50 years of Italy at the United Nations
Home
Giuseppe Pella, Minister of Foreign Affairs
Statement in 12th GA session, 681st meeting
September 20, 1957
I, too, would like to congratulate Sir Leslie Munro
on his election to the high office of President of this Assembly and
on the outstanding qualities which determined his colleagues' choice.
This tribute is an expression of the Italian delegation's deep respect
for the President personally and of its attitude towards the Assembly,
which has elected him and which unites the representatives of peoples
who are relying on us to defend their rights through the search for
understanding and co-operation. That search is our duty. We begin our
week in the keen hope that it will be crowned with success.
We were happy to welcome among us in the past few
days a new Member State, the Federation of Malaya. It is pleasure for
me to associate myself, on behalf of the Italian Government, with the
words of congratulation which the President and other speakers have
addressed to the representative of this State. The establishment of
the Federation of Malaya is a significant example of the orderly and
peaceful development of a Non-Self-Governing Territory towards
independence. This successful development is a result of the
constructive co-operation between the Government of the United Kingdom
and the democratic institutions of the Federation of Malaya. We
congratulate both parties on the wisdom and statesmanship which
brought about this historic event.
The report of our Secretary-General [A/3594]
reveals the scope of his activities and endeavours and bears witness
to his devotion to our Organization. I should like to stress this
point before going any further and to offer Mr. Hammarskjold
our very sincere thanks and an assurance of our appreciation.
The report is reassuring and vindicates our
confidence, for it shows us the progress we have made despite
difficulties which have often been harrowing. It also demonstrates the
extent of our responsibility, since the future depends on the moral
authority of our Organization and on its approach to the search for
the necessary solutions. We bring our problems here in order to
discuss them before public opinion, before mankind, which is observing
us and which will judge our Organization by what we do.
The spirit of freedom reigns over our debates. It
is in the very atmosphere of this hall. It pervades this noble
country, in which the United Nations decided to establish its
headquarters, because it was born of freedom and lives by freedom.
Freedom, that pure aspiration towards which mankind has striven
throughout its history, leaves us a choice between success and
failure, hope and despair, international law and chaos. But this
choice implies a responsibility.
When the General Assembly met last year, the
international situation had some extremely threatening aspects. Thanks
to the efforts of the United Nations, to its appeals, to which some
countries, conscious of their responsibilities and faithful to the
Principles of the Charter, responded, the immediate crisis was
contained.
The Assembly meets this time under the shadow of
other dangers, originating in an area close to the One with which we
were concerned last year. A new of disorder and danger has been
introduced by the interference of a foreign Power in the Near East -
and this at a time when international order has not yet been restored
in Europe, and when the power has dealt a heavy blow to the prestige
and authority of the United Nations. Strong only in its might, a
Member State, which likes to pose as the champion of the weak and the
oppressed, and which has been found guilty in this Assembly of an
armed attack on the population of another Member State, in violation
of our fundamental law, has refused to bow to the common will so that
justice may be restored.
Moreover, a Government imposed and maintained from
abroad continues to take, within a Member State, measures which
constitute a continuous patent and flagrant violation of human rights.
In our eyes, this is a very serious matter.
On whom, then, shall we rely to defend our
prestige, if we cannot do so ourselves? What has become of respect for
our Charter? What will become of our peoples' confidence in the United
Nations if a State, by virtue of its greater strength, can refuse to
recognize the rights of another Member State when its own interests
and ambitions are at stake? The report of the Special Committee on the
Problem of Hungary [A/3592] is unequivocal. The Assembly has rightly
recognized its value, and has voted by an overwhelming majority [677th
meeting] to endorse a condemnation which the facts themselves enjoin.
But the events in Hungary do not concern us solely
as the bitter and tragic ordeal of a people; they have also raised
doubt and apprehension in the minds of all those who believe that
international relations should be governed by law and that respect for
the obligations to which we have subscribed here in the United Nations
i s the only form of force on which any of us, great or small, have
the right to rely.
Public opinion and our own consciences forbid us to
lose hope. For it would be a disaster for the peaceful future of the
world - and a crime - if it were to be proved possible to stifle in
blood once and for all the plea for independence which we all heard,
almost literally, resounding through this hall and throughout the
world. If the law is to endure, it must be respected by all. Although
compliance with the law by certain States, which were conscious of
their obligations, represented a victory for the United Nations, the
danger remains grave because others have not thought it necessary to
do likewise.
We, for our part,, stand ready to applaud any step
taken by the Hungarian Government and the Soviet Government, in
accordance with the decisions taken by this Assembly, for the purpose
of alleviating the present tragic plight of the Hungarian people,
whose political, legal and human rights are being violated.
