment of loans made by certain of their nationals, upheld the right of men and nations to live at peace, free from fear. The United Nations Charter recognizes all these noble principles to which I have referred; that is why we signed it and we are naturally determined to support it.”
1946-09-24 · UN General Assembly · General Debate, Session 1 (1946)
“But all this is exclusively our own history, and although we certainly cannot deny anyone the right to pass judgment upon us, to applaud our wise actions and blame our mistakes, we do not and never shall allow foreign interference in any matter concerning the right of our people to decide their own destiny inside the boundaries of the territory which fate has given us. From the time they achieve their independence, nations are sovereign States, equal before the law and not subject to any interference from outside unless it be with their own free consent. In speaking on this subject before this Assembly, and in recalling this principle, which is a part of our international political tradition, it would be unjust not to refer to Louis Maria Drago.”
1946-09-24 · UN General Assembly · General Debate, Session 1 (1946)
“A social revolution which was started by a de facto government in 1943 is now being completed by the constitutional government elected in February of this year; this was necessary before any improvement in the balance of economic factors could take place. This shows that the Argentine people have always succeeded in asserting themselves at every stage of their history between 1862 and the present time. It also shows that, although they sometimes made mistakes, they rectified them in the end.”
1946-09-24 · UN General Assembly · General Debate, Session 1 (1946)
“Nevertheless, as early as 1813, the Assembly of the united Provinces of the south had abolished slavery and during the period of tyranny we practised arbitration and withstood foreign interference. Between then and 1880, the year in which the organization of the country was completed by the federalization of the city of Buenos Aires, there were three presidencies, historic in the greatness and in the qualities of the men who held that office. Barely seventy years have passed since then. In 1912, we achieved electoral freedom, but the freely elected governments did not succeed in interpreting the aspirations of a great part of the people who had put them in office.”
1946-09-24 · UN General Assembly · General Debate, Session 1 (1946)
“On the two occasions when we were obliged to resort to arms, we had been provoked; in both cases we won and our victory was also a victory for freedom and justice. Out of the first war, a new nation, today a most progressive one, came into existence; after the second, not only did we refrain from annexing the territories we had been promised, but, as I have already said, we lost many thousands of square kilometres of land. All this happened in the course of a short and somewhat turbulent existence. After the wars of independence, we fell first into anarchy and then into a dictatorship. It was only in 1853 that we provided ourselves with a Constitution, and it was not until 1862 that the country was finally organized.”
1946-09-24 · UN General Assembly · General Debate, Session 1 (1946)
“But our attitude is not based on pretentious claims. We do not claim to be, the authors of these formulae; we simply rejoice that some noble juridical principles, which our country has defended, have been accepted by the great Powers of the earth. If the policy of neutrality maintained by our Government throughout both world wars led us along the wrong road, we have always retraced our steps, and that must suffice. Some neutral countries, very honourable ones moreover, abandoned their isolation through force of circumstances. Others maintained their attitude in the face of every difficulty. Allow me to say in passing, and it should be fully recognized, that the Argentine people have always been opposed to aggressors. We have never started a war.”
1946-09-24 · UN General Assembly · General Debate, Session 1 (1946)
“It is towards that goal that civilization must aspire. But to return to the question of arbitration and our international tradition. Once when the composer Verdi was invited to attend the rehearsal of an unpublished musical score, he sat down in an armchair with his hat on. Someone noticed that from time to time during the performance the composer doffed his hat. When it was over, they asked him why he had done this and Verdi replied “I was greeting old friends." He was referring to certain musical motifs in the work he had just heard which he had written himself. We Argentines, on reading the Atlantic Charter and some of the provisions of the San Francisco Charter, doff our hats respectfully, greeting principles which are now embodied in public international law and with which we had long been familiar.”
1946-09-24 · UN General Assembly · General Debate, Session 1 (1946)
“Our country can support a hundred million inhabitants and we are ready to work to that end, so that the prophesy of Sarmiento, our great visionary, may be fulfilled. In acting thus we in no way desire to encroach upon the interests, or wound the susceptibilities, of any other nation. On the contrary, we shall help towards the solution of the acute social and economic problems caused by the. war, which might lead to the downfall of present-day civilization. Have not we, the united Provinces of the south, before our eyes the great example of the United States of the north, this mighty country which is our host? We desire to follow that example. When all the nations of the earth have reached a similar stage of development, the two thousand million human brings dial inhabit it will be much happier.”
