decisive factor in the defeat of Fascist and Nazi imperialism. A few moments ago, I stressed my belief that it would be right to entrust great powers to them proportionate indeed to the heavy responsibilities that they will assume toward each other and toward other powers in order to prevent any attempt at aggression in the future. We are sure that the spirit and the ideal that inspired their magnificent struggle will likewise determine useful decisions in the Organization of future international security to which they will contribute all the material elements, and especially the moral ones too, that such an undertaking demands. I said, "moral elements". And I certainly appreciate the great value and sure effectiveness of an international force offered to implement right and justice and thus prevent aggression. But I attach as great a price to the organization of an equitable world in which the rights of each would be guaranteed under the auspices of justice in such a manner that respect for the new world Organization would be founded, not so much on fear of having to submit to sanctions as on the value unanimously granted to the absolute reign of a law that is equal for all as well as to a system that would guarantee this law.

The Turkish Delegation is perfectly aware of the immense difficulties that the United Nations will have to overcome in order to achieve the result for which we all hope. But it knows also that peace, as we conceive it, can come only as the fruit of long labors and infinite patience. All untimely haste can lead us only to dangerous and nefarious improvisations. The four great powers have succeeded in establishing, at Dumbarton Oaks, the foundations of the future Security Organization. This project, which is but a beginning, perhaps still reveals many imperfections and insufficiencies. But, these, in my opinion, are mere initial lacks that experience and the restoration of the unanimous and unreserved confidence of the peoples of the world in the new Organization would in time complement. And this fact does not weaken the unquestionable value of the document submitted to our scrutiny and discussion.

Ladies and Gentlemen, the high moral tenor of the many speeches uttered since the beginning of our deliberations by the honorable chairmen of the delegations of the United Nations has clearly demonstrated that this assembly is moved by a noble spirit of cooperation. The Turkish Delegation is happy to observe this gratifying expression of solidarity. And as long as this admirable unity is maintained, and it shall be maintained, we have no right to doubt of either the success of this conference or the beneficent effectiveness of the new Organization that we have been summoned to establish, nor, above all, of the great services that it can render, by its very existence, to humanity.

Mr. STETTINIUS: Ladies and Gentlemen, that brings to a close the Sixth Plenary Session. We will adjourn and meet again at 8:30 in this room tonight. Thank you.

Verbatim Minutes of the Seventh Plenary Session,

Doc. 58, May 2 and 9

May 1

Mr. SOONG: Fellow Delegates, Ladies and Gentlemen, the Seventh Plenary Session of the United Nations Conference on International Organization is hereby convened.

This evening we shall hear some further statements by chairmen of delegations who have expressed a wish to address the Conference. The Chair first recognizes the Cuban Ambassador to the United States and Chairman of the Delegation of Cuba.

Mr. BELT: Mr. Chairman, Fellow Delegates, Ladies and Gentlemen, the Cuban Delegation declares that it is anxious to contribute its share of sincere good-will and intense effort toward the creation. of an International Organization based on the one outlined at Dumbarton Oaks.

Our Delegation deeply feels its full responsibility and is not unaware that the task now before us is both arduous and difficult, but it has the firm conviction that the purpose for which the peace-loving nations are here convened will not result in a mere chimerical illusion.

For centuries, humanity has endeavored to achieve a closer union among all peoples, thereby outlawing war. Neither repeated failures, cruel deceptions nor unforeseen catastrophes have sufficed to dissuade her from persisting in the attainment of this goal. Today, once more, we gather here in this hospitable city of San Francisco, intent on an identical endeavor.

The task before us looms gigantic. Yet history has repeatedly taught us that what yesterday seemed an unattainable Utopia results in the positive progress of today and in the new and marvelous hopes of tomorrow.

All that surrounds us strengthens this conviction and enlivens our faith in the ultimate success.

Let us consider the case of the United States of America: When the delegates of the Thirteen Colonies gathered in Philadelphia to adopt a constitution as a free country, it appeared almost impossible that colonizers of such divergent and dissimilar origins, beliefs, and traditions could ever finally integrate this powerful nation that is today, that is known by the name of the United States of America.

And if we look beyond her frontiers toward this entire continent, our eyes behold a firm union of nations, which, in 1826, seemed but a romantic dream conceived in the mind of the great Simon Bolívar. If these two apparent Utopias of the North and the South have become a living reality, why should we not have unshakable faith in the union of all the peoples of the world, guided by identical ideals of liberty, justice, and peace?