Our responsibility towards all the Members of our
Organization is clear. Only the future can tell whether there is room
for hope and the prophets are mistaken.
This brings me to another problem on which the
world's attention and fears are focused and on which its very survival
depends: the problem customarily referred to as "disarmament", on
which we heard some very interesting statements yesterday,
particularly from the United States Secretary of State, Mr. Dulles
[680th meeting].
It seems to us that to refer only to disarmament is
to state the problem incorrectly. Our aim is to establish conditions
which will ensure the maintenance of peace. Disarmament is only one
aspect of the problem of maintaining peace. To believe that wars will
cease simply because the nations have disarmed is tantamount to
believing that fires can be prevented simply by destroying the means
of putting them out.
Public opinion in our countries has followed the
work of the Sub-committee of the Disarmament Commission in London very
closely. It knows that the West's desire to avoid a conflict is
sincere. But it also knows that no agreement can be reached unless all
parties are provided with reliable safeguards, both material and
moral, against outside attack.
We must agree to disarmament, and we will certainly
gladly do so when the time comes. But disarmament must bring with it a
guarantee of security, and all parties must have an assurance that it
does in fact diminish rather than increase the dangers to which they
are exposed. It would indeed be extremely dangerous to allow a state
of affairs in which the apparent weakness of some States aroused the
cupidity of others. A country which disarmed without being sure that a
similar process was taking place in the countries confronting it would
be impairing, not serving peace.
If a valid solution is to be found, all the
elements of the problem must be taken into consideration and none must
be neglected. Peace is the result of a balance of feelings and forces;
that balance is very delicate and any change requires the closest
study by the Governments concerned.
In my opinion, there are three main factors in this
balance; first, the reduction of armaments, secondly, the guarantee of
control, and thirdly, the solution of political problems. These three
factors are interdependent and inseparable.
It has been said - and our Charter reasserts it -
that wars are born in the minds of men. They are, of course, due to
material causes, but psychological and moral factors are also
involved, and the three cannot be separated. No one could fail to
desire the reduction of armaments and the halting of that race which
fills the future with horror. Unproductive expenditures weigh heavily
on our national economies.
We, in Italy, certainly set far greater store by
our reconstruction effort than by any armaments. But we wish to live
in peace and in security.
But since mutual trust is not, and unfortunately
cannot be complete, only control can ensure security. My country would
be quite prepared to permit the inspection of its territory, on
condition that the same control was accepted by other countries.
Moreover, a State which intends to honour the commitments it has
undertaken has no grounds for fear. How could a State claim the right
to supervise others without submitting to the same supervision itself?
These are truisms, of course, but there seems to be a desire to
disregard them or to use them for propaganda purposes, for leveling
charges which are as baseless as they are inconsistent, and which we
have the right and the duty to refute.
As regards the solution of political problems, we
must recognize that disarmament cannot be used to perpetuate
injustices, which smoulder like embers in the ashes. Failure to deal
with the causes which might lead directly to conflict between
countries and peoples would be dangerous and would impede the
restoration of confidence. And, without confidence, peace is always in
danger. It is hardly necessary to say that I am referring particularly
to the German situation, to the need to end the arbitrary partition
imposed on a people and to recognize their right freely to determine
their future through the exercise of a choice which is their moral,
political and legal due.
As to the material and technical aspects if
disarmament, we consider that, in certain circumstances, the armaments
customarily described as conventional may be no less dangerous to the
independence and freedom of countries than those described as atomic.
If progress is to be made towards disarmament, the reductions agreed
on for conventional and atomic armaments must be proportionate, so
that a reduction in one means of defense does not increase the
possibility of aggression by another means.
As regards thermonuclear tests, no one believe,
would seek. to deny the apprehensions arouse. They are a source of
concern to us all and we all appreciate the risks involved. But a
proposal has been made that such tests should be Suspended and, on the
other hand, that the production and stock piling of nuclear weapons
should be halted. We are told that this proposal has little merit.
However, the connection between the two requirements is quite obvious.
How can it be claimed at this stage that the danger lies in the
technical and theoretical development of the weapons and not in the
accumulation of stock piles?
Once again we are faced with a maneuver which casts
doubt on the real intentions of some of the ties concerned. We cannot
but regard it as an attempt at propaganda, whereas we on our side are
making an honest and sincere effort towards progress. But perhaps
their aim differs, too, and they are seeking to halt the defense
effort of other States in order to be able to arm more freely in the
meantime. But if so, where does the real danger lie? Who really
threatens peace - the party which offers or the party which refuses?
