Изображения страниц
PDF
EPUB

in support of it, and we realize also that no security program is worth pursuing unless it commands the adherence of the great powers. We feel, however, that the part which the smaller powers may take in framing the decisions of the world Organization could, without any loss of security, be enlarged.

On matters of peace and war, no responsible government, large or small, can sign away its right to pass judgment itself in its own parliament and through its own constitution and forms.

The country which I represent has never shirked its responsibilities in the defense of freedom and the democratic way of life. These responsibilities mostly have been called for and mostly been fulfilled in times of war when the price of shouldering them has been at its highest peak-the price that is measured in death and bloodshed and sacrifice. New Zealand asks that she now be given an opportunity to meet adequately her responsibilities in a time of peace. We are not prepared to consent to be relegated to a position of "theirs not to reason why, theirs but to do or die."

I do not for a moment overlook the fact that the great powers must have inevitably a predominant voice on matters which call for the use of armed force. But, clearly there will be difficulty in the way of accepting a proposal under which the great powers retain for themselves the right to say in every important case whether the Organization shall act or not and whether they themselves shall be bound or not, and are at the same time vested with the right to deny the smaller powers not only a vote but a voice in these matters.

In our view the powers of the General Assembly should therefore be so wide as to give that body the right to consider any matter within the sphere of international relations.

The Security Council would have its specific powers but the powers of discussion and recommendation of the Assembly should not be constitutionally limited.

We would also propose that when sanctions are called for by the Security Council, endorsement by the Assembly should normally be required, and that all members should be bound by the Assembly's decision.

This course should not necessitate any delay in taking action, since there are likely to be in the future, as there have always been in the past, some indications-some at any rate-some indications of even a rapidly developing dangerous situation, and, in cases of extreme urgency, the Security Council should have power to act. In our view so long as the Council does not falter in its duty and acts in accordance with the principles of the Charter, the other members of the Organization will be both eager and willing to support it as the occasion may require.

Another matter of major importance to which I wish to refer concerns the veto rights of the great powers. Can proposals embodying this principle and prerogative possibly be regarded as a sound basis for the building of a lasting world organization?

The veto which can be exercised by one of the great powers, both in regard to itself and other nations, is unfair and indefensible and may, if retained and exercised, be destructive not only to the main purposes of the International Organization but to the Organization itself. For instance, under the existing provisions one of the five permanent members, which may clearly be an aggressor, can use its power of veto to prevent its own condemnation, or even its designation as an aggressor.

It is quite true that even if the power of veto was withdrawn, one of the great powers, after it had been designated as aggressor by the Security Council, could decide to defy and flout the decision of the Council. In that case the enforcement of the Council's decision by the means mentioned in paragraph 3 of Section (B) of Chapter

VIII of the Draft Proposals would probably mean war between the nations on the Security Council and the delinquent nation, and that would be a dreadful calamity, and indeed a catastrophe, which no one would wish to contemplate. It can be asked, then, is the result not the same whether there is a veto power or not-namely the successful defiance of the decision of the Security Council. My answer is that there is a great difference between a nation defying the Council in violation of its pledge to accept, observe, and loyally abide by that decision, and a nation being legally empowered to defy the Security Council, and that is what the provisions mean at the moment.

Under the Draft Proposals, after a great power by common consent and agreement has been solemnly indicated as an aggressor, obviously nothing further can be done if that power exercises its right of veto. It "gets off with it." It is also clear that if the veto is exercised in such a case, defiantly and perhaps even cynically, the faith of men and of nations in the world Organization would collapse. The veto of the five large powers should not be insisted on. But apparently the veto is a condition up to the present moment of the unity of the three powers-Russia, the United States, and the United Kingdom-in the promotion of the world Organization. It may be an inevitable condition. If this is so, I am afraid that the other countries will have no option but to accept it, because I believe that any organization that will bring the nations of the earth together to discuss matters of importance to the world, even if that discussion is to a large extent frustrated and negatived, is better than no world organization. At the same time, while accepting the distasteful and possibly disastrous veto, there is no need for us to justify or applaud it, or to refrain from efforts in future years to have it removed.

But what about the veto which can be exercised by one of the permanent powers on the Security Council in respect to aggression by other nations? Surely the inclusion of this particular form of veto has been unintentional. I believe that it was never intended that a great power should be entrusted with the right of veto in regard to the aggression of a small power. If this use of the veto survives it will bring about a situation that will be preposterous and will destroy respect for the world Organization. For instance, one small power may be an aggressor against another small power, but one of the great powers can even veto the matter being made a subject for consideration by the Security Council.

