are by the unanimous will for peace of all the United Nations who have the privilege of sharing this responsibility in a major or minor way, they can and must lead us toward a better tomorrow after an unspeakable, frightful yesterday.

Third Plenary Session . . .

I pray, I trust, I know, we shall succeed. We must succeed.

MR. SOONG: I shall now recognize His Excellency, the Minister of Foreign Affairs and chairman of the delegation of Egypt.

MR. BADAWI PASHA: Mr. Chairman, Fellow Delegates, Ladies and Gentlemen. On behalf of the Egyptian delegation, may I on this memorable occasion pay a deep-felt tribute to the memory of Franklin Delano Roosevelt, the great leader, who after having brought the world to the threshold of a new era of peace and world security, paved the way for this Conference. His disappearance from the international scene is most certainly a great loss, and our highest homage to his memory will be to make this Conference a success, to build a foundation for lasting world peace. This success can only be brought about by mutual confidence, tolerance, and negotiation.

Egypt is proud of the valuable contribution it has been able to give to the victory of the United Nations in the highly strategic Mediterranean area. In addition to the protection of the Suez Canal and other parts of the country so vital to the movement of Allied troops and supplies, she has given continuously since the outbreak of the present conflict her full support by all means within her power, all of which has been widely commended by the Allied High Command both on land and sea.

Egypt comes here with a background of law-abiding, democratic traditions, intent on co-operation to the fullest degree and hopeful that through the framework of the Charter to be set up may be brought together all the discordant interests and divergent tendencies of all nations, so that through lawful means and orderly procedure will come ultimate relief from the devastating Scourge of war.

None of us surely need to be reminded that after the pains and sufferings of the last war great hopes were raised and high promises freely dispensed to the people of a bleeding world. Lofty phrases promised a new order and a better humanity but soon the hardships and sufferings were forgotten. Forgotten also were the promises, and shattered were the hopes. This time we owe it to our men, to our women, to our children, following that drastic lesson in which none was spared the horror and the atrocity of war, that what we build here and now should be so well conceived and so thoroughly planned that the promises and pledges that bring us here may find their full realization.

We of Egypt, conscious of our obligations and sincerely eager to place our shoulders to the wheel, feel it is our duty to state our point of view to the other members of the family of nations, in the belief that by such a frank exchange of views we may help to attain the precious objectives to which we dedicate ourselves.

First and foremost, it is our belief that the keystone of this arch of peace which we seek here to build should be the deep-rooted principles enunciated in the Atlantic Charter. That day in the Atlantic, in mid-August of 1941, when the Prime Minister of Great Britain and the PresiIdent of the United States met and wrote down certain fundamental thoughts, they wrote a charter for all humanity. These fundamentals stirred every human heart. These fundamentals reached across the seven seas and

brought hope to millions that the savage struggles of war were not to be in vain.

In these fundamental principles are compressed the hopes and aspirations of a troubled world. It is upon their fulfillment that the United Nations pledged themselves in their joint declaration of January 1st, 1942, and it is on the basis of that declaration that the present gathering takes place. How can we meet in this solemn conclave and overlook the message that these principles imply?

In fact, the Atlantic Charter was not only a blessing for humanity in its direct promises and prospects; it was equally so in its implications and its indirect commitments. In the message in which the late President Roosevelt made it known to the Congress, he heralded to the world the four freedoms: freedom of speech, freedom of worship, freedom from fear, and freedom from want.

Beside the first two, for which the world has fought in past ages, and which may be considered as the richest world-wide achievements of constitutional progress, he gave to humanity the other two as most vital to the new conditions and trends of modern life.

The Dumbarton Oaks Proposals are mainly concerned with organizing the conditions of freedom from fear and the necessary establishment of agencies whose principal aim is to maintain peace and security by settling conflicts and enforcing justice in the international field, in other words, what I would term the negative side of the international problem. The positive side in my judgment consists in the development of international solidarity and co-operation, which, however, I feel has not been neglected.

Certainly, we must grant to the authors of these Dumbarton Oaks Proposals the glory that is theirs; the lessons of the war have not been lost upon them. The world has learned by painful experience that economic unrest and social troubles always are at the bottom of international disorders and that the best way to prevent war and maintain peace is to provide the world with a working system of co-operation.

