YouSaid · the spoken record

Castro

THE RECORD WRITES THIS SPEAKER AS CASTRO

lines on the record: 78
first: 1947-09-24
most recent: 1950-09-24
sittings or episodes: 4
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

“I thank the representatives for their kind attention in listening to me and I offer them the most sincere co-operation of my delegation in attempting to obtain positive fruits of international understanding as a result of our present session.”
1950-09-24 · UN General Assembly · General Debate, Session 5 (1950)
“The principal agenda items of the General Assembly have already been considered at previous meetings of this important organ of the United Nations. The delegation of El Salvador has made its attitude quite clear in regard to those items; hence all I have to say is that that attitude is the same as it was in previous years and that we shall continue to support the same principles. 153. I now conclude the statement which I deemed it necessary to make on behalf of the delegation of El Salvador. Its only object was to contribute as far as possible to the debate and to help to guide us towards the practical solutions which are required at the present moment.”
1950-09-24 · UN General Assembly · General Debate, Session 5 (1950)
“The world, or rather humanity, which is being bled white by wars, insists that the General Assembly of the United Nations, in which a majority of free States is represented, should do everything within its power to make possible the adoption of all such measures as are compatible with the spirit of our Organization and are aimed at remedying the effects of the chronic paralysis from which the Security Council suffers. 151. The delegation of the United States has made very important proposals in that direction. Those proposals, as well as any others made by other delegations seeking the same objective, will receive the most sympathetic consideration on the part of the delegation of El Salvador. 152.”
1950-09-24 · UN General Assembly · General Debate, Session 5 (1950)
“At the present juncture, when the Security Council is paralysed by the veto and therefore unable to fulfil its essential function of preserving peace, the North Atlantic Treaty and the Inter-American Treaty of Reciprocal Assistance of Rio de Janeiro are the only hope of mankind for restraining any imperialist tendency, from whatever quarter it may come. 149. All of us know that much must still be done to make those pacts completely adequate, so that they can effectively ensure the collective defence of the States which they include; but that development is bound to occur and even to be intensified under the pressure of circumstances. 150. All these considerations are based upon objective facts and not on conjectures.”
1950-09-24 · UN General Assembly · General Debate, Session 5 (1950)
“Nothing would be more conciliatory than such a change in policy, which would be welcomed by the majority of the delegations here present as a promise of peace and tranquillity for the entire world. If this invitation, which is in the minds of all of us, is not favourably received by the one nation which can carry it into effect, it is obvious that the only alternative remaining to the world in order to protect its own security is to expand existing regional systems and even increase the number of such systems in order to establish an effective curb against all future aggression. 148. Such regional systems, and the right to organize collective defence, are recognized in Articles 51, 52, 53 and 54 of the Charter.”
1950-09-24 · UN General Assembly · General Debate, Session 5 (1950)
“It is unpleasant, however, to have to note that the temporary absence of the representative of the Soviet Union from the Security Council was the sole reason which enabled the Council to adopt its resolutions of 25 and 27 June 1950 condemning the aggression committed against the Republic of Korea and calling upon States Members of the United Nations to offer military assistance to the invaded nation. 147. The return of the USSR representative to the Security Council made further resolutions impossible, although it could not cancel the effect of the resolutions already adopted, which promise the re-establishment of peace in the near future. If the Soviet Union would change its policy and co-operate as a true Member of the United Nations, the conflict would end immediately.”
1950-09-24 · UN General Assembly · General Debate, Session 5 (1950)
“In that respect, the United Nations is a defensive alliance against aggression and against any threat to international peace, with the very special characteristic that the protection offered by that alliance is also extended to non-member States because our Organization, since its very foundation, has always sought to become universal in character. That explains why protection is now offered to the Republic of Korea, which is not a Member of the United Nations. 145. We must recognize that the Security Council acted in the case of Korea with relative effectiveness although there were notable deficiencies. 146.”