It is even held by some who have studied the Proposals, that a great power could prevent any discussion in such circumstances, but I am of the opinion that discussion could take place in the Security Council up to the point when a vote is taken as to whether the question is one for the Security Council to consider and handle.

If a great power could cast a cloak of protection over a small aggressor power by the exercise of the right of veto, then the work of the Security Council would be reduced to complete futility.

While we feel that the veto as a whole should not and cannot survive as a permanent arrangement, we are firmly of the opinion that if its adoption in some form is inevitable its operation should be restricted exclusively to enforcement action under Chapter VIII, Section B.

This matter has admittedly been the subject of much discussion and already the great powers have made concessions. They have not asked for the power of veto in their own cases up to the point of the application of sanctions, but under the present provisions they will retain the veto in the case of others, both for the application of sanctions and for the preliminary stages. The New Zealand Government considers that this proposal is not only wrong but ridiculously and absurdly wrong, and should not be upheld. I feel certain that the decision arrived

at was never arrived at intentionally and therefore can be corrected at this Conference.

Another matter to which I would refer concerns trusteeship. In our view the Charter should include the application of the principle of trusteeship to the government of dependent peoples. The object of that trust is the welfare of those peoples, and the powers to be conferred on the Organization to this end should be the subject of discussion and negotiation.

Finally I would like to stress the supreme importance for world security of effective economic and social cooperation. The New Zealand Government therefore attaches great importance to the provisions of the Charter respecting the functions of the Economic and Social Council.

As I stated at the outset of my remarks, the maintenance of peace is the paramount problem that confronts us. This is a moral problem and not merely a mechanical one to be solved by procedures, however carefully devised and comprehensive their nature.

The failure of the League of Nations, one of the noblest conceptions in the history of mankind, was a moral failure on the part of the individual members, and was not due to any fundamental defect of the machinery of the League. The League of Nations failed because its members would not perform what they undertook to perform. It failed because of the recession that took place in public morality in the face of the rising tide of Fascism and Nazism. It failed because the rule of expediency replaced that of moral principles.

I would therefore stress that unless in the future we have the moral rectitude and determination to stand by our engagements and our principles, then the procedures laid down in this new Organization will avail us nothing, the sufferings and the sacrifices our people have endured will avail us nothing, and the countless lives of those who have died in this struggle for security and freedom will have been sacrificed in vain.

I would plead most earnestly that the members of the new Organization should seek international equity, both political and economic, that the members will in all circumstances keep their pledged word and their

Seventh Plenary Session...

faith, that the members will never again allow aggression in any shape or form in any part of the world.

I speak for a country which although small in area and population has made great sacrifices in two world wars. I speak for New Zealanders who have died and are buried thousands of miles from their own land in a cause they believed to be just, and I speak for millions of New Zealanders yet to be born.

This is a moment of time which will not recur in our lives and it may never recur again. The world may well be bound for all time by what we who are here today make of our heavy and onerous responsibility here and now. It is my deep fear that if this fleeting moment is not captured the world will again relapse into another period of disillusionment, despair, and doom. This must not happen.

There appeared in the San Francisco Chronicle on Thursday last a grim and moving picture of the cemetery of the Fifth Marine Division on Iwo Jima. Underneath were these words:

"FOR US THE LIVING-row upon row the graves at Iwo Jima testify to the cost of that little island alone-a cost that delegates of the San Francisco Conference are resolved shall not have been in vain. The men of the Fifth Marine Division who lie in this cemetery fought that their sons and grandsons would not have to fight, and the United Nations' discussions here will carry on that battle, to implement the peace, to organize for security, to insure that there will be no more farflung graveyards to mark the path of future wars."

These words, and the photograph of the graveyard, which can be multiplied time and time and time again almost without number in every part of the world where battle has been joined with the forces of tyranny and aggression, these words point for us the lesson and the task.

I hope, and you hope, and the world hopes that we will be big enough for the task and that we can accomplish it and save the world from future war, aggression, bloodshed, and soul-destroying tyranny.

MR. SOONG: Finally, the Chair recognizes the Minister for Foreign Affairs and chairman of the delegation of Venezuela, who will be the last speaker of the evening.