To attain this goal, the indispensable factor is: faith in one another. True, we cannot pretend, in a few weeks, to achieve the miracle of drafting a perfect world Organization; but if we succeed in instilling into the proposed Charter a human and generous spirit, we will not have failed in our task.

We have come here to offer humanity an instrument of peace: we have not come to barter advantages for advantages. Nor have we come in order to seek benefits at the expense of our neighbors. We must destroy forever the dangerous concept that right is that which is useful exclusively for our nation, and substitute it for this other concept: Right is, in the final analysis, that which is useful for humanity.

If we disregard the necessity for making all reasonable concessions and justifiable sacrifices, neither we, nor our sons, nor the sons of our sons, will live in a peaceful world.

We recognize the fact that Britain, China, Russia, and the United States of America have won the war, and that by their great heroism and unnumbered sacrifices they have crushed our common foe.

We fully realize our inability to build a world Organization capable of maintaining peace and security, if we do not have their generous cooperation, great experience, fabulous resources, and enormous strength. But it would likewise be impossible to construct an Organization capable of maintaining peace and security, if the great powers should pretend to impose their decisions, based on their superior force. Let us only hope, with the Chinese philosopher, that the dream of world organization may have less the character of the Delian Confederacy. The tragical motivation of that historical drama was that the heroine, Athena, democratic and brilliant and arrogant, loved freedom for herself, but could not understand the equally passionate love of freedom of the other cities.

The Cuban Delegation will strive for a world Organization based on nothing more, nor less, than true democracy. Or in other words: equal rights for all nations and submission to the will of the majority. Nevertheless, it may be desirable in certain cases to require a vote by some proportion larger than a majority, but never to require unanimity, because this would mean an exceptional privilege whereby a single vote would make null and void the votes of all the other members of the Organization. This procedure obviously would be contrary to the very essence of democracy.

In reference to the Security Council as outlined at Dumbarton Oaks, the Cuban Delegation wishes to state that we are against permanent members in the Security Council, for this also would constitute an utterly undemocratic privilege. Nevertheless, we recognize the necessity of the full cooperation and presence at the Council of the representatives of the powers who, through the might of their resources and the sacrifice of their peoples, are bringing this war to a victorious. conclusion.

And as regards the International Court of Justice, we consider that its resolutions must be compulsory for all the members of the Organization.

After yesterday's session in the Steering Committee, I do not need to insist on our stand in the matter of the inter-American regional system, of which we are justly proud. It is our conviction that this system should function autonomously within the world Organization, in order that the single vote of any member of the Security Council may not annul its decisions.

It is impossible for me to mention the inter-American system without expressing our deep joy and happiness for the splendid demonstration of union and solidarity that the American republics gave yesterday in this assembly-a union and solidarity which had its greatest apostle in the best friend the American republics ever had, Franklin D. Roosevelt. His great spirit will guide us always, and we are confident that his human and generous policies will be carried on by President Truman, genuine representative of all that is best in this great American nation.

In conclusion, let us humbly pray that with the help of God we may attain the goal of peace on earth, good will toward men, and that the Golden Gate of San Francisco will be the wide and miraculous entrance through which humanity will advance toward that new and better world to which we all so anxiously aspire.

Mr. SOONG: The Chair next recognizes the Minister for Foreign Affairs and the Chairman of the Delegation of Luxembourg.

Mr. BECH (speaking in French; translation follows): Mr. Chairman, Ladies and Gentlemen, the night before his death, President Roosevelt wrote this phrase in his last address: "The only limit to our realizations of tomorrow will be our doubts of today..."

It seems to me that, from the outset of our work, this thought of the late President should be ever present in our minds, just as I think it will be well, at critical moments in our discussions, to turn our thoughts toward the already haloed figure of the great humanitarian, Franklin Delano Roosevelt, whose faith in a better world was never shaken by doubt and whose indomitable will to make this world a reality was never crippled by discouragement.