1950-09-24 · UN General Assembly · General Debate, Session 5 (1950)
“In the first place, it has the primary function of maintaining and re-establishing peace; secondly, it has the function, which is also very important, of organizing international co-operation for the advancement of the highest interests of humanity, such as the fundamental human rights with which God has endowed man, and the improvement of the standard of living of the peoples. 144. In this speech I shall deal only with the first aspect, that is, with the United Nations in its primary function of maintaining peace.”
1950-09-24 · UN General Assembly · General Debate, Session 5 (1950)
“But at that time we had not foreseen, and did not wish to predict, that the Soviet Union itself would come to the aid of the aggressor and would make other efforts to nullify the effects of the enforcement measures which the United Nations has been compelled to undertake to re-establish peace. We cannot but openly condemn this attitude on the part of the USSR, because it endangers the very existence of our international Organization. 142. An overwhelming majority of the delegations here is convinced that if the Soviet Union refrained, even now, after all that has already happened, from giving its moral support to the aggressor forces, and for this purpose announced its approval of the Security Council resolutions, the present conflict in Korea would come to an end and in a very short time. 143. The United Nations has two aspects.”
1950-09-24 · UN General Assembly · General Debate, Session 5 (1950)
“It is distressing to have to note that all the world’s concern with this problem turns upon the attitude of the USSR Government, which, in contrast to so many others that have supported the Security Council resolutions, persistently condemns them as illegal and even supports the aggression by demanding the withdrawal from Korea of the United Nations forces which are assisting the invaded Republic. 141. We are accustomed by now to the lack of co-operation shown in previous cases and even to the Soviet Union’s boycott of important recommendations of the General Assembly, such as those which established the United Nations Special Committee on the Balkans, intended to help Greece against foreign intervention, or the United Nations Commission on Korea, established to help restore the country’s unity and organize it as a free State.”
1950-09-24 · UN General Assembly · General Debate, Session 5 (1950)
“It is greatly to be hoped that this lesson will prove a fruitful one for the powerful States, particularly the five permanent members of the Security Council, so that when the Charter is revised, as it one day must be, the harmful privilege of the veto will be withdrawn and democratic principles will be followed in determining the rights of States Members and the structure of all United Nations organs. 140. Let us now return to the problem of Korea.”
1950-09-24 · UN General Assembly · General Debate, Session 5 (1950)
“However, the development of events during the past five years, since the middle of 1945, has made it abundantly clear, whether it be in the case of Greece or China or Korea, that the small nations always support good causes, because it is in defending the fundamental principles of the United Nations, such as the equality of rights of States, self-determination and non-intervention, that the materially less powerful States most effectively safeguard their own political stability. 139. Of the fifty-three nations that have announced their support of the Security Council resolutions condemning aggression against the Republic of Korea, the majority are small, peace-loving States, ready to fulfil their international obligations as Members of the United Nations.”
1950-09-24 · UN General Assembly · General Debate, Session 5 (1950)
“The Soviet Union might, of course, have had special reasons for fearing that other rival Powers, with their great influence in the world, would succeed in dominating the young United Nations Organization; but those other Powers also had reasons of their own for defending the veto. 138. Those reasons were based on another fear, possibly also shared by the USSR, namely, that if the proposed unanimity was dispensed with and if the votes of all members, permanent or otherwise, had equal weight in the Security Council, as is the case in the General Assembly, this might place the control of the United Nations, and hence of the fate of the world, in the hands of the materially less powerful States which form an overwhelming majority in our Organization.”
1950-09-24 · UN General Assembly · General Debate, Session 5 (1950)
“Therefore most of them abstained from voting on this point, thus by their non-resistance making possible the birth of the Organization, with all its inherent defects. 136. There is no doubt that at that time the small States had much more political foresight than the great Powers, though I do not mention this in order to congratulate myself, much less to blame anyone. 137. I merely wish to make some observations which may be of use in the future. It is not true to say that the only reason for the requirement of unanimity among the great Powers in the voting procedure of the Security Council was the desire to obtain the co-operation of the Soviet Union at all costs and at any sacrifice. There was something which was never mentioned, not even informally, but which was present in the thoughts of all who really studied the matter.”
