YouSaid · the spoken record

Belaúnde

lines on the record: 301
first: 1949-09-24
most recent: 1965-09-24
sittings or episodes: 10
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 cease-fire which we proposed as far back as January 1951 has been achieved by the signing of the armistice, with its threefold significance: the halting of aggression, the affirmation of the legal and moral personality of the United Nations and the triumph of two legal principles — collective security and the voluntary repatriation of prisoners of war. The way to a final peace settlement is open. Peace does not depend only on legal technicalities and political adjustments. Peace is the work of goodwill and realistic and accurate understanding of the sacred interests and vital needs of all peoples. 29. Let us pause a moment to examine the causes of this new situation. Intensive rearmament could not have been carried out without endangering the economy of the Soviet countries. Stalin’s illusion — expressed by Mr.”
1953-09-24 · UN General Assembly · General Debate, Session 8 (1953)
“27. I wish to say, on behalf of the delegation and the Government of Peru, that the election of Mrs. Pandit as President of the Assembly meets our desire to pay tribute to her great qualities of statemanship and diplomacy and to recognize the immense services rendered by India to the cause of peace. May I add the hope that the harshness that is sometimes unavoidable in our debates, and often cannot be controlled by technical rules of procedure alone, may be moderated by her feminine grace and intuition. 28. The Assembly begins _ its eighth session at a crucial moment for humanity.”
1953-09-24 · UN General Assembly · General Debate, Session 8 (1953)
“There is another factor which we must also bear in mind: the Russian people have behind them more than a thousand years of Christian tradition which cannot be obliterated by any regime, however great its political influence; and we cherish the hope that this deal of understanding, peace and brotherhood may inspire broad sections of the Russian people, coinciding with the realistic policy which their leaders must now pursue. In any case, we shall not close our ears or our hearts to any sincere initiative for peace or any opportunity for agreement.”
1952-09-24 · UN General Assembly · General Debate, Session 7 (1952)
“In all impartiality, let us bear in mind the favourable factors that exist: the realism — which I recognize and have always recognized — demonstrated by the leaders of the Soviet Union on more than one occasion and their full appreciation of all the factors in determining their course of action. The leaders of the Soviet Union today realize that the West is able, alert and determined to defend itself and that a war would not be a triumphal march, but the beginning of universal destruction. 19.”
1952-09-24 · UN General Assembly · General Debate, Session 7 (1952)
“Today, however, contrary to the conclusions of students of Marxist philosophy, the most highly placed persons of the USSR have affirmed at the Moscow Congress the possibility of the coexistence of capitalism and communism, and here, from this very rostrum, the eminent representative of the Soviet Union has, with his customary eloquence, referred to and endorsed [383rd meeting] this idea of possible coexistence, supporting it with quotations from his masters, Stalin and Lenin. Let us hope that these declarations will prevail over the pessimistic conclusions of the students of Marxist philosophy to which I have just referred.”
1952-09-24 · UN General Assembly · General Debate, Session 7 (1952)
“I know that the students of Marxist philosophy have discovered that its essence lies in the ideal or dream of the complete disappearance of the State in an earthly paradise, that this goal can be reached only by passing through an arduous stage in which all the powers of the present State, which covers every aspect of human life, are strengthened, and that only after the destruction of the so-called exploiting class in the country concerned and in other countries will it be possible to attain to the ideal of a free mankind with the complete elimination of the State. That conception leads logically to universal war, through universal revolution. 18.”
1952-09-24 · UN General Assembly · General Debate, Session 7 (1952)
“The philosophy of culture leads us to a pessimistic conclusion; and yet we ask: can we not hope that truth which is modest, verifiable, progressive and relative, which seeks and comprehends the views of others and desires their co-operation, will overcome the fitful, hallucinatory, infectious gleam of myth and utopia? Can we not hope that the sense of human brotherhood which must have been stimulated by the sorrows, anxieties and anguish that are suffered today by all the peoples of the earth alike, will prevail and restrain or quench the thirst for domination and the invincible passion for power of the inters of certain States? But I do not wish to conclude these sincere remarks upon a note of philosophic pessimism. 17.”