1946-09-24 · UN General Assembly · General Debate, Session 1 (1946)
“Such antecedents prove that we are a peace- loving people, respecting, as much as any, the rights of other nations; we cannot accept without protest any attempt to represent us in a different light. The facts contained in the record of history establish beyond doubt who is speaking the truth. Do we hope to grow, to increase our population, to create wealth and distribute it, so that none of our people may lack the means necessary to provide them with shelter, clothing, footwear, food, education; in short, with at least the minimum of dignity which the human personality requires? We do, indeed: but that aspiration, whilst representing an unquestionable right, is also a duly in which we must not fail.”
1946-09-24 · UN General Assembly · General Debate, Session 1 (1946)
“They certainly were not, for our rights in both cases appeared to be indisputable. But the members of the Government and the press reminded them that “a verdict once given must be held as truth,” and the people returned to their work, that noble work which, in the material sense, enabled us, within a short time, to produce one hundred times the value of the territories lost, and in the moral sense gave the people the satisfaction of feeling that they were taking their place in the vanguard of universal civilization. Personally, I think that those arbitration verdicts were just, because we believe in the justice of arbitration even when the verdict is against us.”
1946-09-24 · UN General Assembly · General Debate, Session 1 (1946)
“Cleveland decided in favour of Brazil, and to this day we are maintaining the closest relations with our neighbour in the north, whose territory is three times larger than that of Argentina. After a century of direct negotiations during which incidents occurred that in other countries might have led to war, we fixed our frontier with Bolivia. We maintain that arbitration is a juridical procedure which must be incorporated in public international law with universal application if we wish to avoid war. We have signed treaties of this kind, which are in force at present, with Uruguay, Paraguay, Bolivia, Chile, Brazil, Italy, Ecuador, Venezuela, Colombia, France and Spain. Were the Argentinian people in agreement with these decisions which deprived us of extensive territories in the Chaco and Misiones?”
1946-09-24 · UN General Assembly · General Debate, Session 1 (1946)
“President Hayes decided in favour of Paraguay, and since then we have cultivated relations of brotherly friendship with the Paraguayan people. Mariano Varela, Sarmiento’s Minister for Foreign Affairs, expressed the point of view of the Argentine Foreign Office in a saying which some have called ingenuous, but which I regard as magnificent: “Victory does not entitle the victors to fix at their discretion their territorial boundaries with the vanquished.” In 1889 we had drafted a frontier agreement with the Brazilian Empire: we were discussing the ownership of an area of twenty-five thousand square leagues in Misiones. When the Republic was proclaimed in November of that year the Brazilian Congress refused to approve the agreement. We then submitted the dispute for arbitration, again to the President of the United States of America. Mr.”
1946-09-24 · UN General Assembly · General Debate, Session 1 (1946)
“Need I recall that the embrace of Presidents Roca and Errazurriz at the Straits of Magellan and the signing of the May pacts which followed, consolidated our friendship with our sister Republic? The Treaty of Alliance signed in 1865 with Brazil and Uruguay, before the war against Marshal Lopez was started, entitled us to incorporate in our territory the whole of the Chaco as far as Bahia Negra. When peace was signed, we did not make use of the rights we had earned by our victory; we ceded the territories to the north of the Verde River and in face of the Paraguayan Government’s opposition in regard to the rest, we submitted to arbitration, by the President of the United States of America, our rights to the lands between the said river and Pilcomayo.”
1946-09-24 · UN General Assembly · General Debate, Session 1 (1946)
“Is it not on the basis that Roosevelt and Churchill signed the Atlantic Charter? Is it not with that purpose that we signed the San Francisco Charter? Is it not a fact that the great Powers have promised the world to act in good faith? It is precisely their economic and military power which places upon them the obligation to fulfill that promise. I referred just now to arbitration in regard to my own country; permit me to dwell further on that matter. We have solved our frontier differences with Chile, Paraguay and Brazil by means of arbitration. In the first case, His Britannic Majesty’s Government was the arbitrator. A decision was reached, and the boundaries were fixed in accordance therewith. We now maintain the most cordial relations with Chile. Need I recall that, at the end of the last century, we were on the brink of war?”