The answer is obvious. These are grave questions, for the very fate of
the world hinges on issue of peace.
There is another problem which should be raised in
this connection: that of freedom of information. It is included in our
agenda. We recently had the pleasure of welcoming to Rome a conference
of non-governmental organizations on United Nations information. A
solution to this problem must ultimately be found through the action
of Member States. Information is one of the cornerstones of the
structure we have built. It is one of mankind's fundamental freedoms.
I would therefore like to ask our Secretary-General
if we have, for example, figures from our information offices
regarding the dissemination among the peoples of Hungary and the
neighboring countries of the Special Committee's report. This
question, I assure you, is put without malice. The Italian delegation
wonders whether all Member States should not be required to permit the
free dissemination within their countries of information on important
issues - disarmament and others - put out by the United Nations. I
know that they have at least a moral obligation to do so. But it is
not fully complied with, and the information services of the United
Nations should be in a position to undertake the direct dissemination
of documents and news emanating from the Assembly. There would thus be
a control of all by all; this would promote the dissemination of
accurate information and show up cases where such information was
being withheld.
We are all convinced that our planet is evolving
politically; new sovereign States are being born – like the Federation
of Malaya - new nations, proud of their rights and aspirations, and
anxious to develop along the lines dictated by spiritual and
historical needs.
In this sphere, my country has a modest claim to
distinction. Our work in Somaliland, for example, has attracted
attention and has been commended by the United Nations. We have been
gratified by its endorsement of our policy and its appreciation of the
scope of our efforts. The sacrifices which we have made in the
interests of human solidarity, which is or should be the guiding
principle of the United Nations, will, I am certain, bear fruit. The
United Nations has helped us in the fulfillment of this task; in this
connexion, I should like to thank all those whose co-operation has
made this possible. Each passing brings us closer to the date when the
country will attain complete independence, and the responsibilities of
government have already largely been transferred from the Italian
administration to the Somali Government. In saying this, I would like
to offer the people of Somaliland our very sincere wishes for success
in their advance towards peace and prosperity.
But new needs are making themselves felt within the
United Nations itself. I would like to say in passing that the Italian
delegation considers that changes might be made in the Charter and
that the organs through which it is carried into effect might be
adapted to meet these new needs. We are in favour of a revision of the
Charter along these lines. But we regard it as a very delicate matter,
involving a balance of responsibilities, and one which requires
thorough study. It would he a mistake to proceed too hastily in laying
down new conditions for our work here.
However, such caution should not prevent acceptance
of the principle of change, which the Italian delegation considers
just and valid. It further believes that the Security Council and the
Economic and Social Council should be enlarged, in order to make room
in our collective activities for the peoples who have recently
acquired national independence and who have the right and duty to
express their needs here and to find help in solving their political
and economic problems - although variations in responsibility should
continue to be taken into account.
In our opinion, these are not such generous views
as it might at first appear. Each one of us needs all the others and
there must be more give and take in all from the political to the
economic and cultural.
I do not think that my statement would be complete
if I did not refer, even very briefly, to some economic problems
which, I think, are of paramount importance in the world of today. In
this connexion, I should like once again to pay a tribute to the work
the Secretariat of the United Nations and the regional economic
commissions - addressing it, as usual to the Secretariat's chief
officer, that is, the Secretary-General. We should also like to
express our appreciation of the quality and the high standard of the
debates which have been held for many years in the Economic aid Social
Council, its functional commissions, the specialized agencies and the
Committees of the General Assembly, where all Member States introduce
and discuss questions, needs and aspirations connected with economic
and social progress.
I think that the noble ideal of freedom would lose
much of its value for a people living in destitution. There can be no
social peace without real economic progress. That is why I believe it
is not going too far to say that social peace is the result of
political and economic peace.
An eminent Italian, one of the great architects of
Italian unity, Count Cavour, said about a century ago that the science
of political economy was the science of love of one's country. That
remains quite true to this day, particularly in the sense in which
Cavour envisaged all his economic work; he laboured and struggled to
make political frontiers less and less of an economic barrier, so that
his country might progress towards prosperity, not at the expense of
other countries but by sharing with all other countries the benefits
of civilization, increased wellbeing and progress in freedom.
This ideal, which Italy still upholds - and I wish
to place this formally on record - should inspire us to strive for
free and voluntary co-operation so as to achieve a peaceful and just
solution not only of the world's economic problems but also of its
political problems.
