YouSaid · the spoken record

Lopez Michelsen

THE RECORD WRITES THIS SPEAKER AS LOPEZ MICHELSEN

lines on the record: 70
first: 1968-09-24
most recent: 1969-09-24
sittings or episodes: 2
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

“The same policy of spheres of influence and blocs which is a threat to the moral authority of the United Nations is, in the economic field, sowing the seeds of destruction of universal solidarity. 150. The credits granted by the super-Powers within their spheres of influence carry with them so many conditions regarding the management of the domestic economy that it would not be an exaggeration to say that on occasion they actually infringe the recipient country’s freedom to choose its own economic policies. 151. Not only are recipient countries required to purchase goods in specific regions, goods which must be paid for in a specific way through specific establishments and transported in ships of a specific flag, but their autonomy in economic matters is often subject to the will of the lending States.”
1968-09-24 · UN General Assembly · General Debate, Session 23 (1968)
“For tie first time in the history of nations, the backwardness of some countries has become a matter of concern to the wealthier countries. 149. This degree of intellectual maturity in public opinion should be reflected in the establishment of a large fund for foreign aid with contributions from all nations, to be administered, again collectively, by all the peoples of the world, through the United Nations. But this is not the case. The aid received by the weak countries through the United Nations is only a small percentage of the funds allocated by the strong nations to the development of the developing countries. In the same way that declarations of war or acts of aggression are undertaken unilaterally, in many cases foreign aid is provided through bilateral agreements, with specific commitments.”
1968-09-24 · UN General Assembly · General Debate, Session 23 (1968)
“Again, if this reluctance to act collectively leads to such disastrous results in the maintenance of peace, what of the same policy when it is a question, not of armed conflict, but of providing economic assistance and foreign aid to prevent social tension. 148. If the United Nations is becoming less effective in maintaining world peace, the same is true of its role in assisting the poorer nations on the road to development. The world Organization is no longer, except to a very small extent, the normal channel for providing economic assistance. The idea that the more advanced countries should assist the less prosperous ones with their capital and technical know-how has recently gained greater acceptance internationally.”
1968-09-24 · UN General Assembly · General Debate, Session 23 (1968)
““It would probably seem Utopian to speak of a great reform which would open the United Nations unreservedly to all the countries of the world, establish more effective procedures for the peaceful settlement of disputes and endow the international Organization with genuine collective power. But the spectacle of its present powerlessness in face of a situation from which none of the parties concerned can easily escape highlights the problems of the international Organization and the urgent need to tackle them openly and frankly, going beyond the conventional stands and alignments which are largely the result of blatant or artfully disguised imperialist practices, as the case may be.” 147.”
1968-09-24 · UN General Assembly · General Debate, Session 23 (1968)
“In his message to the National Congress on 20 July 1968, the President of Colombia, referring to the war in Viet-Nam, rightly stated: “... this conflict continues while the countries associated in a system essentially created for the purpose of preserving peace, and whose representatives act either in the Security Council or in the larger forum of the General Assembly, are unable to take any action to alter its fatal course. This confirms once again the very serious drawbacks of the San Francisco Charter: the obstacles created by the great Powers’ right of veto and the major defect of lack of universality, which it has not been possible to remedy.”
1968-09-24 · UN General Assembly · General Debate, Session 23 (1968)
“That is why those who cannot understand why the little birds should be allowed to sing in the presence of the eagles must be reminded again and again that the United Nations was not the result of a plot on the part of the small States to place the great Powers under their rule, but that on the contrary it was the great Powers, exercising their full sovereignty at Yalta and at Dumbarton Oaks, which laid down the rules of the club they were forming, reserving for themselves certain advantages, such as the right of veto, and then invited us to join. Why, then, is it surprising that we, the weak nations, not only make use of the statutes that were presented to us but sometimes also raise our voices to demand that those who established the rules should abide by them? 146.”