1950-09-24 · UN General Assembly · General Debate, Session 5 (1950)
“Again, we heard many fine stories about the spirit of co-operation among the great Powers during the Second World War; and that prompted the attractive conclusion that with the coming of peace that spirit would grow even stronger and the world would enjoy complete security, thanks to the excellent understanding which could not fail to continue between the members of the Security Council. 135. Although that illusion seemed almost childish to the delegations of the small States, as the major wars which have shaken the world have been the result of rivalries between the powerful States, they did not wish to be held responsible for the failure of the San Francisco Conference, for that failure would have prevented the formation of the United Nations Organization.”
1950-09-24 · UN General Assembly · General Debate, Session 5 (1950)
“It was considered to be the essential condition imposed by the Soviet Union in return for its acceptance of membership in the system of international co-operation envisaged in the Dumbarton Oaks proposals and previously at Yalta and Teheran. It became obvious that, if that requirement were not accepted, the United Nations Charter would not be adopted, because the representatives of various powerful States would not sign it if the USSR were not to be a party to it. 134.”
1950-09-24 · UN General Assembly · General Debate, Session 5 (1950)
“When the United Nations Conference on International Organization met in San Francisco in 1945, the delegations of many of the materially less powerful States strongly opposed the requirement of unanimity on the part of the five great Powers in Security Council voting. Those delegations most rightly feared that the desired unanimity would become a myth, as did in fact happen. It is a distressing fact, but none the less true, that the spirit of co-operation upon which that unanimity should be based has not since then been in evidence. 133. We well remember how simple was the argument used in favour of the veto.”
1950-09-24 · UN General Assembly · General Debate, Session 5 (1950)
“It was the insistence of some of the permanent members that created the problem of the veto in the Security Council voting, for it was the establishment in the United Nations Charter of the requirement of unanimity among those five permanent members which we have come to be called the great Powers, as an indispensable condition for the passage of any important Council resolution, particularly resolutions requiring the use of force to stop aggression, which produced the factor that has paralysed the Council and, with the single exception of the case of Korea, prevented it from fulfilling its task of maintaining peace and re-establishing it when it is broken. 132.”
1950-09-24 · UN General Assembly · General Debate, Session 5 (1950)
“In the Council itself, the representative of one of the permanent members asked for the rescission of the resolutions passed and the withdrawal of the forces fighting against aggression. It should be noted that it was precisely the permanent members of the Security Council which, under the United Nations Charter, assumed a responsibility greater than that of the other Members of the Organization in the fundamental task of maintaining peace and preserving world order.”
1950-09-24 · UN General Assembly · General Debate, Session 5 (1950)
“When the aggression against the Republic of Korea occurred and while the invading forces from the north rapidly advanced thanks to their heavy military equipment, fifty-three free States gave their complete approval to the resolutions of the Security Council condemning that aggression and requesting all Member States to give military aid to the invaded nation. I wish to recall this incident because of its grave implications. 130. The United Nations number fifty-nine States and some of them certainly ignored the appeal of the Security Council; a more serious fact, however, was that within the small group of dissident States, accusations arose against our Organization on the one occasion when the Security Council had been able to act effectively in defence of peace. 131.”
1950-09-24 · UN General Assembly · General Debate, Session 5 (1950)
“It is sad to have to recognize that the situation has become much worse in such a short space of time and that the United Nations, which was trying to bring opinions into harmony and to diminish friction, today finds itself engaged in armed conflict and for the first time is using the military force of its Member States to combat aggression and to restore international peace in a region where it has been violently overthrown. Our debates therefore cannot be pursued without taking into account the serious considerations of the present moment, because we all recognize that the primary purpose of the United Nations is the maintenance of peace. 129.”
1950-09-24 · UN General Assembly · General Debate, Session 5 (1950)
“The months which have elapsed since our last session have been sad, they have filled the peoples of the world with anguish and have created an atmosphere of pessimism in which it is very difficult to know what to do to give the peoples what they want: they want only to live quietly in their own homes, profiting from the innumerable resources which nature offers to satisfy material needs and to enable man’s creative spirit to develop fully and to produce new levels of well-being and progress. 128.”