I should now like to say a few words about a recent
achievement in which my country has had a share and which will shortly
be playing a major role in the political and economic life of six
European countries. I am referring to the treaty signed at Rome on 25
march 1957 setting up the European Economic Community. Although the
procedure for ratification has not yet been completed by all the
signatory States, I want to say a few words about this treaty because
I h o w that some misgivings about European economic integration do
exist and have been voiced in various United Nations organs and
committees. These misgivings mainly relate to the possibility of an
integrated Europe adopting a policy of protectionism and
discrimination against the rest of the world.
Nothing is further from the thoughts and intentions
of the Italian Government; it considers that the legitimate interests
of countries which are not parties to the treaty not only are
safeguarded by the provisions of the treaty itself, but may also find
additional safeguards in supplementary agreements designed to
harmonize those interests. The community is therefore open to the
whole world and will remain so. We may expect that, through the steady
development and balanced expansion of its economy, the integration of
Europe, far from restricting trade and the movement of capital, will
result in the creation of a market with a larger purchasing power,
which would mean both a larger demand for the goods of other countries
and a larger supply of goods, services and capital for the rest of the
world.
I sincerely believe that we should be very
shortsighted if we thought that, in the modern world, it was possible
to improve the well-being of small groups only, while dooming the rest
of the world for all time to an obscure and wretched life of
stagnation and poverty. Like peace and reality, human well-being is
one and indivisible. And I think this principle applies not only to
relations within a given country but also to relations on the
international plane, within the community of States and nations.
I think we should all be grateful to the United
Nations for having focused world attention for so many years on the
political and economic importance of the problem of accelerating the
economic development of backward countries. In his introduction to his
annual report [A/3594/Add.l], the Secretary-General says once again
that the need for more rapid economic growth and social advancement in
the less developed regions of the world is a major challenge. He does
not say to whom it is a challenge, but I do not think I am wrong in
saying that it is a challenge to the good will and imagination - to
the esprit de finesse, to quote Pascal - of those who have clear
vision and a sense of justice.
I entirely agree with the Secretary-General,
particularly because, although my country has achieved a considerable
degree of economic development and industrialization – we shall never
forget the American people's assistance in this respect - it still has
its own urgent development problems in the economically backward areas
of the south. We have therefore learned by experience how necessary
and urgent and also how difficult it is to break the vicious circle of
stagnation and poverty in order to raise living standards and improve
the lot of mankind.
197. That is why we have great sympathy with all
those Governments and peoples which have the same problem to solve, in
a larger scale and under even more urgent pressure. And by "sympathy"
I am not merely expressing good intentions; I am stating the guiding
principle of a foreign economic policy to which my country is
committed. Italy has in fact undertaken and is now carrying out a vast
programme to solve the problems of the economically backward areas,
not on the basis of national self-sufficiency, but of a coherent
policy of increased co-operation with all countries. One of the aims
of our economic development programme is, for instance, to increase
our foreign trade with the under-developed countries which are now in
process of industrialization.
But, though we recognize the full implications and
force of the demand for social betterment and for increased
participation in the community which exists in many parts of the
world, I think it is essential that we should never lose sight of the
fact that, unless economic progress and increased industrialization go
hand in hand with the maintenance or increased enjoyment of human
rights, we shall have made a fool's bargain, which would involve far
too heavy burden of expenditure, and even unbearable sacrifices, for
generations enslaved on the pretext of a better lot for future
generations.
All recent experience proves, without exception,
that political systems which deny freedom and justify dictatorship in
the name of economic progress not only make the workers and the
international community pay dearly for it, both directly and
indirectly, but also set a pattern for future generations in which a
small privileged governing class keeps itself in power only by force
and by the economy of forced labour.
We should, I believe, constantly bear in mind the
fact that the industrial revolution which transformed the civilization
of Western Europe was accompanied by steady - progress towards
freedom, while increased production went hand in hand with increasing
equitable distribution. The chief aim of those countries which wish to
carry out a similar revolution must be in my opinion, to combine the
greatest possible degree, of economic and social advancement with the
greatest possible measure of freedom. The achievement of this ideal
may be rendered less difficult by international economic co-operation,
and my Government is convinced that this is the direction which our
efforts should take, within both national communities and the
international community, whose needs and aspirations are expressed in
the United Nations.
But there is still one last problem to which I
should like to draw attention, although I know that already being
studied by the secretariat of the Economic and Social Council - I
should like to thank those who proposed that this should be done. I
mean the old problem of the difficulties which arise when the desire
for rapid economic development must be reconciled with the need to
maintain internal and external financial stability. The crux of the
problem is the possibility of an inflation which cannot be controlled
by normal monetary measures alone, because it would be due to a rise
in costs of production unaccompanied by an increase in productivity,
more than to certain bottle-necks in basic industries or -
particularly in the under-developed countries - to the difficulty of
adapting the new production patterns to the increased demand resulting
investment.