It would be unjust not to recognize the achievement of the League of Nations in that field, but it would be equally unfair not to realize the broader vision which the Dumbarton Oaks Proposals show by comparison to the work of the League. The economic and social functions of the Assembly, and the institution of the Economic and Social Council are proof of a new conception of international affairs.

It is much less by settling conflicts and adjudicating disputes that peace and order can be maintained and human happiness secured. These ends can be more easily attained by promoting co-operation in cultural understanding, by setting a better pattern for international trade and monetary problems and other economic questions, by assigning to mankind a higher standard of living, based on the fact that the best condition for maintaining a high standard in a country is to secure the highest standard possible in the other countries.

We of Egypt hope that that part of the Dumbarton

Oaks Proposals may receive the greatest care and attention and that the future Organization will be planned so as to make it most effective.

We plead for the continued earnest thought of all people for the development and clarification of international law. Several other governments have spoken out on this point, and we agree that if a new channel or agency is needed to accomplish it, either through the General Assembly or through the Economic and Social Council, it should be here provided.

The obvious weakness of international law was that, contrary to all other branches of law, its rules could not be enforced. Now, with military power being placed at the disposal of a world organization, it is logical that the rules of international law need to be determined, defined, and codified.

The rules now generally accepted as the law of nations, which are the outcome of the evolution of centuries of international practice, have often helped to avoid armed conflicts and to develop peaceful relations between different states. Better defined, it would help more.

In this connection and with a view of harmonizing international relationships, we suggest it as a duty of the Conference to prescribe principles for the revision of treaties which have become inconsistent with the new concept of world conditions and collective security and might therefore become irritants and a possible source of conflict.

In the tentative Proposals of Dumbarton Oaks, a distinction is noted between the great powers or permanent members of the Council and the other powers, the latter being composed of the so-called medium and small powers. If we assume for all practical reasons that a privileged position for the great powers is justified by the larger responsibilities they undertake in the maintenance of peace, we nevertheless believe that a better balance between the great powers and the medium and small states should be achieved and to accomplish this we submit certain revisions.

In fact, the experience of the League of Nations should enable us to avoid many mistakes of the past. These mistakes may have been due to an excessive division of responsibilities, but would it not be equally a mistake to go to the opposite extreme, by adopting a scheme of concentrating the whole power in the hands of a very few? Taken as a whole, the group of medium and small powers constitutes an important element in the organization of world peace, numbering as they do no less than 40 states scattered all over the globe, which have their own national life and independence acquired by years and sometimes centuries of toil and struggle.

Their adhesion to the new Organization implies that in the general interests they should abandon to the Security Council some of their fundamental prerogatives. They may also be called upon to give effect to its decisions by armed force, or by according facilities within their territories, or by adopting economic measures entailing heavy sacrifices. It would therefore be difficult to justify a scheme under which these states should not be able to voice their views inside the Council, nor participate in framing the policy they will have to follow, though it may sometimes be detrimental to their own interests.

The support given to the world Organization by any group of smaller powers should entitle them to a large representation in the Council. The number of members should be raised to 14. This would not affect the privileges of the permanent members of the Council. In spite of the increased number of members, the decisions would be carried by a majority of 8 votes, which might be qualified or not according to the case under examination. In this manner, the increase in the number of members of the Council would not hinder prompt action by the Security

Council, nor would the permanent members lose their influence.

On the other hand, if the designation of the nonpermanent members of the Council is provided for without some positive criterion being the basis of their election, and if it is left to the hazard of the ballot, to temporary combinations or struggle for influence, then, in spite of the broadening of the Council, the representation of the whole group of smaller states may still prove entirely inadequate.

The surest and most objective basis would be to secure the permanent representation in the Council of all the principal regions of the world. In an organization which exerts its functions and powers over the whole surface of the globe the choice of elected members should be based on territorial representation, so that no great region of the world-aside from the territories of the five great powers should be left without an effective share in the work of the Council. The representation of states should be based on regional zones corresponding to electoral constituencies, the General Assembly choosing a representative for each region.