1952-09-24 · UN General Assembly · General Debate, Session 7 (1952)
“This spirit of overmastering usurpation has exploited the infinite capacity of the masses for absorbing myths and for suffering oppression. 16. Peoples who are both the victims of illusion and oppressed, have inevitable pursued the disastrous course of endeavouring to impose their illusions and their oppression to other peoples. That is the sad lessen of history. The efforts of the creators of science, who have not only enabled us to control nature but have also taught us the immense value of truth as against myth and illusion, have been of no avail. The noble doctrines of the founders of religions, all of whom have preached the brotherhood of man, have been powerless. These two bright aspects of human history have been overshadowed, as by an ever-present menace, deepening and spreading day by day, by the will to power.”
1952-09-24 · UN General Assembly · General Debate, Session 7 (1952)
“This accurate and impressive picture makes us think of the immense riches expended or destroyed in the two world wars and of those that have to be employed in avoiding a third war. The calculations of eminent economists have shown that the capital consumed in the last wars would have been sufficient to transform the economic face of the world. Today we are further than ever from the economic interpretation of history, which attributes the tragedy of war to mere economic, or commercial interests. Peace furthers not only the moral interests of humanity but also its actual profit, its actual material well-being. War has always had psychological causes. Man’s greatness lies in culture, and his supreme misfortune is the will to power, the overmastering usurpation described in immortal terms by St. Augustine in The City of God.”
1952-09-24 · UN General Assembly · General Debate, Session 7 (1952)
“We are confident that a united Europe will pursue its defensive policy as part of a wide and generous international co-operation; and we say to our brothers in Asia, Africa and Oceania who have followed us on the road to freedom that in the United Nations and in a broad co-operation with us they have full scope for achieving their aspirations and for making possible a common understanding with the European countries; and that any other policy would divert them from what is clearly their destiny and would launch them upon courses that would endanger not only their economic resources but also their own political independence. 15. Various delegations have eloquently presented here the staggering figures, arrived at by authorized technical commissions, depicting for us the poverty in which the majority of the inhabitants of this planet live.”
1952-09-24 · UN General Assembly · General Debate, Session 7 (1952)
“We are thus in a good position to act as a sort of living link between the old Europe, which is once more reviving and asserting itself, uniting and becoming an integral whole amid our applause and our hopes,, and the peoples who, like ourselves, are anxious to see the full accomplishment of their destiny.”
1952-09-24 · UN General Assembly · General Debate, Session 7 (1952)
“I do not believe that there are abysmal divergences or insoluble difficulties between the Western Powers and the peoples who have passed from colonial status to freedom with the help, approval and support of those very Powers. 14. We Latin-American nations are in a peculiar situation. We are united with the Western Powers by the same conception of life, the same conception of justice and the same unflinching attachment to liberty. We are united with the peoples of other continents by the fraternity which springs from the fact that we had preceded them op the path of independence, and by the economic situation, which calls for our further development and for the achievement of our independence and full individuality in this field.”
1952-09-24 · UN General Assembly · General Debate, Session 7 (1952)
“This unity has constituted an element whose importance it will be possible to assess only in better historical perspective. But as life goes on, and when events are complicated, such unity is relaxed and jeopardized. It is not for me to investigate here the circumstances conspiring against unity; I must point out, however, that the effectiveness of the United Nations in dealing with the problems before it and its prestige depend on the careful maintenance of this unity. The Western Powers, the American peoples, the nations of Asia, Africa and Oceania must march together in agreement, because this agreement is the basis of our existence, indeed, of our salvation.”
1952-09-24 · UN General Assembly · General Debate, Session 7 (1952)
“Not only through the shortening of distances by technical means but also, and much more, through the intensity and universality of human feeling, the distant war in Korea has had profound repercussions, not only in Asia but also in the western countries and here in America. There has been a general realization that we live in a single world in which good and evil are not to be found in one area or in one form alone, but are shared by the whole of humanity. This is a psychological and moral factor of incalculable moment. It was in that spirit that the United Nations voted unanimously — for one cannot take into account the exception represented by the satellites of the Soviet Union — for the condemnation of aggression, and have repeatedly expressed their desire for a cessation of hostilities and peace.”
