Изображения страниц
PDF
EPUB

resume the alphabetical order in calling upon the following speakers, representing the various delegations. The chairman of the delegation of Ethiopia has designated the Minister of Ethiopia to Washington, to speak on behalf of that delegation.

No other peace would be worth the sacrifices we have made and are prepared to make again and the heavy responsibilities we are prepared to take under this Charter. We shall persevere in that faith until it is established for all mankind beyond any doubt of peradventure. Let us proclaim that faith in this great historic Charter. MR. STETTINIUS: Ladies and Gentlemen, we will now

Sixth Plenary Session ...

The Chair now recognizes His Excellency, the Ethiopian Minister to the United States.

Address by Blatta Ephrem Tewelde Medhen

REPRESENTING THE ETHIOPIAN DELEGATION

MR. TEWELDE MEDHEN: Mr. Chairman, Fellow Delegates: It is with profound emotion that I, as representative of Ethiopia, address this historic gathering of nations convened to establish a new and effective organization for the preservation of collective security and world peace.

Today, I stand before you, representing an Ethiopia which has triumphed over the cruel hardships inflicted at the hands of a powerful adversary, an Ethiopia risen by the unflinching courage of its patriots, by the blood of its sons, and by the heroic sacrifices, never to be forgotten, of the British people who have so generously poured out their life blood for the liberation of our Empire.

Today, Ethiopia stands before the world as the first of the United Nations to be liberated; now, fortunately, joined by a host of nations who, likewise through the steadfast courage of their patriots and the prodigal sacrifices of the liberating armies of the great powers, now resume their place in the council of nations.

Ethiopia, and all the recently liberated countries of Europe, owe a lasting debt to the four great powers without whose sacrifices and unstinted assistance it would be impossible for us today to participate in the construction of a new world order.

The small nations of the world are especially grateful to the four great powers who, notwithstanding the tremendous burden of the war, have placed before all else the establishment of an organization for the preservation of the peace now shortly to be won.

At this moment, on the eve of victory, the thoughts of Ethiopia turn with those of the other United Nations in homage to the memory of him who lived and died for the defense and preservation of world peace, President Franklin Delano Roosevelt.

We, the smaller nations of the world, have been called upon to participate in the present Conference, not only because of the identity of ideals which binds us to the great powers in the present struggle and of our particular interest in the assurance of a lasting peace but also because it is upon the guaranty of the free and independent existence of the small nations of the world that any future world organization must be based.

The past 150 years have known many conflicts and wars between world powers, yet it is my suggestion that the clear majority of them will be found to have been first occasioned, if not caused, by disputes with or concerning smaller nations. It is consequently in the devising of an effective organization of collective security that the experience and the contributions of the smaller nations are of particular significance.

It is doubtful whether any nation is more fully qualified to voice the cautious warnings of experience than is Ethiopia, for rarely in history have the issues in all their majestic simplicity been so clearly posed or have received so clear a response.

It is neither necessary nor appropriate at this time to

advert to the details of an epoch which brought an end to the League of Nations and to the verge of destruction an innocent member of the family of nations. It is enough to state that the aggression was clear and unprovoked and was acknowledged by the concert of nations and that the reliance upon the forces of collective security as against a facile, timely, and profitable concession to the forces of aggression was deliberate and made with full knowledge of the costs and risks involved. It is clear that such reliance was acknowledged and accepted by the League of Nations and that the League of Nations had sought to fulfil its responsibility by the application of sanctions against the aggressor. It was, however, equally certain that the sanctions chosen were decided upon and applied too late and were inadequate to meet the clear necessities of the situation. Notwithstanding the increasing gravity of events, the League, by refined subterfuges of procedures, eluded the application of the measures clearly essential to aid my country in its struggle against the aggressor. Moreover, the members of the League, in imposing an embargo on the export of arms to Ethiopia, in effect facilitated the task of the aggressor.

It is, finally, a matter of history that after the failure of repeated demands of the League of Nations to bring to a halt the decimation of an entire people by poison gas, following a campaign against overwhelming odds, His Imperial Majesty, my August Sovereign, addressed an ultimate call and admonition to the forces of law and order to join in suppressing aggressions against innocent states. That call went unheeded, and the League, in preferring the abandonment and death of one of its members, chose instead for itself defeat and dissolution. Had it not been for the courageous and unremitting resistance of our patriots and the overwhelming support of our British allies, it is probable that the fate of Ethiopia would have been determined forever.