The Security Council, reflecting in its major strength the thought of the great powers, should have an opportunity to act on its own initiative, without having to consult the Assembly. This function would be comparable to that of an executive to whom full powers have been given by the legislative branch of the government. To override the Council's decision in the proposed world Organization, it might be provided that the Assembly could interfere with the Council's action only by a majority as impressive as three-quarters. A general system of checks and balances, where incorporated into constitutional governments everywhere, have strengthened the framework of those governments.

It is axiomatic in government that the strongest reflection of popular will comes from the branch which is most widely representative of the mass of the people. To that end, it is our belief that the Assembly, including every nation embraced in the membership of the Organization, will more widely and truly mirror the public opinion of the world. Therefore, acts of the Council submitted to it for review will gain rather than lose strength in the process.

We believe that a change in the presently contemplated veto provisions of the Dumbarton Oaks draft will serve to inspire greater confidence in the democratic aims of the new world order. Certainly we trust that the great powers, eager to follow the traditionally democratic procedures of law and government, will see their way clear to a revision of the veto plan as now proposed. Permitting any power great or small to sit both as judge and jury in its own case does not, in our opinion, contribute to build worldwide confidence so necessary to the success of a plan for world order. The purpose, as I have said, of these proposals to change the voting methods is to strengthen the primary foundations of the organization and bring to it the greatest possible measure of public esteem and confidence.

Without exhausting our observations on the Proposals of Dumbarton Oaks we saw fit to dwell on these few thoughts with the knowledge that from this community of interests of all states-the large and the small, the powerful and the weak, the old and the young-will come a tested, strengthened, and revitalized vehicle for the maintenance of the international peace and security that we all cherish.

And Gentlemen, in closing, may I remind you that just two years ago, several statesmen gathered in my country to discuss the vexatious problems of war and the even more trying problems of the peace to come. These statesmen included the dynamic Churchill, the valiant Chiang

Kai-shek, and the gallant leader, the late Franklin D. Roosevelt. Having just completed a conference with the indomitable Stalin, they met one autumn day in a spacious and beautiful garden not far from the Great Pyramid of Egypt, built 5,000 years ago by the predecessors of our present Egyptian people. You can well picture the scene, as the circling sun threw the shadow of the giant Pyramid across the garden setting, a shadow that has made its daily appearance, month by month, year by year, century by century, for the last 5,000 years. These early Egyptians built for permanence.

Third Plenary Session...

And in this solemn hour, may I express the hope that we may start here an enterprise for peace to satisfy the yearnings of the people of the world? May we hope that the edifice we build today will be so true, so fine, and so strong that in the months and years and centuries to come, the sun of another day may permanently, like the shadows of our great pyramids, cast its influence for good permanently upon the people of the earth.

MR. SOONG: I now recognize His Excellency, the chairman of the delegation of Honduras and Ambassador of Honduras to the United States.

MR. CACERES: Mr. Chairman, Fellow Delegates, Ladies and Gentlemen: In April, 1917, the United States of America declared war on imperialistic Germany. This war had been provoked by Germany in her violation of the freedom of the seas and her ruthless disregard of international treaties. At that time, the Republic of Honduras, loyal to the principles of freedom, adhered undeviatingly to the cause defended so earnestly by America in the battlefields of Europe.

Thus it was that the Republic of Honduras participated in the Versailles Conferences, which resulted, in part, in the creation of the League of Nations, the first international organization which had as its aim the guaranty of peace to the world. At the inauguration of the League on the 16th of January 1920, a new era for humanity began.

On the 7th of December 1941, Japan, which had belonged to the League but which preferred to abandon it so that she might set out on the road of aggression and conquest, attacked the United States of America at Pearl Harbor. The Republic of Honduras, in spontaneous action against the outrages of totalitarianism, hastened to declare war on the Japanese Empire and, soon after, on its companion in crime, Hitler's Germany.

The Government of Honduras was the first government in America to expel subversive agents of the Reich from its jurisdiction, even before the outbreak of war.