Address by Carraciolo Parra Perez

CHAIRMAN, THE VENEZUELAN DELEGATION

MR. PARRA-PEREZ (speaking in French; translation follows): Mr. Chairman, Fellow Delegates: It is indeed difficult to believe that any international assembly has ever been more important than this one in San Francisco, both because of the task assigned to it and because of the time of its meeting. And it is most encouraging that, even before having won total victory and although we are actually on the eve of this great event, the United Nations should have already determined to organize peace on a sound and equitable basis. All men await with bated breath the event which humanity has so ardently desired ever since the beginning of this tragic era. The campaigns of the United Nations against the German aggressors have already met with a most brilliant success, and we can also see dawning a victorious conclusion to their campaign against the Japanese aggressors and the end of the sufferings of the peace-loving nations of the world.

If an atmosphere of optimism can arise from the ruins which invading armies leave in their path, it must certainly exist in the will, proven by our presence here, to create an international organization which would prevent

a repetition of these aggressions. And it is evident that no moment could have been more propitious, for an attempt to establish peace, than this one, when the war effort is reaching its zenith and as the victorious powers co-operate in a brotherhood that we would like to see ever more close and more lasting. What indeed could be the final objective of the United Nations if it is not precisely to establish an organization capable of preventing the repetition of this ghastly tragedy. To affirm that peace is one and indivisible is an elementary truth; and just as it was absolutely necessary to pool the energies of so many nations, with each one contributing according to its abilities, in order to overcome the aggression of the totalitarian powers which had set out to conquer the world, so is it today necessary that the peace-loving nations co-operate actively and without any reservation in order effectively to guarantee peace.

All the United Nations have contributed and are still contributing to ensure the victory of our common ideals and interests. But there are some, among them, whose terrible sacrifices have earned the respect and the grati

tude of the whole world. The courage of the occupied countries has been unequalled, likewise the spirit of resistance of peoples which the military machine of the aggressor nations was never able to break, even in the darkest moments and when their triumph appeared, in the eyes of many, unavoidable. This spirit of the occupied nations, to which we render a deeply felt and respectful homage, has been the most conclusive proof of the immortal nature of the ideal which inspires the United Nations and for which they are fighting. But it is certain that victory, that victory which will benefit the entire world, could not have been won without the decisive contribution of those United Nations which have at their disposal the greatest human, military, industrial, and economic resources and which have, without stint, drafted these into the service of the common cause. And this is a historical fact, of great political significance, that we cannot ignore. How, indeed, could we have even dreamed of victory had it not been for the admirable endurance of the Chinese people, first victims of totalitarian aggression? Or for the traditional tenacity of the British nation and of its Dominions, whose air force and powerful fleet stood up against the enemy at the most critical moment of this war? Or for the unequalled courage of the Soviet armies that have been able to drive the enemy, at the point of the sword, right back to its own capital, a symbol no later than yesterday, and the source of evil ambition? Or, above all, for the inestimable resources and the unlimited spirit of sacrifice of the people of the United States of America, whose sons are now fighting in all parts of the world beneath their flag, which has always flown in the wind of freedom? And none amongst us, Gentlemen, nor anywhere else indeed, can underestimate the part played by France in this war. The French people never accepted defeat as final, and the resistance movement, together with reorganized French forces, have played an important part and still play it in our common victory. Today, side by side with their allies, French forces repeat on German soil the prowesses of their ancestors.

Because the main responsibility of the war effort rested on the shoulders of these great nations, the main responsibility in the establishment of peace must rest with them too. Fortunately, the San Francisco Conference offers the best proof that these nations have not only understood their responsibilities but are also determined to assume them fully. The Dumbarton Oaks Proposals, the topic and purpose of our deliberations, constitute both a valuable contribution on the part of these powers toward the organization of future peace and a proof that it is not their intention to impose, ne varietur, their way of thinking on the other United Nations. On the contrary, these documents indicate their desire to see each one of the United Nations offer its own contribution to the establishment of a world Charter. And this is why I do not hesitate to attribute to this Conference the name and character of an oecumenical constituent assembly. And just as this international organization must include all peace-loving nations, so that each one of them may serve a positive purpose therein, so the Charter of the Organization must be the fruit of the loyal co-operation of all and reflect, in its basic principles, their common beliefs.