Ethiopia would then be unfaithful to herself, to those here gathered, and to the ideals for which brave men go down today to death were she not to state but briefly the warnings and hopes born of experience and searching reflection.

In evolving a new organization for the preservation of peace, we have no choice but to bear in mind the organization of the former League of Nations in order, by an examination of its defects and failures, to avoid similar errors in the task that lies before us.

Public opinion of the peoples of the world, however enlightened and insistent, cannot of itself suffice to remedy the faults of a defective organization. My country was fortunate and honored in having had solidly behind it the sympathy and support of peoples throughout the world in its struggle against a callous aggressor. However, such sympathy and support could not prevail against appalling delays made possible by a defective Covenant and exploited to the full by an unscrupulous foe. They could not vanquish the fear of responsibility on the part

L

of the League or overcome its predilection for ad hoc organs created both within and without the League to absorb and stifle the urgent demands of a desperately wounded victim of aggression. Ethiopia was thus overwhelmed by a vastly superior foe and abandoned by the League of Nations, notwithstanding the insistent voice of a unanimous world public opinion.

No longer will victims of aggression find support or solace in resolutions of condemnation or of sympathy, nor should it now be possible by procedures adapted to a requirement of unanimity, to escape the responsibility for decision and for action that must be faced by all states desirous of maintaining collective peace and security. All nations here represented must insure that the future Organization and, in particular, the Security Council, be enabled and be compelled to vote not resolutions or recommendations but decisions, decisions not only of principle but decisions for immediate action for insuring the maintenance of peace pending solution of the problems to be faced. The Security Council should be enabled to vote its decisions promptly without possibility of obstruction and delays on the part of those whose interest it may be to gain by time what cannot be achieved by consent.

The peace-loving nations of the world must not be called upon again as was Ethiopia to submit to what has been rightly called a "spoliation by procedure."

The great powers at Dumbarton Oaks have chosen to confer on the new Organization—and, in particular, on the Security Council-the primary responsibility for the maintenance of international peace and security, and to provide that in carrying out these duties under this responsibility it should act in behalf of all the members. However, in conferring so heavy a responsibility on their behalf, the member nations must have the positive assurance not only that the Council can effectively reach and implement decisions with regard to both parties to the dispute but also that once seised of a dispute the Council will retain the direct and continuous responsibility of assuring a prompt solution.

It cannot again be tolerated that during a period of actual aggression, the Council should relegate the determination of vital problems to subordinate or extraneous commissions of investigation or conciliation, or that. the orderly procedure of the Security Organization be interrupted and the application of sanctions suspended in order to call such additional and extraneous procedures or organs into existence.

The responsibility for the maintenance of world peace must, moreover, remain indivisible and universal. It can

Sixth Plenary Session...

not be denied that the absence of certain states from the former League of Nations rendered inefficacious the temperate sanctions placed into operation by that organization. The task and the responsibility of insuring collective security cannot be that of Europe, or America, or Asia, or of Africa. It cannot, moreover, be that of any region, or of any particular group of powers.

In supporting the proposals of Dumbarton Oaks, Ethiopia finds it necessary to express the considered conviction that the direct responsibility imposed upon the Security Council to act in behalf of all members should at no instant be in any way diminished or relaxed, nor should its effective intervention be in any wise retarded or impeded by the operation of regional agreements. The Security Council should not be compelled, as was the Council of the League of Nations, to stay its hand until the machinery for the regional solution of conflicts should have proved to have failed in its functions. We ought not to agree to a Charter which would again give rise to the spoliation by procedure of the victims of aggression.

Finally, the Ethiopian delegation is profoundly convinced that no organization and no desire for peace, however firm, can prevail unless the nations of the world share the conviction that there can be no world peace except there be a peace founded upon the principles of justice.

The past ten years have proved to the world's infinite cost in terms of shattered lives and countries the prophetic words of His Imperial Majesty, my August Sovereign, when under tragic circumstances before the nations assembled at Geneva he proclaimed that those nations who seek peace without justice will ultimately find neither peace not justice.

Ethiopia has been too intimately identified with the ideal of collective security and has suffered too deeply in its defense to waver for one instant in her unquestioning support of such organization as will meet the agreement of the nations here represented. She feels, however, entitled to bring to this historic Conference her views and considerations shaped through long and tragic years. She is hopeful that her experience may assist in establishing an organization which can turn to profit the errors of the past and devise a lasting monument to the heroic sacrifices of the present generation. To that end she pledges her every effort and to that hope her undying allegiance.