Among the peoples of the earth who mourn him is my little country, which the President held in particular affection. He never missed a chance to express this affection or to show it in his actions. How can we find words to express our sorrow and our gratitude to the memory of the President and to the great American Nation whose triumphant armies have liberated our territory and restored our independence and freedom? Not far from my country's capital, thousands of American soldiers who fell in the battle for the Ardennes lie beneath their wooden crosses. Far from their native land, they rest in the soil they liberated with their blood. There they sleep, surrounded by the affectionate devotion and boundless gratitude of a small sister-nation. Their last resting-place will remain forever one of the sacred shrines of Luxembourg.

When I think of these dead and of the millions of others who fell, victims of Teutonic and Japanese aggression, the mere thought that our work could end in failure seems sheer treason.

We have come together here to prevent this terrible slaughter from recurring. Our predecessors failed in this after the First World War. Yet in spite of the failure of the first institution set up to maintain peace, the peoples have kept faith in international solidarity. They will not permit, they would not forgive their leaders if they returned to a policy of balance of power, which would inevitably result in a race for armaments heading straight for another war.

The protection of peace can only be insured on the basis of collective security. The Geneva League is dead, but its fundamental principle, the spirit of international solidarity, lives again in San Francisco. The best proof of this is that the Dumbarton Oaks plan resembles the Covenant like a brother-a more robust brother, a more realistic one who has cast aside the Utopian dreams of his elder and gained wisdom and experience from past errors and misfortunes.

I feel sure you will allow me, as an old Genevese, to salute the memory of the late President Wilson and of the great and worthy pioneers who after the last war, for the first time in history, dared to put their trust in the solidarity of mankind in order to insure peace. If they failed, and failed nobly, it is because, as Winston Churchill said at Harvard, their work was neglected and betrayed. Like the late President Roosevelt who invited us to attend these new peace meetings, President Wilson was a son of this great country whose soul is a happy blend of idealism and realism.

The United States, together with the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics, are today among the United Nations which will assume the responsibility for maintaining peace.

One of the chief causes which undermined the Geneva venture is thus ruled out. The League of Nations was intended to be armed, but

it was born without shield or sword-in other words, it was still-born. The International Organization born of our discussions will have the necessary armed forces to insure respect for its decisions. A great French writer once said that a judge is nothing but a poor dreamer unless he is backed by a police force. Taking national selfishness into account, what could be expected of Geneva's judge?

Who can deny that the powers and privileges which the five principal guardians of the future Organization have taken upon themselves and ask us to confirm are rather exclusive? But should we really have expected that the great powers, in coming here, and we too in our turn, could forget that it was they who brought the German giant to his knees, that it is they who tomorrow will make an end of his Japanese accomplice, and, moreover, that it is they too who will have to shoulder the greater part of the responsibility in warding off and overthrowing any future aggression?

Authorized spokesmen of the great powers have stated that the text of the Dumbarton Oaks plan which sanctions the rights and obligations of these great powers, far from being inspired by a spirit of domination, are designed to serve better the common cause of the United Nations. I accept the omens, and I hope and believe that there will be some way of conciliating the principle of equal sovereignty for all peaceful nations, as stressed in the Moscow declarations in a system which will take into consideration the responsibility of the great powers.

Gentlemen, as the representative of a small country whose voice must be a humble one in the concert of the nations, it would be ungracious of me not to follow the advice given us this morning by our chairman to make our speeches brief.

Let me just say that my country brings to this Conference the most active and trustful good-will.

The plan submitted to us is fair. It promises only what it can reasonably accomplish. It does not hold out to us the myth of promising permanent peace and security. It only aims at guaranteeing the maximum security which can be achieved in the imperfect world in which we live. It is true that it offers no guaranty against another catastrophe in the event of misunderstanding between the great powers. But so far even the most fanatical theoretical planners have not found the magic formula which would provide this guaranty.

The Dumbarton Oaks plan is a suitable one and will work as long as we remain united in the spirit which animates us all today, large countries and small; to oppose war with the will to peace of hundreds of millions of men. Whatever changes our discussions may bring about in the Dumbarton Oaks Proposals, the new International Organization for the maintenance of peace and security will not reach perfection.

Still it will have the great advantage of being able to insure the maintenance of order immediately and for as long as we remain faithful to it in the future. Sheltered by the security it will achieve, it will be possible to organize the world on the basis of recognized and ratified international law and to restore the sway of right over might.

In the past, peace meant absence of war, and not the setting up of an international order founded on justice.

It is up to us to create this international order. Our success depends on how we answer this question: Which comes before: justice or peace?