YouSaid · the spoken record

Araujo Castro

THE RECORD WRITES THIS SPEAKER AS ARAUJO CASTRO

lines on the record: 72
first: 1963-09-24
most recent: 1963-09-24
sittings or episodes: 1
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

“Without wishing to attenuate the impact and the high significance of the limited test-ban treaty, which reflects an idea which we have defended since the very first days of the Geneva Conference, we cannot refrain from regretting that the Moscow meeting was held outside the province of the Eighteen-Nation Committee on Disarmament, We see no logical or plausible reason for tills development, since we cannot admit the possibility that the nuclear Powers had wished to segregate the remaining members from the solution of a question which was a matter of common interest.”
1963-09-24 · UN General Assembly · General Debate, Session 18 (1963)
“For Brazil the partial treaty has not only the great merit of immediately eliminating the deadly effects of radiation, but also the symbolic value of demonstrating that a common effort of the great Powers to resolve their differences is always possible and viable. In that sense Brazil has welcomed the partial treaty as one of the most auspicious events since 1945 and as a starting point for agreements ever more far-reaching and creative. The words which I am about to add must therefore not be interpreted as indicating any lack of enthusiasm in respect of that treaty. 14.”
1963-09-24 · UN General Assembly · General Debate, Session 18 (1963)
“I mention this fact here not to enhance the contribution of my country to the cause of disarmament, but to indicate that, in the fulfilment of their mediation role, the eight non-aligned Powers at Geneva must run the risk of misunderstanding and criticism that often result from tactical motives prevailing at a given moment. 13. My country has welcomed with enthusiasm the signature of the Treaty of Moscow, and my President, Joao Goulart, in his message to President Kennedy, Chairman Khrushchev and Prime Minister Macmillan, expressed Brazil's gratification at the constructive spirit in which the United Kingdom, the United States of America and the Soviet Union had conducted the negotiations. My Government was one of the first to sign the treaty which has been submitted for ratification by our Congress.”
1963-09-24 · UN General Assembly · General Debate, Session 18 (1963)
“Why not, along the lines of the eight-nation joint memorandum, further explore the possibility of an agreement on the question of control of atmospheric and outer space tests and, at the same time, start a discussion on the adequate methods of detection and identification of underground tests?" This question, first formulated on 25 July 1962 and reiterated on 17 August 1962 met at first, however, with nothing but silence on the part of the three nuclear Powers which constituted the Sub-Committee of the Eighteen-Nation Committee on Disarmament. It was only on 27 August 1962 that the great Powers began to move forward with the submission of the joint Anglo- American proposal on the partial banning of nuclear tests.”
1963-09-24 · UN General Assembly · General Debate, Session 18 (1963)
“It is well known, however, that the main divergencies and discrepancies do lie in the problems of detection and identification of underground tests, as the international control required for atmospheric and outer space tests does not appear to present so many insurmountable difficulties. Why, then, not concentrate our efforts on this question of atmospheric and outer space tests which are the most dangerous, actually and potentially, and the ones which have a most disturbing effect on mind, body and nerves?”
1963-09-24 · UN General Assembly · General Debate, Session 18 (1963)
“Brazil has always upheld the view that the nuclear Powers, without waiting for the conclusion of a treaty for general and complete disarmament, should, proceed to formalize agreements whenever views are found to coincide. For this reason we have always given priority to the question of nuclear testing, the non-dissemination of nuclear arms, and the prevention of war by accident. It was in this context that, perceiving the continuing difficulties in the matter of detection and verification of underground tests, Brazil addressed the following question to the nuclear Powers: "It has been implied that a nuclear test ban is difficult to attain because the great Powers cannot or do not wish to agree on the intricate question of control, a problem which is based on confidence.”
1963-09-24 · UN General Assembly · General Debate, Session 18 (1963)
“The eight mediating countries in Geneva —Brazil, Burma, Ethiopia, India, Mexico, Nigeria, the United Arab Republic and Sweden— bear a great diplomatic responsibility in this question of disarmament. These countries were not acting as a "political bloc", but as a "diplomatic group" which, in a spirit of mediation, was trying tenaciously to broaden the sparse areas of agreement between the two Power blocs. Acting always in response to world public opinion, these nations have made a decisive contribution through their efforts which allowed the Eighteen-Nation Committee on Disarmament to secure its first major positive step, the treaty banning nuclear tests in the atmosphere, in outer space and under water, recently concluded in Moscow.”
1963-09-24 · UN General Assembly · General Debate, Session 18 (1963)
“With regard to the text of that treaty, we have hardly gone beyond the first paragraphs of its preamble. And in the meantime enormous resources which could have been utilized in the fulfilment of a better existence, appear as factors of threat and destruction. The present arms race, which proceeds at a mad pace, is primarily responsible for the scarcity of resources available for the great tasks of economic development. How can one speak seriously of cultural progress when the human race is engaged substantially in preparing and perfecting the means of its own destruction? The only technology worthy of respect is the one that leads to life and freedom. 12.”