1946-09-24 · UN General Assembly · General Debate, Session 1 (1946)
“Has the San Francisco Charter been signed in order to choose a new overlord, and are we meeting here for that purpose? When faced with international problems which appeared to be insoluble, Argentina has always had recourse to arbitration. In the political field this Assembly must be the arbitrator; in the legal field, the International Court of Justice. If that procedure is followed in the future, when a nation believes it has lost its case either here or at The Hague, it can nevertheless feel satisfied, because the worst of verdicts will always be more favourable to it than the best of wars, if wars can be anything but bad. A good example, moreover, will always have a good influence and that nation will have contributed toward maintaining international peace and security.”
1946-09-24 · UN General Assembly · General Debate, Session 1 (1946)
“Otherwise we should have to recognize that we have come here not to hold discussions, exchange impressions and, if necessary, accept suggestions, but to impose our truth which in such circumstances would be identical with our will, not to say our whim. If that were so, it would be better to stay at home and await events. But the fact is that the last war was fought against such a system, and we, even though we did not take part in it, knew that it was fought with real justification. Even if we admit that every people is governed in the manner best suited to it within its own frontiers, it is not possible to live with peoples who claim to impose their particular truths or, if you like, their ideology on others. Is it not on that account that the regimes of Hitler and Mussolini met their downfall?”
1946-09-24 · UN General Assembly · General Debate, Session 1 (1946)
“In making this assertion, it is not my intention to defend solutions adopted against the wish of substantial minorities, as is done to solve internal problems in countries governed by representative assemblies. I think it would be very difficult to make people submit to the decisions of a universal parliament, primarily because such a parliament would be very difficult to organize. But when an international assembly obtains a majority of sixty-five per cent, seventy per cent or seventy-five per cent of the countries represented, the minority must recognize that this exceptional majority has at least as good intentions as those by which it is itself animated.”
1946-09-24 · UN General Assembly · General Debate, Session 1 (1946)
“Each of them may, and perhaps should, believe, that its own particular conception of the truth is the best; but when the respective truths differ, insistence is out of place. The world, or if you prefer it, the man in the street, may regard such insistence as deliberate and as being maintained with the sole object of preventing a solution being reached. Between perfect accuracy and complete error there are many degrees which are acceptable in proportion to their closeness to the particular conception of truth that each of us personally upholds. A decision must be taken in favour of one of them, and clearly that must be the one which reconciles the greatest possible number of opinions.”
1946-09-24 · UN General Assembly · General Debate, Session 1 (1946)
“We are no friends of unanimity, which is wont to disguise undesirable, if not improper pressure. Even the hottest debates in the defence of conflicting points of view are not incompatible with the desire to reach a solution. We are met here to ensure and maintain international peace and security, and not to lay the foundations of another conflict. The purpose of our deliberations is to reach positive decisions as equitable as our respective interests permit, and not to separate after heated controversies without having done anything useful. Hence, we realize that it is necessary to compromise. Nations, like individuals, when they meet to debate and solve problems which concern them equally, must not believe themselves to be in possession of the only real truth.”
1946-09-24 · UN General Assembly · General Debate, Session 1 (1946)
“At the resumption of the first session of the General Assembly, the Argentine delegation wishes to state its views on a number of questions. Politics are determined by circumstances. Accordingly, in making these remarks, we do not renounce the right to take decisions in the light of events; but we nevertheless think it desirable to state here certain useful principles to serve as a guide for our actions. We hope that these remarks will be interpreted at their true value. We are not sceptics, but our relative optimism would be strengthened if we found that a spirit of conciliation were gaining ground. Otherwise, we should be obliged to resume complete freedom of action, and proceed in accordance with the circumstances and the interests of the country which we represent.”
1946-09-24 · UN General Assembly · General Debate, Session 1 (1946)