YouSaid · the spoken record

Ulloa

THE RECORD WRITES THIS SPEAKER AS ULLOA

lines on the record: 72
first: 1946-09-24
most recent: 1967-09-24
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

“A great feeling of frustration, affecting the very being and raison d'être of the United Nations, has been obscuring our hopes; we have become embittered at the prospect of being the victims of the action or inaction, the blindness, yes — let us say it bluntly — the incompetence, of the great Powers, whose vacillating attitude is blocking our horizon and barring our way. While those Powers have shown an impressive ability to transport human intelligence to the far corners of space, they reveal themselves incapable, at the same time, of ensuring the welfare of man on his own planet.”
1967-09-24 · UN General Assembly · General Debate, Session 22 (1967)
“The great Powers, openly or tacitly using their strength and their fatal right of veto, are frustrating the possibilities offered by international co-operation for a negotiated peace; they offer us instead an imposed peace which, by definition, is unjust or may lead to the tragic and inevitable abyss of death and destruction of the human beings for whose moral aspirations and well-being international law, international relations, and the United Nations itself were created. 39. Faced with this reality of action or inaction by the great Powers — choices unavailable to the smaller countries — the latter stand impotent and all the light of their humanism, all their stubborn aspirations, which have sometimes illuminated the pages of history, cannot prevail. Our claims and aspirations thus become but vain demands. 40.”
1967-09-24 · UN General Assembly · General Debate, Session 22 (1967)
“However, If the idea of peace is the reason for the founding, the efforts and the hopes of the United Nations — if ideally — there cannot be peace without justice; and if all human conflicts can find in justice the path which leads straight to peace, then States, if they are not prepared — as they seem not to be — to stand charged with basic insincerity, must show a greater readiness to accept juridical settlement of their differences. This solution, moreover, will be all the more realistic, since, as Montesquieu put it, laws are simply necessary relationships resulting from the nature of things. 38. We see no reason to disguise the scepticism we feel regarding the international situation, which has deteriorated markedly in recent times.”
1967-09-24 · UN General Assembly · General Debate, Session 22 (1967)
“In this area, where we see international politics abandoning law or even opposing it or attempting to bend it to its interests, we should turn more frequently to international legal instance which the United Nations created, as a supreme and far-sighted expression of its ideals, in the International Court of Justice, that least ambitions and least pretensions of United Nations organs in that it lacks powers to initiate measures and has no jurisdiction other than that which States choose to grant it. 37.”
1967-09-24 · UN General Assembly · General Debate, Session 22 (1967)
“We are not unaware of the benefits which mankind could derive from the basic aim of the Maltese proposal, namely, that of preventing any Powers from initiating large-scale exploitation of the riches of the sea-bed. Nor are we unaware of the fact that certain other countries, whether or not situated close to the ocean floor, are technologically and financially more capable of such undertakings. However, we share Malta's wish that such undertakings should be restricted to peaceful utilization of the resources of the sea-bed, observing existing areas of national jurisdiction that have been proclaimed and will be maintained by those countries which advocate a new law of the sea to protect and defend their maritime wealth and the welfare of their people. 36.”
1967-09-24 · UN General Assembly · General Debate, Session 22 (1967)
“An increasing number of Latin American States, including Argentina and some countries of Central America, have also issued similar proclamations, while other countries, basing themselves, for reasons of self-interest, on non-existent or outworn concepts, have adopted speculative positions of power which have been reflected in the frequent and, in our view, illegal activities of their nationals. 34. Against this background and in this situation which is being improperly or unjustly maintained by certain Powers, we shall examine, realistically and with open minds, but most carefully, the proposal, included in the agenda of the twenty-second session of the General Assembly [A/6695] at the request of Malta, for a study of the possibilities of peaceful utilization of the seabed, without prejudice to present national jurisdiction. 35.”
1967-09-24 · UN General Assembly · General Debate, Session 22 (1967)
“It is also well known because of the repercussions of the proclamation and its underlying Justice, that three countries of the South Pacific—Peru, Chile and Ecuador—have proclaimed a new law of the sea which is in keeping with geographical, economic and biological as well as human realities. This law gives to the coastal States exclusive rights of Jurisdiction for the control and exploitation of the maritime areas over which they have proclaimed their territorial sovereignty. 33.”