1963-09-24 · UN General Assembly · General Debate, Session 18 (1963)
“Compared to the problem of disarmament, any other problem, difficult though it may appear —and we mentioned the Berlin problem as an example— seems to be relatively easy to solve, because whatever its solution may be, each party has an approximate idea of what it can gain or lose, and also because this solution may not necessarily be final and irrevocable if the means and the possibilities to alter it remain available. Disarmament is the problem of power, and traditionally problems of power have been solved by the use of power itself. The challenge of Geneva consists precisely in attempting to solve this problem of power by negotiation and by means of persuasion. This is no easy task, and an elementary sense of reality induces us to admit that we are still far removed from the conclusion of a treaty on general and complete disarmament.”
1963-09-24 · UN General Assembly · General Debate, Session 18 (1963)
“It is this invisible veto which prevents the adoption of certain draft resolutions or, as is much more often the case, which prevents the implementation of resolutions already adopted. And it is against this invisible veto that the efforts of the nations which have common aspirations and claims, aspirations to peace, to development and also to freedom, must be directed. Because in the struggle for peace and development, man cannot jeopardize freedom. 11. In the fulfilment of the mandate of mediation which was entrusted to it by the General Assembly, Brazil has acted in the Eighteen-Nation Committee on Disarmament with the strictest realism. Disarmament, as we have stated in Geneva, is a central problem, and all the other political issues are contained and reflected in this problem.”
1963-09-24 · UN General Assembly · General Debate, Session 18 (1963)
“The armament race goes on unchecked despite reiterated resolutions of the world Organization. An immense part of mankind is still vegetating under humiliating conditions incompatible with human dignity, and millions of human beings are still deprived of freedom and human rights under degrading forms of political or colonial oppression. This is due —let us have the courage to say it— to the existence and survival of a power of veto, of an invisible veto, in the General Assembly. This invisible veto, of which very little is said and heard, may prove, in important questions such as disarmament, development and decolonization, even more frustrating and dangerous than the negative aspect of the principle of unanimity which has hampered the functioning and impeded the effective action of the Security Council.”
1963-09-24 · UN General Assembly · General Debate, Session 18 (1963)
“My country, for example, has never accepted the label of neutralism for its independent foreign policy. Our position is perfectly clear, Brazil belongs to no bloc, but is an integral part of a system, the Inter-American system, which we conceive as an instrument of peace and understanding among all members of the community of nations. Brazil, like most Latin-American and African-Asian countries, cannot however remain alien to that parliamentary grouping which embraces a great majority of the HI Member nations and thus provides the Organization with a renewed impetus. And yet, in a spirit of sheer political realism, we must admit that the recommendations of this majority, with regard to each one of these three fundamental themes, are left, with noticeable frequency, unimplemented. 10.”
1963-09-24 · UN General Assembly · General Debate, Session 18 (1963)
“This is the great movement which unfolds itself here, a movement launched by small and medium Powers which can no longer accept the anachronistic Manichean method of analysing world problems. On the contrary, they want the United Nations to adapt itself to the world of 1963, a world in which they must live, under the stress of great dangers but on the threshold of wonderful prospects. This parliamentary grouping, though still in the process of defining itself, transcends the terms of the old division of the world into West, East and neutral. This movement, initiated under the sign of disarmament, development and decolonization demands only the fulfilment of the promises already contained in the United Nations Charter. 9. Each nation, large or small, will always be the best judge of its own defence and security requirements.”
1963-09-24 · UN General Assembly · General Debate, Session 18 (1963)
“What we are witnessing is in fact the emergence of a parliamentary grouping, within the United Nations, of small and medium Powers which unite, beyond or outside the scope of ideologies or military alliances, to conduct a continuous struggle around three fundamental themes: disarmament, development and decolonization. It is easy to define the meaning of the terms of this triunity. The struggle for disarmament is the struggle for peace itself and for the juridical equality of States that strive to place themselves beyond the bounds of fear or intimidation. The struggle for development is the struggle for economic emancipation and social justice. The struggle for decolonization in its broader sense is a struggle for political emancipation, for freedom and human rights.”
1963-09-24 · UN General Assembly · General Debate, Session 18 (1963)
“The realization of this fact may complicate political problems and make it necessary to revise certain books and pamphlets of political propaganda, but we also are allowed to hope that the world in which we live will thus become less dangerous and less explosive. Sociologists and political theoreticians will have more to do, but statesmen and diplomats may possibly work within a climate of increased trust. 8. In the contemporary world and in the United Nations we are witnessing the emergence not of neutral or non- aligned blocs, nor of a third political ideological Power, but of affinities —affinities less stable perhaps, but more effective in terms of tactical objectives shaped on the basis of common demands.”