1952-09-24 · UN General Assembly · General Debate, Session 7 (1952)
“The Assembly's renunciation of any right to interpret the Charter would constitute the capitis diminutio maxima of this institution, decreed by itself; it would be an inconceivable abdication, a case of spontaneous amputation contrary to nature, an admission of legal impotence contravening the letter and the spirit of the Charter and the dictates of the conscience of mankind. The Peruvian delegation reserves the right to present in due course a proposal to enable the Assembly to resolve this grave problem which is compromising our effectiveness and our prestige throughout the world. 13. By way of compensation for the tragedy of suffering and blood brought about by the war in Asia, we have had an eloquent proof of deep human solidarity.”
1952-09-24 · UN General Assembly · General Debate, Session 7 (1952)
“The dilemma with which we are confronted is a very clear one: either we forego any interpretation in the face of the present difficulties, and announce that in certain cases the Charter cannot be applied, that the Charter is useless, that the Charter is, inoperative, thus paralysing international-life in one of its most interesting aspects, namely, the achievement of the ideal or universality; or we agree that there is a body which is able, after consulting the principal judicial organ of the United Nations, to interpret the Charter, and that this body is the Assembly.”
1952-09-24 · UN General Assembly · General Debate, Session 7 (1952)
“In view of the rebellion of the USSR against this lawful interpretation given by the Assembly, that body has a perfect right to judge, appraise and examine the voting in the Security Council, and to consider whether or not there has been the majority required for the function which that organ has to fulfil in respect of the admission of new Members. 12. It will be objected that the Assembly has no power to interpret she Charter. I should like to ask this question: if the Assembly has no power to interpret the Charter, what other method of interpretation do we possess ?. The Security Council is an organ intended to perform specific tasks entrusted to it by the signatories to the Charter. Are not all the signatories to the Charter represented in the Assembly, together with the countries which have subsequently acceded to it?”
1952-09-24 · UN General Assembly · General Debate, Session 7 (1952)
“I am well aware that the Charter can be modified only in accordance with the principles which the Charter itself has laid down. What is now needed is to prevent an unduly broad and wrongful interpretation of the veto. We merely ask whether a use of the veto in flagrant violation of the Charter is admissible. That is the question which the Assembly has to decide. We have given the Security Council a final opportunity to apply strictly the principles of the Charter within the official interpretation given by the Assembly on the basis of the authorized opinion of the Court.”
1952-09-24 · UN General Assembly · General Debate, Session 7 (1952)
“To be sure, it is incompatible with the idea of the veto as developed by the USSR and with the use that Power wishes to make of the veto; but it is incompatible neither with the letter of the Charter nor, above all, with the background of the discussion on this important matter, nor, I might add — and I shall prove this when the occasion arises — with the precedent established by the Assembly in approving the resolution [377 (V)] entitled “Uniting for peace”, which for all practical purposes precludes or annuls a veto intended to paralyse the supreme function of the United Nations, that of chastising aggression. A veto intended to paralyse the Assembly’s essential function of admitting new Members may be set aside and annulled in the same way. 11.”
1952-09-24 · UN General Assembly · General Debate, Session 7 (1952)
“Otherwise the Charter signed at San Francisco would have been an illogical and monstrous document, because it would have given a single Power not only the right to paralyse the will of the majority, but also the more serious right completely to nullify the provisions of the Charter and turn it into a scrap of paper. 10. It will be said that this conception of the lawfulness of the veto is incompatible with the very idea of the veto.”
1952-09-24 · UN General Assembly · General Debate, Session 7 (1952)
“The speeches made at San Francisco by those who opposed the veto in the general — the very general — discussions, turned the proposed liberum veto into the obligation to seek unanimity, to find agreed solutions whereby the antagonisms resulting from opposing points of view would be overcome. If solutions were not found after they had been sought in complete good faith, the proper course was to take note of the conflict between equally lawful alternatives. I draw the Assembly’s attention to this essential point. The disagreements made manifest by the rule of unanimity of the great Powers, and which might rightfully paralyse a decision, must take the form of legitimate alternatives, none of which involved a violation of the Charter.”