As far as my own country is concerned, I may say or rather repeat that it believes that the Dumbarton Oaks Proposals, though they may indeed be improved by some amendments, constitute a proper foundation for the establishment of an effective international organization. It is extremely encouraging to note that this is also the opinion of all the nations represented here. My Government has taken the liberty of suggesting some amendments to the original draft, amendments which it considers important, although they do not envisage modification of the general structure of the Proposals. I shall

66

Address by Carraciolo Parra Perez

spare you an exposition of our views, especially as they have been expressed in a memorandum that has already been distributed among all the delegations. In formulating these amendments, Venezuela was inspired by its traditional devotion to the principle of universal co-operation, and by its desire to see the instrument which will be the fruit of our discussions endowed with as much power as possible in order to permit the greatest possible freedom of action in accomplishing the aims of the Organization. I believe, however, that you will now allow me to emphasize a few of the principles and general arguments which are particularly dear to the Venezuelan people and to its Government.

First of all, I wish to stress our desire to see incorporated in the new charter of nations, in an explicit manner if possible, certain essential principles which Venezuela, like many other nations, has always upheld, not only as a member of the American community which, as you know, is bound together by a number of diplomatic and legal instruments which are, so to speak, the law throughout our continent. These principles, of course, are not specifically American and have been adopted and defended by all civilized peoples. Thus, for instance, I dare hope that we may all be able to set forth in a formal manner: Firstly, the absolute equality of all member states of the new Organization; secondly, respect for the territorial integrity of these states and our duty to abstain from any attempt at intervention in their internal organization, whether political or social; thirdly, our obligation to have recourse to peaceful means in order to solve international controversies, and the condemnation of the use of force as a means of solving them; fourthly, the nonrecognition of annexation of territory achieved without the previous freely expressed consent of the peoples interested. The indivisible nature of peace, to which I have already alluded, again leads the world to consider the need for the creation of an organization whose character will be universal, and within which all peace-loving nations will be represented in an appropriate manner and will enjoy the means of defending both general peace and their own individual interests, the latter being always closely bound to the former. But I do not believe that the nature of such an organization would be incompatible with the existence of regional arrangements regulating relations between a limited number of states. The contrary would be more true. But these regional arrangements must be based on the same principles of international co-operation and must aim at preventing or solving conflicts that might arise among the parties to them. And in this connection, may I presume to suggest that, of all regional arrangements so far established, the inter-American one has worked out best. My eminent friend and colleague, Mr. Serrato, Minister of Foreign Relations of Uruguay, and after him, several others of our colleagues as well, gave here magnificent speeches praising the happy understanding that exists among the American nations and which we who live on this continent believe to be one of the cornerstones of future peace. It is absolutely necessary to maintain this understanding. And we will therefore have to establish the procedure for an effective co-operation, with the world organization and within it, of the interAmerican system which is already functioning fully and is founded on political solidarity, economic co-operation, and mutual assistance for the safeguarding of the territory and independence of the states concerned. The interAmerican agreements were considerably strengthened by the recent Mexico Conference and I may say that we who worked at the Conference never lost sight of the universal significance of our task, nor of the ideas which I have just expressed here.

In speaking of inter-American agreements, I wish to express, in the name of my country, the very sincere joy

we feel as we see the Argentine Republic join in the tasks of the United Nations at this Conference where its contribution will be, I am sure, worthy of its loftiest and most noble traditions. I wish moreover to endorse the statements made here yesterday in honor of this great people; and I greet its arrival in our midst, not only because I represent an American nation but also because the political, economic, and cultural importance of the Argentine made that country's case important to the whole world and not merely, as might be thought, to our continent. Now indeed the entire community of American nations is bound together and ready, as ever, to work toward international justice and concord; and this we will do not as a blind and previously indoctrinated league but as a free association of sovereign states, each one of whom has jealously retained its freedom of opinion and of decision.

One of the most delicate problems submitted to us here is that of the respective powers of the Security Council and of the General Assembly. This problem is not new and it arose in the past when the Covenant of the League of Nations was being drawn up. The procedure then adopted is today very much criticized, as indeed is all that Geneva achieved. But in all sincerity I would not hesitate to state that the decisive causes for the failure of the League of Nations were not due to weaknesses inherent in its Covenant. The formula used in the Dumbarton Oaks Proposals is not the same as that of the Geneva Covenant and has the advantage of being new. It seems in any case to fit the exceptional circumstances in which this International Organization is being founded, as it is presented to us. But I will not conceal the fact that my Government hopes, as indeed do many other governments, that the formula adopted here will be able to follow a timely evolution toward procedures that will be more democratic and represent better the community of nations.