1963-09-24 · UN General Assembly · General Debate, Session 18 (1963)
“These concepts have weakened in their consistency as the poles which supported them became less and less rigid. We must not lose sight of how much the world has changed since last October and we must explore all possibilities of negotiation which have been opened with the recent signing of the limited nuclear test-ban treaty. 7. Let us cast a look about us in this hall and ask ourselves whether the world represented here can really be adequately described by such hasty generalizations and rigid classifications. Three broad categories cannot cover the whole range of ideas, concepts and trends of the whole of mankind, Mankind is richer and far more complex than its classifiers.”
1963-09-24 · UN General Assembly · General Debate, Session 18 (1963)
“It is therefore legitimate to affirm that, on the international scene and within the Organization which is its reflection, there is a relative obsolescence of the polarization of the world into two great ideological groups. Ideas are important but no idea can survive the spirit which inspired it. 6. Not all is East or West in the United Nations of 1963. The world has other cardinal points. These words, which have dominated international politics until quite recently, may eventually be referred back to the realm of geography. The waning of the ideological conflict and the progressive removal of political implications from the expressions "East" and "West" have also had certain consequences —both political and semantic— with regard to the concepts of neutralism and non-alignment.”
1963-09-24 · UN General Assembly · General Debate, Session 18 (1963)
“Inflexibility and fanaticism are extremely dangerous in the atomic era. 5. The world of 1963 is not the pre-atomic world of 1945 and it is not in vain that we have been living- through eighteen years of history in the nuclear age. The accession to the Organization of a large number of new Members, mainly from Africa and Asia, was from every point of view profoundly beneficial to the whole of international life. By reason of their problems, their aspirations, their needs and their aims, these new Member States, objectively situated outside the two poles of the cold war, by the impact of their presence, their number and their arguments compelled all Member States to live and to interpret the reality of the international scene in a completely new light.”
1963-09-24 · UN General Assembly · General Debate, Session 18 (1963)
“The years we have lived through, here and in the world at large, in the shadow of this conceptual struggle carried to a Manicheistic split, do not appear to have been particularly rewarding to anyone. And, what is even more disquieting, power-politics have launched our world into the costliest armaments race in history and into an even more catastrophic prospect for the whole human race —collective thermo-nuclear destruction, ironically graded to distinguish between those who shall perish in the first minutes and those who are to succumb months or years later to the worst forms of degeneration of life. This would be indeed an absurd price to pay for intolerance and obduracy. Absolute truth cannot be proclaimed over the ashes of nuclear desolation. We must show more humility, if we want to save our lives.”
1963-09-24 · UN General Assembly · General Debate, Session 18 (1963)
“The world in which we live is fertile in ideas, theories, conceptions and schools of thought and the United Nations was not created to proclaim either the everlasting validity or the final rejection of any of them. Our unity of peaceful purpose must necessarily be based on the inevitable diversity of our opinions. If the United Nations is to keep its universal character, it will have to continue to be representative of all the ideas and conceptions of mankind. 4. It cannot be overlooked, however, that differences and divergencies in the concept and the practice of achieving the aims of the Charter, from the very first days of the Organization, were situated in terms of ideological struggle, which were not only contradictory but, in fact, antagonistic to each other.”
1963-09-24 · UN General Assembly · General Debate, Session 18 (1963)
“Today, as in the days of San Francisco, the objectives of the Charter, designed to build a healthy, brotherly and peaceful community, continue to guide all States collectively and each one individually. However, today, as at the time of the founding of the Organization, Member States, individually or in groups, continue to differ in the conception of the ways and means of implementing the objectives of the Charter. 3. This difference in concepts has its roots in the specific historical and social development of each Member State. Yet, the Charter —reflecting the reality of this fact— has from the very outset not only recognized this difference in concept, but moreover has acknowledged the need for the United Nations to operate efficiently in the very climate of conceptual differences.”
1963-09-24 · UN General Assembly · General Debate, Session 18 (1963)
“I should like first of all to express. Sir, my personal satisfaction and that of the Brazilian delegation at your election as President of the eighteenth regular session of the General Assembly of the United Nations, and to convey to you our pleasure that this important office has been conferred upon your country and yourself, whom we have long regarded as an embodiment of intelligence, culture and integrity and a model of experience in everything relating to the United Nations. Your election, honouring Venezuela and through it all the Latin American countries, is an honour to my country also. 2. Eighteen years of intense diplomatic and parliamentary activity mark the existence of the United Nations.”
1963-09-24 · UN General Assembly · General Debate, Session 18 (1963)