MR. STETTINIUS: Ladies and Gentlemen, the Chair recognizes the Minister of Foreign Affairs and the chairman of the delegation of France.

Address by Georges Bidault

CHAIRMAN, THE FRENCH DELEGATION

MR. BIDAULT (speaking in French; translation follows): Mr. Chairman, Ladies and Gentlemen: On this day of victory when, for the first time, I have the honor and privilege of speaking to you on behalf of France, I shall not try to hide my feelings of deep emotion.

The collapse of Hitlerite Germany which we are now witnessing is for the United Nations as a whole-and especially for my country, which this power of prey has laid waste three times during the past 75 years-an event at once so long awaited and so profoundly dramatic that our minds are struck by the incredible force of such a lesson given to the spirit of violence and aggression. As a man who only a few months ago was still being hounded down in his own country, then entirely oc

cupied and savagely oppressed by a foe who today stands at bay, may I be allowed to include in one wholehearted tribute all those who, humble or glorious, have worked for our common salvation: the heroic Soviet Army, whose standards bear so many resounding victories, from Stalingrad to Berlin; the valorous divisions of Great Britain and the Dominions, old and gallant comrades in our struggles; the magnificent American troops whose blood has been shed on our soil, so far from their own towns and countryside, for a cause which knows no distance, thus endearing to us still further the soil that received it and making more sacred still the harvest it has raised, and which is called freedom.

These armies, uniting their efforts, mingling their sac

rifices, have taken the largest share of the common fight on the battlefields of Europe, after the tremendous initial shock of the assailant had, for the moment, knocked France out, while their American, British, and Chinese brothers-in-arms in other parts of the world were carrying on a victorious struggle against the Japanese aggressor, likewise doomed to disaster.

With these victorious armies, according to the strictest justice, are associated the regiments of Free France, the soldiers of Bir Hakeim, Tunisia, Italy, Alsace, Karlsruhe, Stuttgart, and countless battles in every corner of the globe, including Indo-China. I also wish to pay tribute to all the fighting men of the United Nations, whose Belgian, Dutch, Polish, Czech, Norwegian, or Brazilian nationality was often distinguishable only by insignia bearing their country's colors on the sleeve of a common uniform; the intrepid patriots of Yugoslavia and Greece, and all those soldiers without uniform, the men who carried on the resistance in oppressed countries, my own comrades in France, all those who died mute under torture, all those who were deported to German concentration camps, my comrades, my brothers who in the temporary defeat fulfilled their duty as Frenchmen and as citizens of the world.

A few hours ago I was told of the return home of some of these men and women who carried on with us that terrible fight-that fight in which the enemy was everywhere and the front nowhere. May I salute them here, before the whole world, because we owe it to them and because no one should doubt that France continued unceasingly to do her utmost during the last phase of this thirty years' war which had already cost her 1,500,000 lives.

In spite of treachery, France was never out of the fight. There has not been one single day of the war on which Frenchmen have not fallen for the cause which is that of the United Nations. Under the leadership of the man who is the symbol of our honor and of our determination -General de Gaulle, who gave our country back her soul -Frenchmen have continued the struggle, both outside and inside France, sometimes empty-handed, not merely to insure the existence of France, but also that of a world in which lawless might should not have the last word. Today, France is on her feet again. She is rebuilding her military and economic strength from day to day. She is once more taking her place, not only as a great moral power which she never ceased to be-but also as a great power in fact. On behalf of 100 million men in the mother country and in the Empire-a community whose unshakable strength was so plainly shown to the world in time of trial-I claim for France all her rights and all the responsibilities of a front-rank state.

I would add that France, because of her century-old traditions, cannot dissociate her own cause from a world cause of justice. She never fought for a cause which was not in keeping with the interests of humanity. France has come to this Conference with the determined purpose of bringing to the endeavor of all free peoples a contribution worthy of her age-old ideal and of her special world mission.

Mr. President, the particular position of France at the Conference has raised much comment. Some commentators thought they detected a somewhat negative attitude, some ulterior motive, or some show of ill-humor. This position is simply due to our desire to be honest with ourselves and with those who place their trust in us. Faced with decisions with which we had not been associated, and some of which we knew nothing about, we had to decline the offer made to us that we should recommend a system on which we were not fully informed; but this in no way signifies that at this Conference we do not mean to play our due part thoroughly, or that we

intend to renounce the rank which is ours and which, I repeat, the misfortunes of yesterday have not prompted us to give up today.

