approved and subscribed without reservation by all the delegations which attended. May I now be allowed, Sir, to present a bird's-eye view of the suggestions of the Republic of Ecuador in connection with the Dumbarton Oaks plan. In the opinion of my Government the structure of the International Organization must rest on three indispensable foundations: 1. its universality, so that, in any immediate or remote period of time all sovereign states of the world and those which might hereafter attain sovereignty may be admitted; 2. the efficacy of its mechanism to establish a worthy system of collective security; and 3. its strict adherence to the supreme principles of justice and right without which the Organization would degenerate into a mere political alliance carrying in its bosom the germ of its own disintegration. For, in truth, Sir, we must now admit that the abstract production of writers and experts in international law, plentiful though it be, has been inadequate to preserve peace; libraries are bulging and curricula are saturated with captivating and promising treatises and speculative works. But has such plausible effort produced the improvement of man or raised international life to a moral level in which each one receives what belongs to him and where the ideas of aggression and defense, of conquest and liberation have been banished? Definitely no; because at the core of the problem of war and peace for the fit solution of which millions of men have given their lives, and wealth and prosperity of so many nations have been destroyed, there lies a spirit of insincerity which, disregarding what people are and want, gives way to momentary political expediency-source of all calamities and fruitful root for new and unending conflicts. Universality, security, and right: this is then what Ecuador demands of an International Organization worthy of a world in which our aspirations of peace and justice might become a reality. Applying these principles to the Dumbarton Oaks Proposals, we maintain that it is necessary to embody in its principles those without which the Charter of the world Organization would be shorn of ideals. Unless the supremacy of moral law is recognized as the guiding rule of conduct of states; unless their juridical equality is proclaimed beyond those practical or political inequalities which stand between them; unless force is prescribed as a method of settling international conflicts; unless internal and external sovereign rights of states are respected within the limits imposed by the obligations arising from the interdependence of members of the international community; unless the principle of non-intervention is upheld as the full expression of that respect, the covenant of the future association of states will have no greater value than as a document maintained in force by a system of political equilibrium exercised by the Government subscribing and ratifying it, susceptible of becoming disjointed and falling apart at the first sign of reciprocal incompatibility among the forces supporting it. On the other hand, if the internal democracy of states aims at transmitting its essence to international existence, it is advisable that the General Assembly of the Organization be established as the organ directly representing all the states composing it and that it be en dowed with the authority and powers of which the Dumbarton Oaks plan is so greatly lacking, so that within the framework of its functions it might be enabled to lay down the principles and rules of international law or to amend them progressively, thus becoming in a way an international legislative power. Ecuador agrees with the requirement that the responsibility to maintain peace and international security rest with the Council of the Organization, granting it sufficient authority to accomplish this. But in the realm of ethical values any responsibility must be enforceable. Consequently, it is imperative to confer on the General Assembly the supervision of the fulfilment of the obligations pertaining to the Council. It would be highly plausible to increase the number of members of the Security Council, granting a numerically superior representation to small states in order to strengthen that organ, situating its roots in universal public opinion and with due respect to the system of proportion of representation. Concerning the voting arrangement in the Council, an earnest analysis leads us to declare it inacceptable that the majority required for decisions concerning questions other than those of procedure, that is the most important ones, should include the vote of all permanent members since this is equivalent to breaking the principle of juridical equality among states, reducing those who have no permanent seats to a deplorable and unjust condition of inferiority and, even more deplorably, to provoke the collapse of the functions of the Council in the not impossible case that any one of its permanent members should wish to interfere with its smooth running. In such a strange situation, we would have not an association of states, but the almighty will of a single state against the consensus of the others, that is, an undeniable example of anarchy within a seemingly internationally organized world. Likewise subject to criticism is the right granted to members of the Council to vote on decisions concerning preventive or repressive measures to be undertaken against acts of aggression which they themselves might commit while such right is denied in the case of controversies of lesser significance to which they may be a party. This break in the unity of the regime whereby the vote is denied in less serious decisions of the Council while it is permitted in the more serious and urgent cases, coupled with the proposed majority requirement, presents a possible case where the collective security system may be powerless to repel or to avoid aggression or the threat of aggression by a member state of the Security Council. Under these circumstances, the seed of aggression would fall on fertile soil to be harvested in future deadly wars which the Organization could neither avoid nor check from its position of mere spectator. The elimination of these imperfections from the Charter would tend to invigorate it in the light of truth and justice lest in a not too long period of time it lose definitely its efficacy, as was the case with the Covenant of the late League of Nations. It seems likewise advisable that, if it is not possible to establish compulsory jurisdiction for the international Court of Justice over all international differences, the optional clause which leaves it to the will of the states to accept or to reject the jurisdiction of the Court in their legal disputes be stricken from the statute so that the states will be obliged to submit such disputes to that high tribunal. In the chapter on peaceful settlement of controversies it would seem indispensable that the San Francisco Conference impart all necessary strength to the method of conciliation, because of the flexibility of its application and its psychological efficacy, and trusting the Assembly with the task of approving a statute of regional or continental commissions which, while depending from