1967-09-24 · UN General Assembly · General Debate, Session 22 (1967)
“We are well aware that international aid or assistance schemes are based on the assumption that the recipient countries will make a direct contribution to their own development, making their own special and continuing contribution to the co-operative effort through their toil, austerity and even sacrifices, through their driving enthusiasm and shining faith. That is why we Peruvians proudly lay claim to being first in the field, in the Americas, in achieving what in our country is referred to as the co-operation of the people. The term has also been used outside Peru, as a conscious symbol of human endeavour. 32.”
1967-09-24 · UN General Assembly · General Debate, Session 22 (1967)
“Because of longstanding and strong national convictions, however, we are not prepared to grant any privileges, concessions, exemptions or general or specific advantages which might turn economic, technical and financial cooperation into dependency or a trusteeship. 30. That is, frankly, our position. As far as the current United Nations Development Decade is concerned, we note both within and outside the United Nations a greater measure of discouragement than of satisfaction or even hope. The developing countries have obtained only a small part of what they legitimately hoped for; the scarcity of multilateral and collective aid has worsened their credit situation and is leading them to the slippery slope of inflation. 31.”
1967-09-24 · UN General Assembly · General Debate, Session 22 (1967)
“Without these conditions, the painfully erected and outwardly striking edifice of a prosperous economy can become a cumbersome structure which imprisons economic independence, compromises political independence and lowers the dignity of men and nations, thus making them galley slaves navigating wearily and hopelessly on an unknown course leading far from their legitimate objectives. 29. In the higher interest of a more equitable cooperation between people, and in the light of the damaging experience of mistakes which we made, sometimes through necessity, we Peruvians have agreed, and will continue to agree, to fair but controlled participation by foreign capital in our development.”
1967-09-24 · UN General Assembly · General Debate, Session 22 (1967)
“We have contributed in the same way in the past in the Economic and Social Council; in the United Nations Conference on Trade and Development, which we helped to establish; in the United Nations Industrial Development Organization and in the Governing Council of the United Nations Development Programme. We shall also be considering, on the basis of our own experience, the benefits of assistance to the developing countries and of technical and financial planning. 28. In order to achieve the goals which I have mentioned, we believe it is necessary to lay down certain conditions based, not on economic considerations, but on political and juridical factors that must not be overlooked or under-estimated.”
1967-09-24 · UN General Assembly · General Debate, Session 22 (1967)
“Peru is following with great interest and confidence the increasing activity of the United Nations in the economic field, activity aimed primarily at alleviating human poverty in many parts of the world, improving basic living conditions, ensuring planned national development as a source of employment and to provide basic needs, promoting industrialization to secure technological advancement and progressive improvement of welfare and ensuring the most equitable distribution of wealth possible as the moral goal of contemporary civilization. 27. In this connexion, we intend to made a special effort, at this session of the General Assembly, at which we have been honoured with the chairmanship of the Second Committee, to contribute in the most rational and practical manner possible to the achievement of these ends.”
1967-09-24 · UN General Assembly · General Debate, Session 22 (1967)
“Our position in those instances was one of consistent opposition to intervention, as it was in the case of other problems which arose within the geographical area of the American continent. We would therefore be failing to live up to the demands of our history and abandoning our faith in the democratic solidarity of the Americas were we not prepared to oppose any form of intervention, whether it comes, unfortunately, from another American republic or whether its source lies in ill-concealed political interests outside the continent. 26.”
1967-09-24 · UN General Assembly · General Debate, Session 22 (1967)
“Peru, in addition to agreeing, as on other occasions, to concerted action and continental solidarity against foreign aggression, expressed in particular at that meeting its solidarity with the Republic of Venezuela, with which it has long had fraternal ties and which revealed and denounced before the Organization of American States the interference of the Government of Cuba in its internal problems. 24. Our position on this question has never changed, will never change, and never can change. We are proud that, in the course of the international history of the Americas, we often took the initiative in diplomatic and even military measures — in 1847, 1856 and 1866 for example — to reject intervention in the Americas by those who would have conspired against our political regime and our institutions. 25.”