So we have come together on the shores of this tremendous ocean. May its name be of good omen for the future of our peoples and for the peace of the world.

Is it not like a sign of fate that we have come here to the town of Saint Francis, that kindly man of peace? In this town where our flags fly side by side in token of the spontaneous and generous welcome extended to us, we are undertaking our task side by side with many peoples of the globe assembled together, but not yet all those we should like to see here. I would make special mention of war-torn Europe, and particularly heroic Poland who for centuries has been our friend.

And alas! We shall not see the man who was to preside over our meeting. We arrived here on the morrow of a great catastrophe, a great bereavement for the American nation and for all the United Nations, especially France -after the death of that great world citizen, Franklin Delano Roosevelt. After all who preceded me on this platform-and I shall certainly not be the last-I wish to voice the gratitude that all who believe in the future of mankind owe to him who, among the leaders of the peoples, was the herald of great causes and essential freedoms.

World-wide mourning plainly showed how great was the loss. The admiration and affection of our peoples are with him forever in the grave where he was buried with the simplicity which is a sign of greatness. The torch he carried to the end has been grasped by faithful hands. I want to say on France's behalf that, as regards any matters of importance to the United Nations, from now on we turn with full confidence to President Truman as the leader of a great people to which we are linked by friendly memories of a mutual aid which, in times of trial, has never failed.

Gentlemen, the task of the delegation chairmen who come to this platform at the start of the Conference's work is to outline the principles which inspire themprinciples which, so far as the general organization of the world is concerned, represent the views of their governments and countries.

I read something about the French standpoint being a mystery. It is a mystery that is not mysterious. We informed all the United Nations in good time as to the amendments which, in our opinion and very likely in other people's too, seemed to be a necessary improvement on the Dumbarton Oaks plan.

In what spirit did we study this plan? To put it briefly, we studied it in our traditional spirit, the spirit which, during the period between the two wars, led us to propose so many plans with a view to establishing and perfecting the organization outlined in 1919. As long as there is a France, France will never tire of directing her best thoughts toward the establishment of an international statute which would bring about harmony among the peoples and banish war forever.

In the Dumbarton Oaks plan we found so many features that were familiar to us that we naturally regarded it with a certain fatherly affection. That does not mean that we do not think it possible to improve on it or to add to it as regards certain items. I must say first that we are not amongst those to whom collective security seems a dream, and in any case, I think it is dangerous to disdain the dreams of man.

But in my country, as a result of war, there is not a single home which has not suffered in all it holds most dear. And from all these homes, from all these people, the delegation whose chairman I have the honor to be has received an urgent appeal to see to it that the Organization we are to set up constitutes a real defense of peace.

To conciliate the demands of this ideal with the possibilities of reality is the first principle by which we want to abide.

We therefore mean to examine the proposed solutions with a rigor and an insistence in conformity with the trials we have undergone and the risks we have run.

With the destruction of Nazi might, we likewise mean to put an end to the practice of unilateral interpretation of treaties, and insist on respect for international law which must be observed now more than ever, following this period of mental confusion when right was flouted every day.

Justice is another word we must reinstate in all its loftiness-justice in keeping with international democracy, that is to say, justice which gives full recognition to the rights of all countries, including those which do not come under the generally recognized term of great powers-a point I would particularly stress.

I am not convinced that every possible consideration has been given to the nations called the small powers— I do not know why they are called small, for it may happen that they are not, either by their past or by their population, or by the ideal they mean to serve. In any case, it is a fact that the proposals made at the Conference allow for a dominant share to be granted to the great powers, of which, I again repeat, France is one.

This privilege was decided upon in our absence. What was called the veto of the great powers is certainly not in keeping with the legal ideal which, we do not despair, will some day be established by common accord between peoples.

But we know what the world of today is, we know that apart from outside appearances, there is the question of what means a given state could bring to bear on the battlefield if and when all other resources have failed.

That is why the French Government will not initiate anything which might result in complicating action decided in common by the great powers concerned.

For the moment we shall raise no definite objection to this point in the Dumbarton Oaks plan.

Indeed, we believe it is indispensable that good understanding between the five great powers should be maintained and developed in continued and close friendship between all the nations assembled here. The material means of serving peace are largely in their hands. What public opinion in all countries, great or small, is confidently awaiting, is the assurance of their agreement on all world problems.