One of the elements of international organization considered by everyone as essential to the progress of relations between states, is undoubtedly the International Court of Justice. And I believe that one of the chief aims of our deliberations must be to grant it the most complete authority and the greatest effectiveness in the administration of its activities.

If the lessons of the past and the horrible vision of the present are to be of any value in the eyes of man, he must obviously not limit his efforts to preventing or solving conflicts once they have already arisen. It will therefore be necessary that the new Organization be able to enforce measures of active co-operation in order to find, for the economic and social problems posited before the world, solutions which will be compatible with a satisfactory order in international relations. To state it more exactly, it will be necessary to establish a peace which I would even call militant, because it would abandon its purely defensive position and adopt a positive action in attacking the true causes of friction between states in the various fields of economic and social activity. There exist instruments for this kind of action, such as the magnificent International Labor Organization, whose achievements between the two wars have fully justified all hopes founded on it and render its continued existence absolutely necessary. Other organs are in the process of creation and their principles are being discussed by the governments interested. Still others are being planned and will soon take shape. This inevitable multiplicity of functions in itself suggests the need for co-ordination, and it seems to me that the Dumbarton Oaks plan of an Economic and Social Council, dependent on the General Assembly, truly deserves the approval that all governments have expressed concerning it.

In this field of economics and also in the field of demography, the world will have to face two fundamental

[ocr errors]

problems: That of an equitable distribution of raw materials necessary to industry, and that of an appropriate planning of migratory movements, not merely to achieve a better geographical balance of populations, but also in order that a great number of countries may be able to develop to the maximum their economic resources, and in order that the standard of living of all nations may be raised; thus ensuring social justice and stability, which alone can maintain peace among nations. That is why it seems desirable, even necessary, that international organizations exist whose purpose would be to contribute toward the solution of problems of this sort, while at the same time respecting, of course, the sovereign rights and the freedom of the states involved in such delicate matters. As a mere reminder and to stress its importance in the eyes of my Government, I shall now refer to the problem of transportation which, as you know, has undergone in recent times intense development and will certainly demand some co-ordinating action on an international scale. Before closing, I wish to mention here an idea which, I am sure, is dear to all of you and to which I myself have been devoted all my life; I mean intellectual co-operation. I believe sincerely that the organization of peace will never rest on sound foundations if there exists no close mutual understanding between the minds and hearts of men. The peoples of the world must know each other morally and spiritually before they can manage to dispel the distrust and ignorance which keep them apart. We must build up a kind of intellectual network, above the network of the physical communications system which exists between nations, or parallel to it. The present formula of intellectual co-operation must therefore be revised and expressed in terms both more exact and more extensive, in order to grant more importance to the educational aspects of its action. In the Americas we have with some success tried methods which might be adapted to a world plan. This war has, moreover, left in its path not only terrible devastation in all physical fields but also vast spiritual anarchy. It will be absolutely necessary to undertake the intellectual and moral reconstruction of the world as well as its material reconstruction, and with equal energy. Gentlemen, this Conference opens under the auspices of certain and close victory, and at a time of mourning for the whole world. It is still difficult for us to admit the terrible truth that President Roosevelt is no more; fallen in the heat of battle, as the war's most glorious hero, he remains among us, through his spirit and his work, the very first artisan of the peace. Posterity will confirm the opinion of his contemporaries and will revere in him one of the greatest figures of all times; the world will be grateful to him because, in the midst of this terrible catastrophe of war and throughout its duration, he toiled for the establishment of the reign of justice. Under the inspiration of his example, we can be sure that no problem, however acute, can ever divide the United Nations; and that the close coalition of victory, far from breaking asunder, will enlarge its scope and grow stronger as the years go by. That is the most fervent hope which I have come here to express on behalf of the Government and of the people of Venezuela.

MR. SOONG: This concludes the speeches which have been scheduled for this evening.

Tomorrow the Eighth Plenary Session of the Conference will be held at 3:30 p.m. in this hall. At that session this series of statements by the chiefs of delegations will be concluded. The final group of speakers to be heard tomorrow are the chairmen of the delegations of Mexico, Nicaragua, Norway, Panama, Peru, Syria, and Yugoslavia.

The Seventh Plenary Session of the Conference is hereby adjourned.

Verbatim Minutes...

THE EIGHTH PLENARY SESSION

MAY 2, 1945, 3:36 P.M.