1967-09-24 · UN General Assembly · General Debate, Session 22 (1967)
“As is generally known, a consultative meeting of Foreign Ministers convened by the Organization of American States, was held in Washington on 22 September last to consider once again the situation of our countries in the light of the intellectually corrosive and politically interventionist attitude of the Government of Cuba. That Government is seeking to interfere with the institutional system which our countries' civic self-determination has established since their independence, and which they are trying, despite periodical changes and setbacks, to consolidate and perfect in order to strengthen their independence and the essential democratic freedoms and human rights whose achievement is the best assurance of the political, moral and juridical welfare of their citizens. 23.”
1967-09-24 · UN General Assembly · General Debate, Session 22 (1967)
“When indigenous inhabitants have been directly or indirectly expelled from a territory; when, over a long period of time, economic and social conditions have developed which have made it impossible for them to continue dwelling where there is no employment or decent livelihood; and when those who would rightfully be entitled to exercise self-determination are no longer present, self-determination ceases to be of great moral and juridical significance and becomes instead a device to conceal the truth behind empty or insincere formulas. 22.”
1967-09-24 · UN General Assembly · General Debate, Session 22 (1967)
“The strategic considerations which determined the United Kingdom's possession of the Malvinas Islands and Gibraltar no longer have any validity. 21. In our view, the principle of self-determination cannot be applied in the case of Gibraltar or the Malvinas Islands. Its application is ruled out by two essential facts which entirely preclude any expression of the will of the original inhabitants.”
1967-09-24 · UN General Assembly · General Debate, Session 22 (1967)
“Another case of an old legacy of current international concern is that of the Malvinas Islands, over which, by reason of certain circumstances, the United Kingdom extended its rule, whereas the Islands rightly belong to the Argentine Republic, the legitimate heir to Spain's legal title to the Islands themselves and the neighbouring mainland. In this case, as In that of Gibraltar, it is useless to turn to the diplomatic dialectic used by the ruling Power since, in the light of current principles and realities of international law and policy, this is a case of decolonization which must surely lead, not to a local autonomy and independence which would not be in keeping with the historical antecedents, but to the restoration and recognition of legitimate sovereignty.”
1967-09-24 · UN General Assembly · General Debate, Session 22 (1967)
“There was also an annexation of a portion of territory not disputed or taken possession of in any way at the outset and there was a displacement of the original population and an expansion of territorial occupation beyond the exact limits of the original concession. 19. At this new stage of the Gibraltar problem Spain is not only supported by history and the simple moral and logical arguments based on the background to the problem, but is seeking a solution in keeping with present-day realities and principles. The political and military aims that led to the original events no longer' exist, and the new concept of decolonization must give Spain encouragement and support so that it may again hoist its flag on the once merely historic but today symbolic Rock of Gibraltar. 20.”
1967-09-24 · UN General Assembly · General Debate, Session 22 (1967)
“We have invariably upheld it in all our dealings concerning frontier demarcation, in the disputes to which incomplete solutions occasionally gave rise, and even in our protests and efforts to have errors corrected. We cannot fail to insist on application of the same principle in international conflicts between other States, however remote and little understood those conflicts may be. 18. The problem of Gibraltar is neither political nor legal in the accepted sense and customary definition of those words. It is a problem of decolonization which has peculiar features of its own. There was an unjust annexation for political and military reasons, with a view to future strategic geography.”
1967-09-24 · UN General Assembly · General Debate, Session 22 (1967)
“However, correction of the measures which may have been employed for reasons not even fully known or understood cannot be a condition for recognition of the existence of a State, when its existence is the result, not of conquest or rebellion, the outcome of which seem to be accepted and approved nowadays in international law, but of the implementation of a decision of the international community which affirmed and upheld the principle of self-determination. 17. It is guided by that principle that we Peruvians maintain our traditional position. Self-determination is a constant in our international relations. The Peruvian State was founded on that principle.”
1967-09-24 · UN General Assembly · General Debate, Session 22 (1967)
“Those organs, therefore, have a primary obligation to maintain that which their work created. Unless they do so unequivocally and resolutely, they will appear as discredited judges who amass dossiers and reports and pollute the air with words, while the litigants are assaulting and wounding each other on the battlefield, constantly imperilling the lives of onlookers. 16. There appears to be virtually unanimous agreement that aggression and force cannot be tolerated as a means of creating situations of law, unless for the purpose of maintaining and ensuring respect for law itself.”