1968-09-24 · UN General Assembly · General Debate, Session 23 (1968)
“Ten or fifteen years ago, when nuclear technology was the exclusive province of two or three nations, how often, in an effort to belittle the views of the small States, did they resort to the ingenious tactic of saying mockingly that the conclusions of their scientists on nuclear energy did not coincide with the findings of the small nations! 145.”
1968-09-24 · UN General Assembly · General Debate, Session 23 (1968)
“That is true; but it was precisely to assure the super-Powers freedom of action within a legal framework, that the idea of the veto was conceived, since it means that they are not automatically subject to the will of the majority and are not therefore compelled to resort to the law of the jungle. 144. What justification would there be for the veto, if those who possess that power also reserved the right to invade their neighbours, ignoring ail their legal commitments, as a way of guaranteeing their security or that of their political system, outside the United Nations? The problem is not a new one.”
1968-09-24 · UN General Assembly · General Debate, Session 23 (1968)
“Outside the United Nations, but with the participation of its most prominent Members, peace is said to be preserved or threatened unilaterally by States which, for reasons which vary in their degree of validity, disregard their duties and obligations as members of the community of nations constituting the Organization and resort to force to achieve their goals. 143. Their position as States with primary responsibility for the maintenance of world security, laid down and accepted in the Charter, is no longer sufficient for certain Powers, which regard themselves as exempt from some of their duties as Members of the United Nations and act accordingly. How often have we heard them say, in sarcastic tones, that the security of a great State, with world-wide commitments, cannot depend on the will of any small country?”
1968-09-24 · UN General Assembly · General Debate, Session 23 (1968)
“It must be the United Nations, animated by tolerance, which allows different ideologies to flourish and exist side by side. In Viet-Nam, the Middle East and Nigeria (with the shameful crime against humanity in Biafra), and in other, less obvious cases, where the so-called cold war continues to be fought in the form of an undeclared war, as in Czechoslovakia, between inhabitants and invaders, rivers of blood bear witness to a situation in which the United Nations is finding its authority diminished in a world of conflicting interests that does not come under its jurisdiction. 142.”
1968-09-24 · UN General Assembly · General Debate, Session 23 (1968)
“In this context, what is likely to become of the United Nations? What has happened to the role of guardian of the peace which was assigned to the complex organization created at San Francisco? Is it to be dependent on the great Powers generously allowing it to exercise its jurisdiction only in specific circumstances? No. We do not think that any State, however powerful, can set itself up as a world policeman in order to impose democracy or socialism as interpreted in its own particular creed. 141. Where policing the international order is concerned, the only legitimate policeman is the United Nations. The guardian of international order could hardly be a State with a specific ideology, which declares that those which do not share it are heretics.”
1968-09-24 · UN General Assembly · General Debate, Session 23 (1968)
“Thus, when we thought we had outgrown the concept that, on the basis of the principle of the balance of power, peace is guaranteed by the formation of equally powerful blocs such as those which maintained a balance between the European monarchies in the eighteenth century, we find ourselves in a world in which this same anachronistic doctrine holds sway, sometimes tacitly and sometimes overtly. For some time now there has been a growing tendency to overlook the principle that peace among equal States is preserved by the rule of law, as embodied in the United Nations; it would seem that, unfortunately, the super-Powers are trying to prove that the stability of the world depends on their capacity to bare their teeth at each other, while at the same time respecting each other’s sphere of influence.”
1968-09-24 · UN General Assembly · General Debate, Session 23 (1968)
“Using this yardstick, we note with dismay how in the world of today, the settlements imposed are not the result of agreement or of submission to higher interests, but rather of the economic and military supremacy of the great Powers, which attempt to guarantee their own security unilaterally, while at the same time the small States see their conflicts prolonged, often artificially, in the interests of the larger Powers, which turn the world into a chess-board on which they move queens, rooks and pawns alike. It is not without reason that we are again hearing phrases such as “balance of power”, “spheres of influence,” “national security” and the like, which at the end of the Second World War appeared to be banned from the vocabulary of international relations. 140.”