If this agreement between the great powers is ever broken off, then may God have pity on us all! I say this with the sharpened perceptions of the representative of a people rising from the abyss, with an instinct which makes up for lack of information-for we have been kept outside so many arrangements contemplated by this or that country.

It seems to me, Gentlemen-and I almost feel like apologizing for this recommendation, but we know what is at stake it seems to me that it is the duty of each one of us to help with all our strength in this understanding between the big Allied powers, not only because it will constitute the fortifications able to protect peace but because we shall have to build a world in which the germs of future conflict will be eliminated-a world protected by these fortifications.

What must obviously be achieved is an economic charter regulating in particular the distribution of raw materials, a social organization in which labor questions on an international basis, with a view to reaching the best solutions, would benefit by very much greater and wider opportunities than those offered in most cases within a national framework.

Failing this, a perpetually armed world would have to

keep endless vigil in perpetual torment-an exhausting watch which finally leads the sentry to shoot at his own shadow.

In addition to the economic and social keystones, the international edifice needs another support. We were pleased to see that the question of intellectual co-operation, which France was the first to put forward, has been taken up by China and many of the Latin-American and Mediterranean states. Faithful to her mission and to her traditional support of the predominance of the mind, France will advance suggestions to the Conference with a view to maintaining and reorganizing the Institute of Intellectual Co-operation.

First of all we must provide for essentials, and reduce the problems to their simplest terms.

Above all, nations must feel confident and, to that end it is essential that we should clearly understand what constitutes for each country the conditions of its own security. Not to have a correct appreciation of the security needs of the United States, the Soviet Union, the British Empire, or other nations would lead us to misjudge the policies of each.

It is also necessary that our own conception of security should be understood. This conception is, moreover, applicable to the whole of what may be called the danger zones, since we are geographically placed in the immediate vicinity of one of the most dangerous.

Our expressed determination to procure the necessary guaranties for our eastern frontier, the conclusion by the French Government of a treaty of alliance with the Soviet Government, our declared intention to conclude similar treaties with other powers as occasion arises, and . finally our wholehearted adherence to the principles of collective security-all these elements are not only compatible but they complete each other. Each contributes its share to the construction of an efficient security system. They might be compared to three ramparts of a fortress. Never would anyone in ancient times have thought of requiring the dismantling of one rampart on the pretext that it weakened the other two. On the contrary, if the inhabitants of the inner fortress were reassured by the fact that there were three stone walls between themselves and an eventual enemy, the defenders of each of these walls were encouraged in their turn by the existence of two other lines of defense. We think that this is a question of common sense, and that the International Organization of tomorrow will be aided and not hampered if those countries which are most threatened do their utmost to protect themselves by their own means, and if those which feel threatened by the same perils come to an agreement to protect themselves against those perils.

We are speaking here as people who know to their cost that, to discourage any future attempt at aggression, we must bridge the gap between the lightning rapidity of aggression and the inevitable slowness of consultation. Such is the purport of one of the amendments of the Dumbarton Oaks plan suggested by us.

That being said, we are ready, for the good of a new world, to make such sacrifices of sovereignty as may be agreed to in common and mutually recognized as necessary to collective security. We are prepared to go as far along this road as our partners in the general Organization.

But, I repeat, nothing could be more deadly than to build in uncertainty a castle of texts which did not correspond to reality.

We must see to it that the peoples' expectations are not in vain. Millions of men, women, and children have perished because the formulas of security in which the world put its trust failed in their object.

We have not the right to hold their sacrifices so cheap,

either by turning our eyes from the summits at which they aimed or by compromising the peace of this fleshand-blood world for which they died.

The widows and mothers of the United States-and I say the United States because we are today in their midst and because the same thought, the same sorrowful pride, the same hope unite them to our own mothers and widows at home, from the Urals to Scotland and from China to Australia-the widows and mothers of the United States expect that the salvation announced to men of good will whom we represent here will not be just a reprieve.

It has been said that this is our last chance. Perhaps not, for Providence has endless resources. But whether it be the last or not, it would be criminal not to grasp it, not to tend it carefully so that hope will blossom forth.

What would we look like, what reply could we make, if, upon returning home, processions of our heroes, martyrs, and innocents were to ask us: "What have you made of our victory, our sacrifice, our future?"

California, where the blessings of Heaven and the riches of earth combine to make it a Promised Land, inspires an act of faith and of reason.