1952-09-24 · UN General Assembly · General Debate, Session 7 (1952)
“We cannot accept this philosophical monstrosity, which combines a flagrant violation of the Charter, disregard of the advisory opinion of the Court, and a refusal to accept the interpretation of the Charter given by an overwhelming majority of the Assembly. Our question is this; can the veto have an extra-legal and an anti-legal nature? Was that the veto we approved at San Francisco? I maintain that the unanimity rule which we accepted at San Francisco, as a compulsory concession to save the Charter, did not invest the veto with this privilege, this absolute and inconceivable right, to violate or paralyse the Charter.”
1952-09-24 · UN General Assembly · General Debate, Session 7 (1952)
“Once the judgment, the intellectual process, has been completed, the ensuing decision must conform to it entirely. To admit that the decision, that is to say, the will, may be separate from the judgment is to grant to the will an extra-legal value, an absolute quality — to assume that the will is entitled to operate above and beyond the law. 9. We have a Charter and therefore a standard. Within the spirit of the Charter and by the application of this standard, the Soviet Union has recognized that certain countries possess the qualifications for admission to the United Nations; but then, at the time of voting, it invokes an arbitrary power, a power above and beyond the Charter, and says: I have the power to annul by the veto the very rights which I have recognized.”
1952-09-24 · UN General Assembly · General Debate, Session 7 (1952)
“Rut that does not apply to candidates such as Italy, Portugal, Ireland and certain other countries, for the Soviet Union has recognized them as peace-loving States and has not contested their capacity or fitness for fulfilling the obligations of the Charter. This attitude of the Soviet Union therefore confronts us with a serious legal and philosophical problem, and I ask the Assembly to give its attention to this difficult but most important matter. 8. In legal logic, any decision by a judge, a member of a parliament or any other authority postulates a judgment, and the decision — an act of the will — should follow the judgment — an act of the intellect — as shadow follows substance, as effect follows cause, or as matter follows form.”
1952-09-24 · UN General Assembly · General Debate, Session 7 (1952)
“It is clear that since the General Assembly adopted the resolution [296 (IV)] founded in law on the advisory opinion to which I have referred, Members of the United Nations may not adduce political reasons of a strictly internal character and purely subjective reasons which contradict opinions they have themselves emitted concerning the conditions governing the admission of new Members to the United Nations. 7. We have never denied the Soviet Union its right to analyse the objective qualities and study the international behaviour of each candidate, and to base its vote upon the security which the candidate country can offer for the fulfilment of its obligations under the Charter. Objections by the USSR related to these objective standards would have to be respected.”
1952-09-24 · UN General Assembly · General Debate, Session 7 (1952)
“The Assembly, exercising its legitimate prerogative, reminded the Security Council that the admission of new Members was a very important function, It adopted the interpretation of the Charter given by the International Court of Justice, according to which a Member of the United Nations cannot lawfully make its assent to the admission of new Members dependent upon conditions not expressly set forth in Article 4, paragraph 1, of the Charter.”
1952-09-24 · UN General Assembly · General Debate, Session 7 (1952)
“The Peruvian delegation, interpreting a general desire, presented to the sixth session, of the General Assembly a draft resolution which was adopted [resolution 506 (VI)] by the considerable majority of 43 votes to 8, with 7 abstentions, recommending that the Security Council should consider the applications for membership of the Organization individually, taking into account only the principles of Article 4 of the Charter and the evidence of their peace-loving nature and fulfilment of international obligations.”
1952-09-24 · UN General Assembly · General Debate, Session 7 (1952)
“Such a commission, in its wisdom, might perhaps be able to find means of establishing these prisoners in an appropriate zone under the safeguard of rules based on the Charter and the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and incorporating all the relevant provisions of the Geneva Convention of 1949. 5. We invite the representatives of the Soviet Union to consider this or any other suggestions which may be put forward with open-mindedness, and thus give real proof of their peaceful intentions. 6.”
1952-09-24 · UN General Assembly · General Debate, Session 7 (1952)
“Exercising this moral authority, the United Nations could declare that prisoners of war who did riot wish to be repatriated were under its protection and safeguard. As a logical consequence of such a declaration, an international commission could he appointed which would include the parties, States which had the confidence of the Assembly and, as a guarantee of greater impartiality, neutral States, not Members of the United Nations, which, by virtue of their culture and their services to peace and humanitarian causes, would by their presence and co-operation lend weight to our noble undertaking. 4. Without making a formal and definite proposal, I leave this point for the Assembly to ponder and act upon in due course.”