1967-09-24 · UN General Assembly · General Debate, Session 22 (1967)
“They claim that they are fulfilling commitments based on the world situation and their own national policy requirements. Other Powers, for similar reasons, declare their willingness to lend the other side economic, political and military aid, a position more resembling that of actual allies of the belligerents. 14. The Middle East question is also a cause of concern and sorrow to the Members of the United Nations as well as to other peoples who, if no better, are comparable to those who are more immediately and directly involved. In this matter it is inescapable that we respect and uphold the decisions of this Organization. 15. It is recognized that the case of Israel is unique in international law, for Israel is a State created by the formal will of the international community, expressed by the legitimate organs of the United Nations.”
1967-09-24 · UN General Assembly · General Debate, Session 22 (1967)
“The picture which Viet-Nam presents is one of horror for mankind. For reasons of humanity more important than this useless and unlimited military confrontation, the destruction must be brought to a halt. There is all the more justification for ending it as we know that a cease-fire is the logical prerequisite for any negotiation. 12. Were it not sardonic, discouraging and macabre to do so, we might describe a harrowing procession of the dead and the dying, not only men but also principles of international law, proclaimed by all and heeded now by few. What remains, beneath the mounds of rubble in Viet-Nam, of the great principles of independence, self-determination, neutrality and non-intervention? 13. Certain Powers are the protectors, the allies of, almost the spokesmen for, one of the local factions involved in the war in Viet-Nam.”
1967-09-24 · UN General Assembly · General Debate, Session 22 (1967)
“This wall becomes higher and stronger whenever, in international affairs, the higher concept of human solidarity is diminished or ignored. 10. When we stop and, from our weak and tottering observation post, survey the recent past and immediate future of international peace, we are naturally confronted with the heart-rending and futile drama being enacted in Viet-Nam. As human beings and as Members of the United Nations, we would wish our eyes and ears not be assailed by so much suffering. We fail to understand why the parties to the conflict, if they sincerely wish to bring it to an honourable and humane end, are marking time outside the negotiating chamber while they discuss responsibilities that must be Judged by the future and not by those directly and passionately involved in the events. 11.”
1967-09-24 · UN General Assembly · General Debate, Session 22 (1967)
“These negative aspects — negative in that they are obstacles to peace and undermine international solidarity, are occurring and developing concurrently with a new spiritual climate of solidarity and understanding in which the primary concern of international law is man himself, for whose welfare such law must exist and ensure peace. 9. However, the painful and clear reality is that law and peace have not followed the same path, the path which, although wandering and sometimes turning back, has nevertheless been simply and clearly traced, throughout history, by the desire to promote human welfare. The paths of law and peace have diverged. To use a contemporary illustration, we might say that a wall Is being built out of the preponderance of the political and economic interests of some and the needs of others.”
1967-09-24 · UN General Assembly · General Debate, Session 22 (1967)
“Secondly — although this listing does not imply any order of priority — advances in science and the development of communications, while raising humanity's legitimate aspirations, increased the need for and the advantages of international aid and co-operation which — leaving aside the subtle political calculations of the great Powers — are a requirement and a mandate of the prevailing concept of human welfare. 7. Thirdly, this same science which, creating for itself an image by its practical achievements, has made a giant vault into space and has developed in laboratories formulas and wise theories in which intuition plays some part, is also carrying out experiments, in the atmosphere and underground, designed to ensure the world's certain destruction, if it continues to follow blindly its present course in international affairs. 8.”
1967-09-24 · UN General Assembly · General Debate, Session 22 (1967)
“The spectre of destruction and death was to preside, through the ensuing night of misery and lurking distrust, over mankind's stumbling progress towards a future that reason could not foresee nor hope discern. To the disarray, the confusion and the increased international tension were added some new elements. The first of these was the proliferation of new States which, owing to historical, political, economic and social factors, was inevitably to aggravate, in and outside the United Nations, the precarious relations between the great Powers and the smaller States. 6.”