the Assembly, might exercise conciliation with ample powers in all international divergences of a political character occurring within the respective region or continent. Such commissions would have jurisdiction over conflicts large and small, particularly those arising among the larger powers, whose might and magnitude no peace organization could otherwise resist, given the reality of things and the past experience of history. Because of the degree of maturity reached by the regional interAmerican system, the Delegation of Ecuador would hope that in the subchapter on regional agreements the Conference should take cognizance of the personality and existence of such a system as a geographical, historical, and political structure ruled by custom and by written law and equipped with its own organs for the achievement of its objectives of peace, security, and international justice coincident with those sought by the world Organization. Likewise the Delegation of Ecuador suggests the creation of a new organ which might be entitled "Educational and Cultural Council" similar to the Economic and Social Council proposed by the Dumbarton Oaks plan, whose essential mission would be to promote understanding and peace among nations within a growing process of universalization of the values of education and human culture tending to bring about in this manner an international association of mind as the root and forerunner of an international association of states. This then, Sir, is the outline of our high hopes in connection with the International Organization of the Dumbarton Oaks Proposals. But it would not be sufficient to fashion its body with wisdom and skill if we neglect the question of its soul, of its inner purpose, of its vital sense, or, in other words, of the real aspirations of nations often contrary to the cold substance of text. With this in mind, I am taking the liberty of expressing that the Republic of Ecuador, as a member of America and a staunch believer in the American system, in its broader or continental sense, would wish that the world Organization be inspired by the spiritual values as well as the positive institutions of the inter-American regional system because we are convinced that through the immutability of destiny such a system meets the requirements of a just and free international community based on the reciprocal respect of its component states and nourished by the vigor of a progressive democracy. If the peace that we seek is to be a just peace and the Organization which we are building is to be an efficient Organization, let us "Americanize" the world, so to speak, and let us "Americanize" it among other reasons in tribute to Franklin Delano Roosevelt, peerless champion of our supreme ideals, as a spiritual monument to his memory, survivor of time, for while his death has deprived us of his physical presence, burying it in the past, his immortal spirit watches over us from a lofty summit pointing the way as he says: "This time, my friend, you dare not lose the peace." Mr. EDEN: Fellow Delegates, the Fifth Plenary Session of the United Nations Conference on International Organization is hereby closed. Verbatim Minutes of the Sixth Plenary Session, Doc. 55, May 2 May 1 Mr. STETTINIUS: Fellow Delegates, Ladies and Gentlemen, the Sixth Plenary Session of the United Nations Conference on International Organization is hereby convened. Our first business of today is the report from the Committee on Credentials. The Chair recognizes the Chairman of the Delegation of Luxembourg, Chairman of the Committee on Credentials. Mr. BECH: Mr. President, Ladies and Gentlemen, this report dated April 28, 1945, does not take into consideration the countries to which invitations have been extended subsequent to that date. The Committee appointed in accordance with the provisional regulations of the United Nations Conference on International Organization to examine the credentials of its participants met on April 28, 1945, at 10 a.m. The Committee consisted of the representatives of the Delegations of Luxembourg, Ecuador, Nicaragua, Saudi Arabia, Syria, and Yugoslavia. The credentials of the representatives of the following 46 Governments to participate in this Conference were examined and found to be in order: Australia, Belgium, Bolivia, Brazil, Canada, Chile, China, Colombia, Costa Rica, Cuba, Czechoslovakia, Dominican Republic, Ecuador, Egypt, El Salvador, Ethiopia, France, Greece, Guatemala, Haiti, Honduras, India, Iran, Iraq, Lebanon, Liberia, Luxembourg, Mexico, Netherlands, New Zealand, Nicaragua, Norway, Panama, Paraguay, Peru, Philippine Commonwealth, Saudi Arabia, Syria, Turkey, Union of South Africa, Union of Soviet Socialist Republics, United Kingdom, United States of America, Uruguay, Venezuela, and Yugoslavia. The Committee recommends to the Conference the acceptance of these credentials and the accordance to these representatives of the full right of participation in the Conference. The Committee has found that full powers for the signature of the final documents of the Conference have now been received from the following 30 Governments: Bolivia, Brazil, Chile, Colombia, Costa Rica, Cuba, Ecuador, Egypt, El Salvador, Ethiopia, France, Guatemala, Haiti, Honduras, Iraq, Lebanon, Liberia, Luxembourg, Mexico, Netherlands, Nicaragua, Panama, Peru, Saudi Arabia, Syria, Turkey, United States of America, Uruguay, Venezuela, and Yugoslavia. The Committee calls the attention of the governments whose full powers have not yet been deposited to the necessity of submitting these powers to the Secretary-General as soon as possible. Mr. STETTINIUS: Thank you, Dr. Bech. Does any delegate wish to comment upon the report which has just been read? In the absence of objection the Chair rules that the report of the Committee on Credentials is accepted and approved. I thank you, Sir. I now call upon Dr. Guillermo Belt, the Rapporteur of the Steering Committee, to report on this morning's proceedings of the Steering Committee. Dr. Belt. Mr. BELT: Allocation of commission and committee officerships: Chairman of the Credentials Committee: Luxembourg Commissions: General Provisions President: Belgium Rapporteur: Philippine Commonwealth General Assembly President: South Africa Rapporteur: Panama Assistant Secretary-General: Liberia Security Council President: Norway Rapporteur: Paraguay Assistant Secretary-General: Honduras Judicial Organization President: Venezuela Assistant Secretary-General: Ethiopia Committees: Preamble, Purposes, and Principles Chairman: Ukrainian Soviet Socialist Republic Rapporteur: Syria Structure and Procedures Chairman: Turkey Rapporteur: White Russian Soviet Socialist Republic Structure and Procedures Chairman: Greece Rapporteur: El Salvador International Court Chairman: Peru Rapporteur: Iraq Membership and General Chairman: Costa Rica Rapporteur: Haiti (on membership) Saudi Arabia (on general) Political and Security Functions Chairman: Bolivia Rapporteur: Dominican Republic Peaceful Settlement Chairman: Uruguay Rapporteur: Soviet Union Legal Problems Chairman: Egypt Rapporteur: Nicaragua Economic and Social Cooperation Chairman: India Rapporteur: Guatemala Enforcement Arrangements Chairman: Ecuador Rapporteur: France |