1952-09-24 · UN General Assembly · General Debate, Session 7 (1952)
“In any case the principle of respect for the prisoners’ wishes has been eloquently formulated by a power which represents the feelings of the small and medium-sized countries, whose role is to be the spokesmen of impartial opinion throughout the world. In this spirit, may it not be our duty to use our imagination to find plans which might improve the Mexican proposal or replace it if it is found impracticable? The fate of the prisoners, by virtue of their supreme value as human beings, concerns not only the military authorities and the parties concerned but all mankind. 3. The United Nations, though it is hot a world State, represents and personifies not only a high moral authority for the world but also a high legal and political authority.”
1952-09-24 · UN General Assembly · General Debate, Session 7 (1952)
“The fundamental principle in this matter must be respect for the human person and his right to free choice in the matter of his own destiny. 2. One great American country, Mexico, inspired by these ideas and anxious to offer a practical solution, has approached the Unified Command, stating that prisoners are not , a collective mass to be disposed of arbitrarily, and that countries which are prepared to do so should be given the opportunity to receive prisoners who do not wish to return to their countries of origin. It is true that very serious difficulties may arise for many countries — perhaps even for the majority — in adopting the generous attitude which the Mexican proposal invites us to take.”
1952-09-24 · UN General Assembly · General Debate, Session 7 (1952)
“What matters now is to make one more effort towards success in the armistice negotiations or, if that is not possible, to provide a true picture of the facts of the situation, without any ambiguity or any attempt at misleading propaganda. It seemed that final agreement had been reached, the only question outstanding being that of the prisoners. The serious problem which arose was that a considerable number of these did not wish to return to the side from which they had come, and this revealed a new and exceptional situation, to which it would have been wrong to apply the ordinary principles, for that would have imposed upon free human beings a fate which they rejected, for reasons or motives of which they alone could be the judges.”
1952-09-24 · UN General Assembly · General Debate, Session 7 (1952)
“The sixth session of the General Assembly of the United Nations refrained from discussing the subject of Korea, in order that a political debate should not interfere with the course of the armistice negotiations, which were to be based solely on humanitarian principles. The lack of agreement among the representatives of the United Command in the armistice negotiations has proved that other factors have influenced the situation, which we have been watching so anxiously, like all the peoples whose only concern and aim is peace. I do not wish to attempt to analyse those factors, because it is not my delegation’s purpose to aggravate the difficulties, or introduce a note of discouragement and disappointment into this debate.”
1952-09-24 · UN General Assembly · General Debate, Session 7 (1952)
“Thus under God’s protection, under the protection of the mark of humanity and keeping pace with the noble inspirations of the French people, let us work with daring and with faith for a peace based on justice and love.”
1951-09-24 · UN General Assembly · General Debate, Session 6 (1951)
“Following the thought of so matter-of-fact and practical a man as Root, I would go somewhat further in an ethical sense : nothing is invincible for this magical association of the uprightness which leads us to God and the goodwill and charity which it is our duty to show to all nations and to all men. 89. I am encouraged by the thought that this Assembly is being held in the cultural atmosphere of France. The praises of the French people have been sung here. I shall modestly confine myself to saying that when we feel the difficulties are insuperable, we should turn our minds to the spirit of immortal France, seek its characteristic qualities that have been forged out of its scholastic and Cartesian experiences, and find in them the light and inspiration for the solution of our problems.”
1951-09-24 · UN General Assembly · General Debate, Session 6 (1951)
“Respect for the sovereignty of States and for self-determination is incontestable; but it is also unquestionable that one of the bases of the United Nations is collective security and that such security is not only a good thing for all, but frequently for the countries that might be particularly affected. 88. I recall an idea expressed by the eminent American statesman, Elihu Root, who said that for every problem, however difficult it be, there is always an underlying solution, not at first apparent, but which has to be found by laborious and patient effort. And when in good faith that solution is found there is neither victor nor vanquished, but only a triumph of truth, justice and equity.”