MR. MOLOTOV (presiding officer) (speaking in Russian; English version as delivered by interpreter follows): There is one item of business to be taken up today. The Secretary General will make a report of the result of the work carried out in the meeting of the officers of the commissions today. Mr. Hiss will read his statement.

MR. HISS: Mr. President, Members of the Delegations, Ladies and Gentlemen: At an informal meeting this morning of the officers of the four commissions, I was instructed to read this afternoon the following statement approved at that informal meeting:

At the conclusion of this present session the Conference will have heard in eight plenary sessions the statements of the chairmen of the delegations who have signified a desire to speak. It is now possible for the Conference to carry on its work through its four commissions and twelve technical committees.

The officers of the four commissions met informally this morning to discuss the procedures required for beginning the second phase of our work. It is their recommendation that the officers of each commission meet tomorrow with the officers of the committees within that commission to plan the work of the committees, in order that the committees may proceed to their important tasks as soon as possible.

In view of the urgency of proceeding with the agenda of the Conference, it is recommended that the commissions meet subsequently to receive the reports of their technical committees. In accordance with that recommendation there have been tentatively scheduled, subject to ap

Eighth Plenary Session...

proval by the Conference in plenary session now, the following informal organizing meetings for tomorrow:

Officers of Commission I and the officers of its committees, 10:30 tomorrow morning in room 303 of the Veterans Building.

Officers of Commission II and officers of its committees, also at 10:30 tomorrow morning in room 213 of the Veterans Building;

Officers of Commission III and officers of its committees, at 3:30 tomorrow afternoon in room 303 of the Veterans Building; and

Officers of Commission IV and officers of its committees, at 3:30. tomorrow afternoon in room 213 of the Veterans Building.

I understand that any members of the various commissions and committees, other than the officers, who may desire to attend those informal meetings as auditors, will be welcome.

MR. MOLOTOV (speaking in Russian; English version as delivered by interpreter follows): Does any delegation wish to comment on the Secretary General's statement? Inasmuch as there is no one wishing to make comments on the Secretary General's statement, permit me to regard this report as approved.

At this session, we shall conclude the series of statements made by the chairmen of delegations who have expressed their desire to address the Conference.

The Chair recognizes as the first speaker the Secretary of Foreign Relations and chairman of the delegation of Mexico, Mr. Padilla.

Address by Ezequiel Padilla

CHAIRMAN, THE MEXICAN DELEGATION

MR. PADILLA (speaking in Spanish; English version as delivered by interpreter follows): Mr. Chairman, Fellow Delegates, Ladies and Gentlemen: I wish my first words to convey my profound devotion and gratitude to the heroes and martyrs of war, to the armed forces of the United Nations among whose flags my country has made its fervent contribution.

Twenty-five years ago men of good will endeavored to do away forever with the savage recourse of armed strife. Everyone hailed with emotion the League of Nations; but the intelligence and the will of the world were as yet unprepared.

Shortly thereafter preverse forces threatening peace began to rise on all sides-economic warfare, isolationism, the sad spectacle of a peace organization powerless against the most flagrant violations of the principles on which it was founded. Manchuria, Abyssinia, Albania offered as rewards for international crime in the face of a will paralyzed by disagreement among the great democracies of the world. A dream of peace shattered among the ruins of Spain, Czechoslovakia, Poland, Norway, Belgium, Holland, France. Then the long night of suffering and destruction, the memory of which will always fill our hearts with horror.

Out of this desolate picture we representatives of the

United Nations have brought to this assembly the renewed determination to guarantee to posterity that such a hell on earth shall be no more.

But now we come armed with experience of the failure of an ideal and with a system of principles that constitute the charter of victory.

The Organization we are creating will require weapons -planes, tanks, warships. Yet if we really want permanent security and peace, there is a spiritual force we must create as effective as those material forces—the reciprocal respect and confidence of all nations, large and small.

International life should be a factory of confidence, not arrogance. Good faith and the spirit of unity among the great powers are the cornerstones of peace.

It is the duty of the small nations to make every possible contribution toward the maintenance of that essential solidarity among the United States, the Soviet Union, Great Britain, France, and China.

Small nations do not threaten peace. A moral force, invisible but formidable, is on the side of the small nations. They live in the protective shadow of their own sacrifices and other contributions to the cause of right.

This war began with the treacherous Axis aggression against peoples guilty only of innocence and weakness. The world's democracies arose against such brutality

« ПредыдущаяПродолжить »