That the great republic of the United States has taken the lead in this discussion on world affairs from which she kept apart 25 years ago, is undoubtedly one of the most tangible, comforting, and valid reasons for hope.

Sixth Plenary Session...

On the bridges of the Rhine, the frontier of France, the men of the Revolution inscribed these words which still live today: "Here begins the Land of Liberty." We profoundly hope that throughout the universe redeemed by so much suffering and so much courage, the realm of freedom, democracy, and right will extend from now on to all lands where, with the new wind which is rising, peaceable men will seek to live.

Confident of her renewed strength, confident in the promises of the future, sure of herself to the point of being the first nation to restore the normal play of democratic institutions by free and orderly elections so soon after such trials, France will wholeheartedly devote herself to the great task of guaranteeing to the world the security of all and the rights of each.

MR. STETTINIUS: Ladies and Gentlemen, before introducing the next speaker, I wish to introduce to you some very special guests we have with us this afternoon, some American soldiers, many of whom have been wounded at the front. These boys have come to us from nearby hospitals to be present with us this afternoon. They are sitting in the back of the auditorium, and I am going to ask each of them to arise at this time. Boys. (The entire audience stood and applauded the soldiers.)

The Chair now recognizes the Minister of Foreign Affairs and chairman of the delegation of Guatemala.

Address by Guillermo Toriello

CHAIRMAN, THE GUATEMALAN DELEGATION

MR. TORIELLO (speaking in Spanish; English version as delivered by interpreter follows): Mr. President, Delegates, Ladies and Gentlemen: We cannot allows clouds of anxiety to obscure the horizon on which all humanity has placed its hopes and most fervent desires. The anguish in our hearts is now vanishing. The terrible shadows must disappear at this Conference in which the United Nations have assembled to construct a better world. It must be thus; otherwise there would be disastrous failure and the verdict of history would be against us. The admirable co-operation of all, and especially the sincere desire for harmony of the sponsoring nations in arriving at the solution of the most difficult problems, will determine the positive success of this most important Conference. They must demonstrate that the same spirit which united them in the battle against those who aspired to the subjugation of the world will continue to unite them now that victory is dawning, in the arduous task of constructing a new world where aggression, tyranny, fear, and misery are no longer possible, a world propitious for peace, justice, and the security of all.

If the powers of evil had triumphed in this war, the forces of violence would have prevailed over the forces of justice and right. Fortunately such was not the case. For this reason the small nations of the world have a profound faith in the juridical Organization which this Conference will give to the five continents, since law and the moral force of justice are the only security and strength of small nations.

Guatemala fervently desires that, in the future, rather than depending on armed force the security of nations be based on a world organization, such as that envisaged in the Dumbarton Oaks Proposals, an organization which will have sufficient power to check, in an effective manner, any act of aggression. As a peace-loving nation, confident that peace will be obtained and maintained, Guatemala has faith and the conviction that this time humanity will

not forfeit its opportunity-perhaps the last which will present itself, as His Excellency, Mr. Anthony Eden remarked-to prevent in the future the danger of another war which might possibly end our civilization.

.

Guatemala, faithful to the principles of continental solidarity and to the most noble humanitarian ideals, was one of the first to join the United Nations and, within the measure of her capacities and resources, has lent and will continue to lend sincere collaboration, not only during the period of actual conflict but in the constructive task which will follow the war, a task which is the immediate concern of this Conference. Guatemala, then, attends this Conference with great faith and enthusiasm.

In the Inter-American Conference on Problems of War and Peace, recently held in Mexico, Guatemala made pertinent suggestions with regard to the Dumbarton Oaks Proposals, among which suggestions was the desire of the Latin-American republics to obtain adequate representation in the Security Council.

With regard to the International Court of Justice, Guatemala suggested that it should be given compulsory jurisdiction, so as to enable it to summon any state without regard to the nature of the case in question, and so that, acting in complete independence of the community of nations, it nevertheless might have the support of that community in the rendering of its decisions; and that it might render decisions ex aequo et bono on certain controversial matters, upon petition of one of the parties— an indispensable condition to the proper functioning of that tribunal. On that occasion, Guatemala also advocated the strengthening of the Pan-American system, a system which for fifty years has shown to the world the possibility of the peaceful co-existence of nations, founded on the principles of solidarity and co-operation. The effects of Pan-Americanism, which have been tangible on many occasions, especially since the treacherous attack on Pearl Harbor crystallized brilliantly in the Act of Chapultepec,

« ПредыдущаяПродолжить »