1950-09-24 · UN General Assembly · General Debate, Session 5 (1950)
“We had also become accustomed to the ideological clash between certain governments which believed that peace and freedom were as indivisible as Siamese twins, which cannot live apart, and certain other governments which held a very different view and considered that peace was the outcome of action by force, despite the fact that such action entails the complete suppression of human ideals and freedoms. 126. Those two very different ways of thinking and feeling have naturally produced two opposing political systems whose rivalry in the international field is plainly inevitable. The resulting estrangement between two important groups of nations has given rise to the so-called cold war, a name chosen to distinguish it from those conflicts in which the roar of the cannon drowns the voice of reason. 127.”
1950-09-24 · UN General Assembly · General Debate, Session 5 (1950)
“At the same time, I should like to congratulate the Assembly itself on its wise choice of a new President to guide it in its labours during this year of most serious problems and indescribable difficulties confronting all free States. 125. In the months which have elapsed since the close of the fourth session of the General Assembly, there have been many events which have completely altered the atmosphere in which we should work. We had become accustomed to heated controversies arising from the divergence of opinion between governments as to the best way to conduct the affairs of the world so that all humanity might maintain peace.”
1950-09-24 · UN General Assembly · General Debate, Session 5 (1950)
“Nasrollah Entezam, representative of Iran, was not chosen because of the military or economic power of the State he represents, but simply because in our debates in this somewhat heated atmosphere of the General Assembly of the United Nations we had come to recognize in him, as we recognize in our present President, the highest qualities of intelligence, experience and equanimity, together with the very essential quality of a high moral stature. 124. Therefore, on behalf of my Government and of the delegation which it is my privilege to head, I wish to extend the most cordial congratulations to our colleague, Mr. Nasrollah Entezam, upon his well merited election to the presidency of the most genuinely democratic organ of the United Nations, the General Assembly, of which all of us are members.”
1950-09-24 · UN General Assembly · General Debate, Session 5 (1950)
“A year ago, in this same hall, I had the honour, as representative of El Salvador, to congratulate General Carlos Romulo, representative of the Philippine Republic, upon his election as President of the General Assembly of the United Nations. On that occasion I said, and I now repeat, that in choosing its new President from among its members the General Assembly had carefully taken account, above all else, of his excellent personal qualities. General Romulo, like our present President, Mr.”
1950-09-24 · UN General Assembly · General Debate, Session 5 (1950)
“There was a hope of uniting the Korean people on the democratic bases on which that Government had been established. 120. In regard to the problem of Jerusalem and respect for the Holy Places, the delegation of El Salvador supported the principle of. internationalization. It had defended that principle and would continue to do so to the best of its ability in order to prevent General Assembly resolutions 181 (II) and 194 (III) from being stultified and rendered inoperative by internal conflicts in Jerusalem. 121. In conclusion, Mr. Castro explained that his statements reflected the sincere desire cherished by the Government and people of El Salvador to co-operate in the work for peace which had been entrusted to the United Nations.”
1949-09-24 · UN General Assembly · General Debate, Session 4 (1949)
“The trusteeship should continue only until the protected territory was ripe for full independence, under the authority of a Government of its own. 118. Mr. Castro recalled that the attitude of the delegation of El Salvador towards the question of Greece, which was still threatened by the constant, intervention of various neighbouring States, had already been clearly defined. The provisions adopted by the General Assembly of the United Nations for the protection of the territorial integrity and sovereignty of the Greek State had been fully supported, 119, The same could be said in regard to Korea. Two representatives of El Salvador were serving with the United Nations Commission on Korea which had successfully co-operated, with its observations and advice, in the organization of a Government in south Korea.”
1949-09-24 · UN General Assembly · General Debate, Session 4 (1949)
“It was the opinion of El Salvador, first, that the principle of self-determination should be applied whenever the population of a colony was desirous of obtaining its independence and was, in addition, capable of self-government; secondly, that in such cases the partition of the territory of a colony was not to be recommended without taking into account the wishes of its inhabitants; and, thirdly, that only if the population of a colonial territory were not ready to exercise the functions of self-government or to assume full independence should it be subjected to trusteeship, the territory being placed under the temporary administration of an administering authority or of the United Nations according to the circumstances of the case.”