1967-09-24 · UN General Assembly · General Debate, Session 22 (1967)
“However, two phenomena were recurring which carried in them the fatal seeds of new upheavals and traced the mistaken route which was inevitably to lead to further historical confrontations. The system of great Powers was maintained, unlimited and unchecked together with the power of veto, capable, because of the strength of those Powers, of frustrating both theoretical and ad hoc peace, and of frustrating also the will and desire of international democracy. 5. The other phenomenon which was repeated under the pressure of the last annihilating days of the Second World War was the re-establishment, through a precarious and uncertain balance of power, of an international law based on terror.”
1967-09-24 · UN General Assembly · General Debate, Session 22 (1967)
“I myself had the honour to represent Peru at the first session of the United Nations General Assembly which was held in London in 1946. Addressing the Assembly then, as I do now, I expressed our concern at the relations which were beginning to develop between the great Powers and the small States in the post-war period. The international political scene of 1919 was being repeated, The useless sorrows of war were once again leading peoples along the path of stubborn hope to a new international organization, which this time would not bear the threadbare name of "League of Nations" but was to be entitled optimistically and euphemistically, the "United Nations". 4. Although the suffering world was experiencing political, social, economic and spiritual tremors, there survived the hope of an enduring and organized peace.”
1967-09-24 · UN General Assembly · General Debate, Session 22 (1967)
“1. Mr. President, I am very pleased to extend to you my congratulations on your election to the Presidency of the General Assembly. 2. Speaking from this rostrum as head of the Peruvian delegation to the United Nations General Assembly, I should like to take this opportunity, on grounds of long and personal friendship, to pay a tribute to the memory of Victor Andrés Belaunde, whose spiritual life was bound up for more than twenty years with the establishment, activities and ideals of the United Nations, from the time when he participated in the preparation of the San Francisco Charter — which bears his signature — to the day when he died in this city, in the very midst, in fact, of the twenty-first session of the General Assembly, devoting his talent and eloquence to the Organization to the very end. 3.”
1967-09-24 · UN General Assembly · General Debate, Session 22 (1967)
“We wish this Assembly and the United Nations to appreciate fully the manner in which the small States are rigorously and conscientiously fulfilling their duty as members of the international community and to believe that we have sufficient awareness of our personal responsibilities, obligations and rights to discern the true interests of nations and individuals, without being influenced by demagogic doctrines of the future or of the past. Our supreme desire is that nations and individuals may live without fear of the resurrection of extinct myths and hallucinatory threats.”
1947-09-24 · UN General Assembly · General Debate, Session 2 (1947)
“That is why we see these problems differently from other countries which confuse them with their political interests and their position in the world. We may say that we are indirectly concerned in these matters in so far as the inevitable interdependence of our world and the adherence to great principles and noble doctrines may involve our own national life as they have already done on two terrible occasions.”
1947-09-24 · UN General Assembly · General Debate, Session 2 (1947)
“Whilst it is true that present problems in this field render it more difficult, it is not less true that the drafting of rules is an objective undertaking likely to strengthen the spirit of peace. In this connexion we are fulfilling what might be called our historic mandate, as the meetings devoted to American solidarity originated and continued to be held in Lima throughout sixty years; the steadfast purpose of these meetings was the legal organization of our continent through international agreements proscribing war, the legal systematization of inter-American relations and the peaceful settlement of disputes. In all the present difficulties of international life, Peru, like the other Latin-American countries, takes an impartial point of view governed by high moral concepts and by our pre-eminently spiritual understanding of life.”
1947-09-24 · UN General Assembly · General Debate, Session 2 (1947)
“I should like to refer to the initiative taken by the United States for the creation of a subsidiary body of the Assembly which could partially bridge the gaps in the time and activities of the United Nations between the regular sessions of this great body. We consider it an auspicious step towards co-ordinating our common aims and sustaining the direct interest of all the United Nations in the problems with which they are concerned. Moreover, we may frankly state that we look with sympathy on an idea that would result in increasing the influence of the small States in the deliberations, and eventually, in the decisions and in diminishing the occasional privilege of those States which happen to be called upon to play a direct and special part. The Government of Peru supports the efforts to resume the work of codifying international law.”