1951-09-24 · UN General Assembly · General Debate, Session 6 (1951)
“The Peruvian delegation puts forward its proposal boldly and with conviction, and affirms that other attitudes are contrary to the spirit of the San Francisco Conference and to the universal conception of the organization set up at that historical moment. 86. There are other problems which it is not for me to raise here but I say, with a certain anxiety, that the problems with which this Assembly will have to deal, or at least some of them, are difficult in the extreme. I am not afraid of a problem when the conflict is between a principle and a particular interest. The problems that are truly tragic for any thoughtful mind and upright spirit are those in which there is a conflict between two equally valid and worthy principles that, nevertheless, paradoxically find opposing expression in practice. 87.”
1951-09-24 · UN General Assembly · General Debate, Session 6 (1951)
“How could we call ourselves a universal institution if we excluded the Iberian peoples who, heroically and after fantastic voyages, discovered new worlds and founded new countries which are now represented here? How could we call ourselves a universal institution if we excluded Ireland, whose sons are scattered in all parts of the world and who are a source of strength in the field of labour and culture in the United States of America, Canada, Australia, South Africa and New Zealand? Ideals, moral aspirations, and even noble enthusiasm, are here in harmony with the principles of justice. 85.”
1951-09-24 · UN General Assembly · General Debate, Session 6 (1951)
“Who then could maintain that a single subjective, personal and arbitrary vote could prevail against the opinion of the majority — the overwhelming majority — based on documentation submitted in accordance with the spirit and letter of the Charter? To admit that such a vote could prevail would be tantamount to enabling a country to exercise a function which, even though exercised by all, would still be null and void, because it would run counter to the spirit and letter of the Charter. 84. How could we call ourselves a universal institution if we exclude Italy, the heir of Rome, which was the supreme master of juridical universality?”
1951-09-24 · UN General Assembly · General Debate, Session 6 (1951)
“Nay, more, they must be invited by the General Assembly to adhere to the peace pacts that have been concluded, and to subscribe to conventions on outstanding international matters, as evidence of their compliance with the provisions of the Charter. 82. Then the General Assembly, being in possession of such documents and in the exercise of its functions under Article 10, would recommend to the Council, in accordance with its duty, the juridical study of the documents submitted. The Council would then have to distinguish between votes cast in accordance with the objective provisions of the Charter and those based on international grounds outside the scope of the Charter. 83.”
1951-09-24 · UN General Assembly · General Debate, Session 6 (1951)
“The International Court of Justice has stated that the power of the Assembly and of the Council is not a discretionary power, that it is unrelated to raison d'état, and that it is not a matter of private judgment for which no reason or explanation need be given. It is in fact a regulated power which is exercised in the manner stipulated in the Charter. If that is the case, then, we need to establish a new jurisprudence. We must establish, for the admission of new Members, a new procedure in conformity with the spirit as well as the letter of the Charter. I am not referring to any country in particular, for I look at the Organization from a universal point of view. I refer to the three States that favour the western nations and to those that may favour the Soviet bloc. They must all have the right to backing in their request for admission.”
1951-09-24 · UN General Assembly · General Debate, Session 6 (1951)
“Consequently, States have the right to enter the Organization once they have fulfilled the objective conditions laid down in the Charter of being peace-loving and of accepting their international obligations. The Organization passes a judgment, and does not give an opinion, on these objective conditions; and since the days of Greece and Aristotle’s logic, we know that there is a difference between opinion, which is arbitrary in nature, and judgment, which must be based on definite grounds. We must pass a judgment based on these conditions which are laid down in the Charter. 81. Consequently we cannot recognize any discretionary power, since if we did so we would become a league. On that point the International Court of Justice has endorsed the views of those who upheld the universal character of the Organization.”
1951-09-24 · UN General Assembly · General Debate, Session 6 (1951)
“I ask my colleagues who were present at San Francisco and I even ask those colleagues who represent the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics what it was that we established in San Francisco, Was it a political league in which membership depends on the sympathy or the arbitrary acquiescence of existing members in regard to application for membership? Or did we found an international order ? 79. I am sure that no one who was present at San Francisco could rise in this Assembly and say that we established there a league and not an organization. We established a universal juridical order to which every State should belong by natural law, in the same way as every human being belongs to the civil order by that same natural law. 80.”