1949-09-24 · UN General Assembly · General Debate, Session 4 (1949)
“That argument invoked the principle of non-intervention, according to which the General Assembly of the United Nations had no right to intervene in problems relating to the rights of individuals in those countries and in the administration of justice, since that was the domestic function of their Governments. Essential human rights, in Mr. Castro’s opinion, were outside the national or domestic jurisdiction of States. The General Assembly had initiated a basic activity of the United Nations in taking up the recognition and protection of fundamental human rights. 117. The delegation of El Salvador had given its closest attention to the problem of the final disposal of the. former Italian colonies and to the question of Indonesia.”
1949-09-24 · UN General Assembly · General Debate, Session 4 (1949)
“In its resolution 272 (III) of 30 April 1949, the General Assembly had made appropriate recommendations with regard to Bulgaria and Hungary, countries accused of such violations of human rights. Nevertheless, there had not been the slightest sign of any improvement in those countries. To them must be added other countries, such as Czechoslovakia, which the Press throughout the world had accused of similar violations of fundamental human rights. 115. In accordance with international law, human rights were not subject to the arbitrary jurisdiction of any State, and should be recognized universally. 116. The delegation of El Salvador, which had always been a fervent advocate of the principle of non-intervention, had carefully studied the argument advanced in the cases of Bulgaria and Hungary.”
1949-09-24 · UN General Assembly · General Debate, Session 4 (1949)
“The representative of El Salvador therefore proposed that in the event that a general conference were convened, a large number of modifications should be submitted, so that some at least among them might be accepted. 114. One of the questions which contributed most to the uneasiness throughout the world and gave rise to serious conflicts within the General Assembly was the failure on the part of certain Member States to carry out their obligation under the Charter to respect fundamental human rights. Those conflicts had spread to States which were not Members of the United Nations but had recognized in international treaties their obligation to respect those rights.”
1949-09-24 · UN General Assembly · General Debate, Session 4 (1949)
“The delegation of El Salvador associated itself with the Argentine delegation in its wish to see that change adopted, without, however, disregarding the obstacles in the way of obtaining the abolition or even the limitation of the veto power. 112. For such a revision of the Charter to enter into effect, it must be adopted formally by a General Conference of the Members of the United Nations, and the following two conditions required by the Charter must be fulfilled: first, the revision must be sanctioned by two-thirds of the Member States, and, secondly, that majority must include the five permanent members of the Security Council, namely, China, France, the USSR, the United Kingdom and the United States of America. If even one of those members refused to sanction the revision, it could never come into effect. 113.”
1949-09-24 · UN General Assembly · General Debate, Session 4 (1949)
“The inclusion in the Charter of a clause ensuring respect for the territorial integrity of States might be contemplated, in order that justice might prevail in international relations and that universal peace might be secured. 110. The. representative of El Salvador understood that one of the possible alterations in the Charter which the Argentine delegation intended to propose was the abolition of the requirement of unanimity on the part of the five permanent members in votes in the Security Council, a requirement which conferred on each of them the veto power and which had been used too frequently in the work of that Council. 111.”
1949-09-24 · UN General Assembly · General Debate, Session 4 (1949)
“The delegation of El Salvador therefore intended to request the Assembly, composed as it was of the representatives of fifty-nine free States, to give serious consideration to the need so to revise the Charter that it would adequately safeguard the territorial integrity of Member States and of all States which co-operated in the maintenance of international peace. 109. The Argentine delegation had again proposed (A/970) that the General Assembly should examine the desirability of convening a general conference of the Members of the United Nations to adopt whatever revisions of the Charter might seem advisable in the light of the experience acquired in the preceding four years.”
1949-09-24 · UN General Assembly · General Debate, Session 4 (1949)
“It was obvious that each of the representatives of the great Powers at those meetings had weighed all the facts from his own point of view and in the light of existing conditions and had arrived at the conclusion that it would be necessary to make several territorial changes at the end of the Second World War, changes which would have been contrary to the United Nations Charter if it had contained a provision guaranteeing the territorial integrity of the Member States. 108. The facts, however, were incontrovertible; the appropriate conclusions should be drawn from them.”