Honduras is a country of a small area, and, perforce, limited economy. However, Honduras has the moral integrity of nations which love law and peace. My country took its stand as a belligerent against the Axis powers long before the glow of victory was visible on the horizon. We were sure that the imponderable values of the spirit, even though they might suffer a temporary eclipse, would endure and be cherished in the hearts of all free men. My country, Honduras, thus united its destiny with that of the nations facing the totalitarian aggressors, who in their wild schemes believed themselves to be masters of the entire world. So it was that Honduras signed the Joint Declaration by United Nations, freely offering her resources and her man power in defense of freedom.

Honduras has not failed in the role allotted her by history, and, in recognition of her support in the war against the Axis powers, has come to the Conference on International Organization. Honduras does not have the mighty strength of the victorious great powers. But she does have the undeniable attribute of sovereign equality, enjoyed equally by all peace-loving nations.

The Government of Honduras in its full support of the principle of freedom did not hesitate to accept the invitation extended by the United States of America, by the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland,

by the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics, and by the Republic of China, to be represented in this historical conference where the fundamental principles of law and justice and the broad doctrines of universal welfare must find expression in international policy.

Out of the blood, destruction, and death wrought by totalitarian aggression against free peoples, man's inherent dignity must lift him beyond the horrors of hatred. In this cosmopolitan and hospitable city of San Francisco are assembled together representatives of peoples and governments from all parts of the earth. All are guided by the light of the same ideals. They have gathered to create out of the enduring qualities of freedom, justice, and love, the world of tomorrow, which must be based on the peace and security of nations.

Honduras pays tribute to the historic achievement of the United States of America, of Russia, of England, and of China in establishing the Dumbarton Oaks plan as a basis for the study of the problem of peace and international security.

The political, economic, and social aims which form part of the International Organization constitute a great advance toward stable peace and prevention of war. Yet there remains the urgent necessity of creating a functional organism which will assure that peace.

Whether it be the United States of America, Russia, England, China, or France, whatever the powers which assume the responsibility for guaranteeing the peace, whatever the political realities so-called, we may well remember that in the last analysis human values must be the basis for united and enduring action against the depredations of brute force.

Above all, let us remember that 46 sovereign states which here will deliberate upon the stability of peace and the suppression of war, will make law the invariable guide of their decisions, with justice their driving force toward the realization of the common good.

Precisely by reason of their sovereignty the participating nations will, in their common cause and unity of effort, exalt their individual status by molding it to serve the good of all.

Whether nations be great or small, able to defend unaided or whether they be protected by only an inner moral strength, each is necessary to the other in the world of civilization and culture, in the fight for progress which, in the first place, is the realization of justice, and justice is what we have come here to look for. In this particular conception all the United Nations are entitled to participate in any branch of the International Organization, no matter how poor or how rich they might be, no matter if they are weak or powerful, with or without human or economic resources. The armed forces of

the United Nations, the armed forces which yesterday jointly embraced close to the hideous redoubt of Berlin, are not only fighting for their own defense or interest, they are indeed fighting for the dignity and welfare of mankind.

The men, peoples, and governments which have congregated here to deliberate and resolve in world peace and security, despite their divergency of geography, history, power, or political systems, have only one moral purpose, that of working together for the good c the international community. The Republic of Honduras is small in size. It has, nevertheless, sufficient moral space

Third Plenary Session...

to make room for its responsibility, that responsibility which will bind her with regard to the obligations and rights derived from participation in this Conference because of its spontaneous contribution in the war effort. When Honduras threw its lot on the side of the United States of America, it did not do so to become a theoretical belligerent.

Honduras salutes the United Nations and expresses its hope and faith in the ideals of this "survival war" and in a better world to come.

MR. SOONG: The Chair now recognizes His Excellency, the chairman of the delegation of India.

SIR RAMASWAMI: Mr. President, Fellow Delegates, Sisters and Brothers of the United Nations: I stand here to represent the views of a people who have throughout their historic past been known as a peace-loving people. In all the long history of India, whatever internal commotions may have taken place, the historian does not record a single instance of the people of India being aggressive or wanting to dominate over any people beyond their borders. On the other hand, India has been the refuge of all the persecuted of other lands from the days when the White Jews left their territory and came to the western coast of India down to recent times when, only the other day, the refugees of that first invaded country, Poland, found sanctuary in my country.