1947-09-24 · UN General Assembly · General Debate, Session 2 (1947)
“For centuries the unusual endurance of the Peruvian native, especially in the Andes region, has been generally attributed to his use of the coca leaf but that habit appears to have psychological effects, We wish assistance in determining scientifically the nature of these effects with the laudable aim of improving the physical and spiritual conditions in which a part of the Peruvian population is living; the health of these people has been, and continues to be, the concern of our scientific institutions and of our Government, and they are carrying out ambitious and practical investigations on this subject.”
1947-09-24 · UN General Assembly · General Debate, Session 2 (1947)
“In stating its desires, the Peruvian Government also informed the Secretary-General that it wished to obtain the assistance and opinion of qualified experts to reorganize the control of narcotic drugs throughout our territory. This is more a human than a national problem.”
1947-09-24 · UN General Assembly · General Debate, Session 2 (1947)
“It is right that we should hold this view, for our own national constitution is based on respect for nationalities and human rights, and because we believe that if the Jews do not find a modest but safe national home, the only result will be postponement of the solution of a problem which time and future events may aggravate. Trusting in the promise of technical aid by the United Nations contained in the relevant resolution of the first session of the Assembly, my Government recommended to the Secretary-General, as he mentioned in Iris report, the establishment of a committee or group of experts to study the effects of the use of coca leaf in the Andes, the causes and economic repercussions of this habit and the possibility of eradicating it.”
1947-09-24 · UN General Assembly · General Debate, Session 2 (1947)
“But we consider that the State to be constituted for the Jews, in fulfilment of an, old multilateral international promise, should be sufficiently large, within reason, to ensure not only the normal development of the life of the Jews now in Palestine, but also of at least another generation and of the tens of thousands of dispersed or exiled Europeans awaiting the fulfilment of that promise on nearby shores. They cannot be re-absorbed into the social environment from which they have been separated or expelled by hardship, but they can, owing to the special qualities of their race, found new centres of happiness and progress.”
1947-09-24 · UN General Assembly · General Debate, Session 2 (1947)
“A representative of Peru was a member of the Special Committee on Palestine. In accordance with the dictates of his conscience and wisdom, he subscribed to the majority report without, however, being committed to all its aspects. This will necessarily influence political thought on this subject in my country. We can therefore say that we believe the best solution to be partition of the territory and the establishment of two States in which the opinion of the respective majorities will be essentially respected.”
1947-09-24 · UN General Assembly · General Debate, Session 2 (1947)
“Such an organization implies the limitation of the old, presumptuous absolute rights by a voluntary act, to some extent compromising with them, for the benefit of human life and welfare, which are the reason and purpose of our existence on earth. We took no part in the special Commission dealing with the problem of atomic energy — which hangs over peace like a sword of Damocles — but we can express ourselves generally in favour of the view taken by the United States, which is prepared to relinquish its technical advantages — so cruelly and decisively applied in ending the war in the East — in exchange for effective international control ensuring that the renunciation of these advantages which reinforce its strength does not mean leaving it at the mercy of possible hidden threats in the obscure future.”
1947-09-24 · UN General Assembly · General Debate, Session 2 (1947)
“As regards the small States, it is obvious that their opinions on international matters would appear to lose weight arithmetically in the voting, but certainly not more so than under the unrestricted use of the veto by one or a few States. To retain the veto in its present form is, indeed, to accept the subordination of general interests, requirements and aspirations to the domination of nationalistic ambitions. Both the veto and the ambiguous unanimity formula which crippled the League of Nations are far from being an affirmation of independence, unless we wish to return to the former conception of absolute and unlimited sovereignty which is entirely opposed, both in substance and in form, to any international organization.”
1947-09-24 · UN General Assembly · General Debate, Session 2 (1947)
“If we limit ourselves to considering the veto problem as the urgent legal question at the present time, we might contemplate the possibility of replacing it by a form of weighted vote that would give the Powers now enjoying the veto power the assurance that, their views, would have considerable numerical representation in certain ballots. If such ballot required a two-thirds majority vote of the General Assembly, or Security Council as the case might be, but the vote of the great Powers were weighted and represented by a multiple figure, they might have less reason to fear a decisive majority being formed against them.”