1949-09-24 · UN General Assembly · General Debate, Session 4 (1949)
“The mistake of omitting to include in the Charter any provision guaranteeing the territorial integrity of all the Member States, as well as their political sovereignty over such territory, had certainly not been made because of some momentary forgetfulness on the part of the statesmen who had been present at the meetings of Yalta and Dumbarton Oaks, nor because they had been unaware of the provisions of the League of Nations Covenant.”
1949-09-24 · UN General Assembly · General Debate, Session 4 (1949)
“The United Nations Charter, as opposed to the Covenant of the League of Nations and the charter of the Organization of American States, had a very serious basic defect in that it contained no provision guaranteeing the territorial integrity of States, not even that of the Member States. That grave omission had made it possible for the Governments — not the peoples — of some of the most powerful States to acquiesce in the fatal mistake of allowing Poland, the country in whose defence the war had been started, to lose almost half the territory it had owned at the time of the outbreak of hostilities.”
1949-09-24 · UN General Assembly · General Debate, Session 4 (1949)
“At that time many statesmen had acclaimed that fact as a good omen for the speedy establishment of a just peace at the end of the war, but the results should now be considered carefully. It had to be admitted that, although four years had elapsed since the end of the armed conflict, some of the most important peace treaties had not been signed and there was no immediate hope of their being signed. World peace had not yet been organized. Some countries still had to be considered technically as enemy States and, what was worse, the differences between the victors and the vanquished were not as great as those between the victorious Powers themselves.”
1949-09-24 · UN General Assembly · General Debate, Session 4 (1949)
“The representative of El Salvador said that the Assembly had unfortunately erred by departing from some of the basic principles of the Charter, namely, the principle that there should be no intervention in the internal affairs of States and the principle that all peoples should have the right of self-determination. Both those principles had been violated in recommendations which he would not specifically name, because he did not wish to reopen old controversies but rather to contribute to the spirit of harmony in which the' Assembly’s decisions should be made. 107. Since the United Nations had come into being at the San Francisco Conference of plenipotentiaries held in 1945, it could be regarded as having been created prior to the conclusion of the Second World War.”
1949-09-24 · UN General Assembly · General Debate, Session 4 (1949)
“In his opinion, the General Assembly and the other organs of the United Nations had not been vested with arbitrary powers, since none of the Member States had envisaged turning the Organization into a super-state with unlimited powers. On the contrary, the Assembly’s authority was based entirely on the condition that its actions should be in conformity with the principles of the Charter. The only thing the Assembly was authorized to do under the Charter was to make recommendations — which by their very nature could not be mandatory — to the Member States. It was nevertheless essential to respect and carry out those recommendations as long as they were based on the principles of the Charter. 106.”
1949-09-24 · UN General Assembly · General Debate, Session 4 (1949)
“It was one of the fundamental obligations of the Assembly as well as of the other organs of the United Nations to abide closely by the principles of the Charter in order to maintain real harmony among the Member States, since they had not renounced the whole of their sovereignty, but only a part of it under the provisions of the Charter. The United Nations was only an international agency for peace and its powers were limited by the mandate it had been given by the Member States. Consequently Mr. Castro did not share the opinion held by some representatives that all the Assembly’s resolutions, no matter what form they took, should be carried out.”
1949-09-24 · UN General Assembly · General Debate, Session 4 (1949)
“Failure to sign peace treaties with the enemy nations had left the world in the shadow of war, in a painful period of transition from the Second World War to peace, a situation which made it impossible to say truthfully that the United Nations had, by a just and stable peace, contributed effectively to the strengthening of international order. 104. As, the head of the Syrian delegation had stated at the 222nd meeting, no agreement among nations could be regarded as stable unless it was based on justice. The General Assembly must therefore aim in its work to ensure justice among nations, irrespective of economic, military or political power. 105.”