I remember with pleasure an incident only about three years back, in the last month of 1942, when I and a colleague of mine were in England-the incident when General Sikorsky, on behalf of his people, came and thanked us for what we had done for the Polish refugees in our country. And, Sir, this habit of peace-loving is not due to any fact that we are not able to stand up against the invader, or that we have not played our part worthily in the military conquests that have been waged from time to time for the preservation of human liberties and the extension of human liberties.

I need hardly refer to the part that India played in the last great war when her military strength was utilized toward defeating the same aggressor 25 years ago. In the plains of Flanders, in the nooks and corners of Gallipoli, in the arid deserts of Mesopotamia, Indian blood has been shed for what is considered the liberty of the world. And it is a tragedy of the first magnitude, a tragedy to which the Mayor of this great city referred in his remarks the other day, that all that sacrifice has been in vain.

Twenty-five years later, when the call came that aggression should be put down, that the monster which had raised its head in Europe was likely, if unchecked, to dominate all the freedom-loving people of the world, the Indian people were ready to take their place among those who would fight for the preservation of the liberty of the human people.

And more, Mr. President, if I could vouch for the feelings of my people, it was not in 1939 alone but throughout that period that you referred to, when this war first began in 1931, when democratic countries were still hesitating about the attitude that they should take, when in conferences at Geneva and elsewhere the people of other countries were wondering whether they should take their part in putting down the aggression that then began, the Indian people at any rate had no hesitation in showing where their feelings and where their sympathy lay-with

your great country, China. And they waited and watched, and they watched and waited, until at long last the opportunity came in 1939, when even the tired countries of the West could no longer suffer the onward march of the dictators and they decided to take their firm and their last stand against Germany, the greatest aggressor in Europe.

Sir, I have said that ours is not merely a peace-loving country in the sense that it could merely pray for peace and keep quiet with folded hands. In this war, in the north of Africa, at Dunkirk, in Italy and in Greece, in the Middle East countries, the armies of India have played their worthy part.

And it has been a matter of supreme satisfaction to us that our armies played the main part, if I may say so, at the Battle of Teheran and in liberating the country which was swallowed up by an aggressor country only recently, unaided, unsupported, almost uncared for-the great and ancient Kingdom of Ethiopia. I know that my people were pleased-more than pleased; grateful-more than grateful-that it had been given to them to free this ancient country, to their armies to be instrumental, in the main, in freeing this great and ancient country and relieving it from the thralldom of an aggressive power.

Mr. President, we are met here at the invitation of the four great powers. They have done their utmost; they are doing their utmost to contribute to the success of this war. In fact, one may say they have almost won the war -certainly in the West-and the decision is no longer in the balance; the decision is no longer in doubt as to their winning the war in the East also.

We talk of the great powers and of small powers; we talk of the special responsibility of great powers, and the special privilege of great powers also. I should like to put in its proper perspective what India has done in this war. Two and a half million of the sons of India, soldiers drawn from every part of the country, drawn on a voluntary basis, are today fighting in the different parts of the world against the common aggressor.

May I point out, Mr. President, that, next after the great countries-the four inviting powers-next in strength to the armies of these four great inviting powers, is the strength of the Army of India which is fighting the aggressor nations today. I speak not in boastfulness but in uttter modesty, and I should like to remind myself and others at this Conference of one fact. I should like to be like the Laputan flapper speaking with bated breath and with whispering humbleness, to draw the attention of the great powers to the fact that, by themselves, none of them individually could have stood against the great tyrant and aggressor; that in unity with others they have

been able to achieve the success that they have done, and that, moreover, smaller countries by their contribution also have helped to achieve the present result.

We talk of independence, we talk of sovereign rightsI am one of those that believe in sovereign rights-but I believe the world has come to a stage when the emphasis is not to be so much on independence as on interdepend

ence.