1968-09-24 · UN General Assembly · General Debate, Session 23 (1968)
“However, until this ideal objective can be attained, there is a state of mind which is indicative of progress or lack of progress in the spirit of collaboration, depending on whether the attitude adopted is insular or multilateral. 139. If peace is being sought sincerely, every day should bring an increase in the number of settlements attained by persuasion through the collective will and a decrease in the number of settlements imposed by force and bypassing the world Organization. In other words, peace is measured by the willingness to renounce unilateral solutions and to abide by the decisions of the community of States constituting the Organization.”
1968-09-24 · UN General Assembly · General Debate, Session 23 (1968)
“Progress in the achievement of peace is reflected in all societies by the extent to which power is delegated to a common higher authority responsible for ensuring that man lives in harmony with his neighbour; since this authority represents the interests of all, it becomes superfluous and obsolete to take the law into one’s own hands. Ideally, peace between nations should be based on the creation of a supranational body able to apply collective force, which would represent the highest culmination of the principle I have just outlined. But at this stage in the history of mankind it would be too much to expect all States to renounce armed force and place it in the hands of a common higher body.”
1968-09-24 · UN General Assembly · General Debate, Session 23 (1968)
“Again, as was the case with the League of Nations itself, the United Nations organs have done commendable work not only in the preservation of peace, but also in regard to social and economic development, health, culture, technical assistance and monetary policy; in short, in the sphere of human solidarity. Nevertheless, if we compare the spirit of the discussions at San Francisco and of the first years of the United Nations with what is happening today, there are sound reasons for re-examining the course we are following. 138. Peace between nations, like peace between men, can be based on no other principle than that of entrusting the entire community with he task of rendering justice in order to safeguard the security of each associated State.”
1968-09-24 · UN General Assembly · General Debate, Session 23 (1968)
“The bringing to an end of the white race’s centuries-old dominion over other races without seriously affecting the political stability of the world, as occurred when vast areas of Asia and Africa were conquered by the European Powers, is one of the most remarkable achievements in the history of these past twenty years. 137. It is true that hotbeds of racism remain in more than one African region, but the process of integration in the international sphere has been so inevitable that Colombia is convinced that, in the national sphere, too, the claim to supremacy of some races over others is doomed to disappear.”
1968-09-24 · UN General Assembly · General Debate, Session 23 (1968)
“We are not on the verge of a third world war, as was the case in the 1930s when the League of Nations reached the same age. On the contrary, under the auspices of the United Nations, in the past twenty years there has been a vast process of decolonization in several continents, which has led to a new balance of powers among the great nations. 136. Never in the history. of man has there been such a vast redistribution of power in the world, achieved not by force of arms but as a result of negotiations around the conference table. Some nations have attained the rank of super-Powers, while others, confined within the bounds of their original territory, have seen their importance in world affairs reduced, without this posing any major threat to world peace.”
1968-09-24 · UN General Assembly · General Debate, Session 23 (1968)
“Twenty-five years have passed since that meeting, at which the first serious efforts were made to work out the concept of the United Nations, and it may perhaps not be out of place for the song of some of the little birds to be heard in this forum. 135. A quarter of a century is but a brief instant in the history of mankind’s search for a lasting peace throughout its thousands of years of existence. It is in the light of this short span of time that we should judge the effectiveness of our Organization. We must recognize that, despite certain failures which might be regarded as cause for discouragement, the achievements of the United Nations in a world more integrated and complex than in the days of the League of Nations, can be compared favourably with those of the League.”
1968-09-24 · UN General Assembly · General Debate, Session 23 (1968)
“133. I should like to borrow a vivid metaphor used by that great man Churchill to describe the role of small countries. Among the background material to the Yalta Conference of 4-11 February 1945, published by the United States Department of State, there is a report of the last meeting, at which the role of smaller States in the world of the future was discussed. The British statesman, commenting on the role of the small nations which would subsequently be invited to join the United Nations quoted Shakespeare and said: “The eagle suffers little birds to sing, And is not careful what they mean thereby”. 134.”
1968-09-24 · UN General Assembly · General Debate, Session 23 (1968)