1949-09-24 · UN General Assembly · General Debate, Session 4 (1949)
“In order to avoid a repetition of past mistakes, nations must consider future prospects, take stock of their strength and pray the Almighty to increase it, so as to reduce as much as possible the differences and suspicion which separated some States from others. They must do everything in their power to put an end to that so-called cold war which divided nations into hostile camps and which had prevented the strengthening of peace among the nations which had emerged victorious from the Second World War.”
1949-09-24 · UN General Assembly · General Debate, Session 4 (1949)
“It was the unavoidable duty of the General Assembly to meditate at the opening of its fourth session on the heavy responsibility resting on all representatives of free States who had met to work for peace and understanding among the nations of the world, to strengthen international order and to ensure to all peoples the security to which they were so fully entitled. 103. The United Nations should not, however, confine its meditations to that aspect alone. It should remember the mistakes it had made in the process of its development, mistakes often due to the fact that it was an agency of international peace, built up by human hands.”
1949-09-24 · UN General Assembly · General Debate, Session 4 (1949)
“Mr. Castro stated that the election of General Romulo, head of the Philippine delegation, as President of the General Assembly pointed to an advance of that democratic tendency which the Assembly wished to instill in the organs of the United Nations in order that that society of free States might ultimately become universal and representative of all humanity. 101. It was an undeniable fact that the General Assembly had elected its President because he was universally liked and because his ability inspired confidence, irrespective of the political, military or economic power of the Philippines. 102.”
1949-09-24 · UN General Assembly · General Debate, Session 4 (1949)
“Finally as regards the territories which were not independent at that time, but whose peoples had already achieved the degree of maturity necessary for them to be allowed an independent life, the United Nations should respect the principle of the right of self-determination of nations which was recognized in Article 1, paragraph 2, of the Charter. Those were the general views of the delegation of El Salvador with respect to the essential problems submitted for discussion by the General Assembly at the present session. His delegation reaffirmed its determination to work with other delegations in a spirit of understanding and collaboration in order that it might be possible to attain those objectives which all the countries of the world had set themselves.”
1948-09-24 · UN General Assembly · General Debate, Session 3 (1948)
“Consequently, if a resolution was not in conformity with the Charter, the States opposing that resolution were under no obligation to respect it. His delegation further considered that the General Assembly was not justified in intervening in the domestic affairs of States. Article 2, paragraph 7, prohibited such action in vigorous terms, and if, in spite of that provision, the General Assembly were so to act, its decision would not be valid since it would constitute a flagrant violation of the Charter. In the case of threats to the peace, breaking of the peace, or acts of aggression, the measures of coercion provided in Article 2, paragraph 7, could in no way be applied by the General Assembly; it was for the Security Council to take such steps in accordance with the provisions of Chapter VII of the Charter.”
1948-09-24 · UN General Assembly · General Debate, Session 3 (1948)
“Such arguments were alien to Article A, paragraph 1, of the Charter, and the General Assembly had only to reaffirm its right to admit the States in question to membership in the Organization. Mr. Castro repeated that the. delegation of El Salvador would support any draft resolution which, instead of turning it into an illusory right, would render effective the General Assembly’s right to make a final decision in the matter of admission of new Members. In taking part in the work of the General Assembly, the delegation of El Salvador had always felt that the United Nations did not constitute a kind of super State. It was merely an international peace association, with no other powers than those which had been conferred upon it in the Charter by the States Members.”
1948-09-24 · UN General Assembly · General Debate, Session 3 (1948)
“The International Court of Justice had already given its considered opinion on the matter, namely, that no Member State of the United Nations had the right to present to the Security Council arguments against the admission of an applicant State which were not based on Article A, paragraph 1, of the Charter (A/597). The Court had also expressed the opinion that no member of the Security Council had the right, when it was a question of admitting new Members to the United Nations, to make the admission of one State conditional upon the admission of other States. Those two opinions of the International Court of Justice refuted all the arguments and objections which had been brought forward in the Security Council against the admission of Portugal, Ireland, Transjordan, Italy and Austria.”
1948-09-24 · UN General Assembly · General Debate, Session 3 (1948)