1947-09-24 · UN General Assembly · General Debate, Session 2 (1947)
“Were there not others who rose to the highest international rank with a rapidity only exceeded by that of their fall? In spite of our opposition to the abuse constituted by immoderate use of veto, we do not favour extraordinary measures for revising the United Nations Charter. We have already said that it was certainly not perfect, and would undoubtedly continue to require revision, but we fear that at this critical time in international life the revision of the Charter might provoke new and deeper differences which might endanger the very existence of the United Nations.”
1947-09-24 · UN General Assembly · General Debate, Session 2 (1947)
“We should ask those favouring the unrestricted use of veto if they think that the situation that existed when victory was won should serve indefinitely as a basis of world harmony or if, on the contrary, as we believe, the United Nations should maintain as its high and constant purpose, the establishment of peace for mankind and the legal equality of States, provided that they satisfy in the future those peace-loving qualities advocated by the Charter as a foundation for the international community. Even supposing that there may be persons drunk with power and ambition who desire the maintenance of the present situation, does history teach them nothing nor show them the precarious nature of “great Powers”? Were there not some great Powers on whose empires the sun never set?”
1947-09-24 · UN General Assembly · General Debate, Session 2 (1947)
“We have always favoured peaceful and rational settlements, and in 1946 we hoped that the outcry against the use of the veto would have a decisive influence on the actions of those exercising it. Had this been so, there would have been no need for new and heated discussions, and the juridical balance of the world might have been restored. Unfortunately, once again in international history, warnings have proved useless, and now, a short while later, we find ourselves again faced with this problem, which has become acute. Consequently, it has become necessary to regulate and limit the use of the veto so that its continued use in conjunction with a policy inspired by sinister motives shall not forge the chains which impede the progress of peace.”
1947-09-24 · UN General Assembly · General Debate, Session 2 (1947)
“All the other States which granted them this right were entitled to expect that its use would be limited to the legitimate and necessarily temporary defence of their positions in connexion with the war and the immediate problems of the post-war period. To concede or establish a right does not assume elimination of the concept of abuse of that right in the future by those enjoying it. If the possibility of abuse of a right is essentially inseparable from the idea of the right itself, there is implied a tacit but effective reservation which opposes the predominance of the right of all to the abuse of an individual right. The great majority of the United Nations have viewed the abuse of the veto right with disgust and anxiety.”
1947-09-24 · UN General Assembly · General Debate, Session 2 (1947)
“The veto was a political necessity for the San Francisco Conference; it had to be embodied in the Charter as a legal principle. Let us not forget that the sound of battle had not yet died away when the Conference took place and the Charter was drafted. It was the great Powers of the United Nations that led the world to victory. It was only fair, in evaluating realistically the compensation for their sacrifices that they did not wish to subject the reward for their tremendous effort to principles or ideals; it was only fair that they should want to reserve their right to direct the restoration of military peace in the battle areas, and the establishment of a universal juridical peace which would leave mankind free to return to its human destiny.”
1947-09-24 · UN General Assembly · General Debate, Session 2 (1947)
“Such devastation would be even more serious — if that were possible — because although it might not perhaps result in new destruction of existing wealth, it would constitute the annihilation of the physical and intellectual efforts of starving man, blinded by life’s obscure but palpable forces to the love of his neighbour and the light of a better world. I should like to refer to some of the concrete questions of a legal and political character which stand on this Assembly’s road as stumbling blocks to peace. We share the legitimate desire for abolition of the right of veto conferred by the San Francisco Charter on the great Powers which, by this means, and not only by this means, hold a privileged position in the United Nations.”
1947-09-24 · UN General Assembly · General Debate, Session 2 (1947)
“Surely, we may claim the right to raise our voice for the re-establishment of human progress and welfare. The United Nations has not yet done anything to redeem the consequences of our special but effective sacrifice, nor, what is even more important, to further the exploitation of our potential wealth in order to build a stronger structure of peace based on human welfare. In the reconstruction of devastated areas some progress has been made along the road of good, but sometimes sterile intentions. Faithful to their human philosophy, the Latin-American countries have reduced their individual and collective standards of living below the level imposed by the war itself, by contributing to the aid given by UNRRA. But no direct measure has yet been taken to prevent the spread of misery from creating fresh devastation in the future.”
1947-09-24 · UN General Assembly · General Debate, Session 2 (1947)