1951-09-24 · UN General Assembly · General Debate, Session 6 (1951)
“The veto in itself is open to criticism, but the veto interpreted as a method to which a Power may arbitrarily have recourse in order to violate the Charter while actually invoking the Charter itself, is a monstrous thing which must be rejected by all the legal minds of the World. 78, The application of this principle has been clearly demonstrated in the question of the admission of new Members. Three States are awaiting a resolution by the United Nations. Clearly, that resolution has been delayed for reasons that are mainly political, and the political criterion applied to the admission of new Members is bound to call forth a protest from those who, in San Francisco, believed that they had established, not an alliance or a league of countries on the old model, but a universal organization.”
1951-09-24 · UN General Assembly · General Debate, Session 6 (1951)
“That is a fact which must be stated categorically, since an absurd and unacceptable interpretation has been given to the rule of unanimity which we approved in San Francisco. It has been interpreted as giving all the great Powers the privilege of evading the issue or of avoiding the search for a joint solution by taking up at the outset an unyielding attitude or by violating the principles of the Charter, This absolute veto frequently results not in a choice between two legitimate lines of action under the Charter, but in a country adopting a course at variance with the spirit and the letter of that instrument. That is a position we cannot accept.”
1951-09-24 · UN General Assembly · General Debate, Session 6 (1951)
“We cannot deny that our Charter suffers from very serious faults. We know only too well that the revision of the Charter is impossible in the light of the Article of which we are all aware. However, even if that is so, the obscure parts of the Charter may be interpreted and, where it is defective, it may be supplemented. Teachers of law know that law is essentially dynamic and that a static and dead concept of law cannot be maintained in view of world events. 77, Our Charter must be interpreted or supplemented in the same way as pretorian law interpreted and supplemented the old Roman Law. We must remedy the defects of the Charter by employing the methods that led to the evolution of Roman Law. The principal fault of the Charter has resided in the veto.”
1951-09-24 · UN General Assembly · General Debate, Session 6 (1951)
“What has the USSR to fear from this unity of Europe, established solely for defence, united solely by moral, intellectual and esthetic factors which always work for peace? If such a glorious and harmonious result were achieved no one would think of denying the Soviet Union a place in that comity of nations. Remember that it was the western countries that discovered the admirable art of Russia and its no less admirable literature. Are we not aware and is it not our duty to proclaim here that, in spite of many difficulties and many conflicts, centuries of Christian culture must continue to influence the Russian mind ? 76. I now turn to a point which is not strictly of a moral and political nature, but rather of a legal character, which I submit to the serious attention of my colleagues.”
1951-09-24 · UN General Assembly · General Debate, Session 6 (1951)
“Germany and Austria must be called upon to play a part in this movement, in the spirit of Leibnitz, Goethe and Kant: of Leibnitz, who proposed to Bossuet — to our Bossuet I hope my French friends will permit me to say — the religious unification of Europe as a basis for a new legal order; of Goethe, whose Germanic vitalism and romanticism bring to us the breath of the latinized and catholic Rhine; and of Kant, who represented the last endeavour to reconcile philosophy with the Christian sentiment of life and who bears the stamp of Christian philosophy in contrast with the dissolvent philosophies that followed, Hegel’s belief in the absolute power of the State and the materialism of Marx. 75.”
1951-09-24 · UN General Assembly · General Debate, Session 6 (1951)
“We feel very deeply that the tragedy of the present time is the result of the disruption of the European soul, and consequently that the revival of Europe, the affirmation of Europe, the assertion of its need to live and to play again the part it formerly played in human destinies will furnish the key and, more effectively perhaps than any other factor, provide a solution to the problem. 74. Thus, in the enthusiasm of this profound conviction, I pay homage to the eminent figures of Winston Churchill, who was the first to advocate European unity when the symptoms of this crisis first appeared, and of Robert Schuman, who submitted practical measures to achieve such unity.”
1951-09-24 · UN General Assembly · General Debate, Session 6 (1951)
“There may have been wars and conflicts; nevertheless, certain general principles of civilization have been upheld. 73. Let me recall now that symbolic tripod referred to in the famous conversation between Renan and Mommsen, in which Germanic, Anglo-Saxon and Latin culture are integrated. The tragedy of the world is precisely due to the fact that this moral and cultural unity of Europe was not accompanied by a unity based on economic co-operation and international harmony.”
1951-09-24 · UN General Assembly · General Debate, Session 6 (1951)