None of us, not even the great powers, as I said, individually could foresee all the combinations or all the developments of even any single power, and be assured that by its own remorseless strength, its own vital powers, it could always be secure and maintain its sovereign status. At this United Nations Conference, while I recognize, and all of us who are called the smaller nations recognize, the essential features and basis of this Conference, while we realize that the main responsibility is on the great powers, I should like humbly to suggest to the great powers themselves that they also serve who only stand and wait; that the smaller nations who have contributed a little one way or the other may also at times of stress be not altogether a negligible factor in maintaining security.

Mr. President, there is one other aspect of the question that I should like to refer to. I was following the speeches of the four sponsoring governments, the speeches of the representatives of the four sponsoring governments, and I found that an aspect to which my country attaches the very greatest importance was touched upon by the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs of the United Kingdom when he spoke of the constitution of the Economic and Social Council under the Dumbarton Oaks Proposals. It seems to me that enough attention has so far not been averted to this aspect of the question, that when we are all thinking of security, of armed forces which will prevent aggression, we are likely to forget the basic factor in all these considerations, the cause which leads to aggression.

It is economic injustice, and even more, social injustice, that has bred for all time in the past the great causes of war, and has led to these great Armageddons. Therefore in this hour, when nations are going through the rack of conquest and therefore have much more emphasis laid on security and armed strength to prevent aggression, let us not forget for a moment the vast emphasis that has to be laid on the causes that lead to war, economic and social injustice.

And beyond that, and more than that, there is one other factor which has to be realized. We are all asked to be realists, we are asked to recognize various factors in the world set up as it exists today. There is one great reality, one fundamental factor, one eternal verity which all religions teach, which must be remembered by all of us, the dignity of the common man, the fundamental human rights of all beings all over the world.

Those rights are incapable of segregation or of isolation. There is neither border nor breed nor color nor creed on which these rights can be separated as between beings and beings. And, speaking as an Asiatic, may I say that this is an aspect of the question which can never be forgotten, and if we are laying the foundations for peace we

can only lay them truly and justly, to last for some time --for a couple of generations at least. Those fundamental human rights of all beings all over the world should be recognized, and men and women treated as equals in every sphere, so far as opportunities are concerned.

Mr. President, I do not want to detain this assembly very long. More speeches, and speeches of much greater value, are going to be delivered and I should like to listen to them. I do not therefore propose to go into the question of what amendments my delegation are likely to submit. I have given a free indication, in the general observations that I have made, of the kind of amendments that India is likely to suggest for the consideration of this Conference.

There is one aspect of the question again with which we fully agree. The Secretary of State of this great country stated in his speeech that we must lay the foundations and prepare the plan, but that it would be a mistake to expect that the full details would be worked out here, and that it is not right, not advisable, not safe, to put too many details in any plan that this Conference may devise. I entirely agree with him. I myself believe that if we can lay the foundation firmly, on the basis of justice, of equality, and of fundamental human rights, having an eye to the causes that create war, having an eye to the measures and the mechanisms by which wars can be prevented, we should have done the right thing at this great Conference, and we should have done the right thing by those people who have sacrificed, and by those people who are today sacrificing their all in the cause of liberty. Mr. President, among all the features that attracted my attention at the opening of this Conference the other day, was the line of young men and women who stood behind the President at that time-the young men and women whose future we are planning, the young men and women who will have to play their part, who have played their part at present, and who are asking what the aged people, who happen to be statesmen and administrators of various countries, are thinking about the future. They are not going to come back into that old rut of life, contented to pass smoothly under the dictation of what may be called the elderly advice, without questioning from the very beginning the wisdom of all the actions that we are likely to take at this Conference, and they will have a right to do so. The future world is theirs, the peace plan that we are planning is for them, not for us, and, in the days to come, it is to them that we shall be responsible if we do not achieve our purpose here and do not plan wisely.

I said that we agree entirely that it was not advisable to load too much work on this assembly, but that the main outlines, the fundamentals, should be agreed to in keeping with the ideals I have been developing during the last few minutes, and, if I might venture to quote a few lines, I agree with the spirit of the great Cardinal who said, "Lead, kindly Light, amid the encircling gloom; lead thou me on! The night is dark, and I am far from home; lead thou me on!... I do not ask to see the distant scene; one step enough for me." Thank you.

MR. SOONG: I next recognize His Excellency, the chairman of the delegation of Iran.