The danger of inflation is a problem which must be
studied and faced without delay, because it is still the worst and the
most inequitable method of taxation and, above all, because it
inevitably dries up savings which are, the world over, the primary and
indispensable source of all economic development.
The problems to which I have alluded are certainly
not easy to solve. They are closely linked with the peace, life,
liberty and well-being of nations and individuals. Nevertheless, my
Government places great hopes in international co-operation in the sea
for satisfactory solutions. The reconstruction of Europe was an
international undertaking, carried out by means of international
co-operation. We must work shoulder to shoulder for the same ideals,
bearing in mind that the essence, the very core of human wisdom - as
Faust learned after long experience - is that we are entitled to life
and liberty - and for my part I would add peace - only if we are
capable of the patient and unremitting effort by which they can be
won.
For our part, we have shown our willingness to help
solve these problems within the limits of our economic possibilities.
Conscious of the sometimes dramatic urgency of the needs of some
countries now undergoing development, we are determined to continue
our efforts. Some of these countries, incidentally, are right on our
own doorstep, on the shores of the Mediterranean, the cradle from
which we have all sprung.
The transition from one period to another, the
building of a new political order in place of the old, are sometimes
so rapid that problems of readjustment, often of a serious character,
arise not only on the economic level but also, and particularly, on
the political and psychological level. But it is essential for
everyone to realize that, if such development is not contained, by
means of reasonable agreements, within limits will safeguard the
fundamental needs of the different countries, there is a danger of its
becoming a destructive force which would jeopardize for an indefinite
period all peaceful progress towards a solution of Mediterranean
problems.
The statesmen of our time, particularly those who
are called upon to lead the nations which are seeking means to promote
their development, should always bear in mind that nothing can replace
free co-operation among peoples, based on a common will for and on
economic stability, i.e., on confidence.
For such a climate to be established, the
Governments concerned must not stint their constructive efforts and
must frankly face the problems from which rivalries and discord stem.
But unfortunately we are still faced with problems
in the Middle East which have opened a deep gulf. This gulf threatens
to become deeper and deeper and to cause suffering to hundreds of
thousands of refugees. Such conflicts place a heavy burden on mutual
understanding in the world, are a constant threat to peace and are
easily exploited by the enemies of the principles on which our
Organization is based.
That is why my country is bound, by virtue of its
geographical position and its traditional links of friendship in these
areas, to assist in any effort towards a settlement in the spirit of
the Charter. We hope that the United Nations will undertake a further
examination of the situation, with the determination to eliminate all
causes of distrust and to disregard passion and ill-judged advice.
We are also concerned with another part of the
Mediterranean. My country, which is a sincere friend of France and
cherishes its traditional friendship with the Moslem world, is fully
aware of the difficulties of the Algerian problem. I should like once
more to express the hope that the wishes expressed by the United
Nations may soon be translated into action in the interests of the
Algerian people and of France, as well as in the interests of peace
and prosperity in the Mediterranean.
Italy, a country which is deeply imbued with Latin
civilization, has strong and sincere links of interest and sympathy
with that part of the American continent where Latin civilization is
flourishing under new but characteristically Latin forms. It has found
its security in Atlantic solidarity and it remains strongly attached
to the North Atlantic alliance, which binds the free world together
and is essential to the maintenance of peace and the safeguarding of
our liberties.
Italy also feels deeply that its destiny is bound
up with that of Europe; it believes in the "need for Europe" within
the traditional framework of the Old World, in which so much of our
history, thought and civilization has its roots.
Proud of its contribution to the peaceful
development of the continent to which it belongs, Italy's geographical
position in Europe places it in the centre of the Mediterranean, at a
crossroads where old and new meet. It cannot and certainly does not
wish to refuse any form of co-operation which lies within its power.
As much as any other country, perhaps more, we should like to see
peace and tranquility restored in the Mediterranean, and the
Mediterranean countries turning their efforts towards bettering the
lot of their peoples instead of destroying them.
The problems still to he solved in the
Mediterranean are important, and their solution will not be easy.
However, we should be able to accomplish it, if we take our common
interest as a basis and make a joint effort towards constructive
understanding. Violence must be brought to an end and men must live
for the promotion of their own well-being and that of others.
The Italian delegation intends to devote all its
efforts at this Assembly to this task.
|