50 years of Italy at the United Nations
Home
Gaetano Martino, Minister of Foreign Afffairs
Statement in 16th GA session, 1018th meeting
September 27, 1961
In offering our heartfelt congratulations upon your
unanimous election, Sir, as President of the General Assembly we voice
the feelings of a country which is bound to yours by a traditional
friendship which goes back across the centuries to distant times when
our two peoples met, on the waters of the Mediterranean, to establish
fruitful associations. Your wisdom and experience will he invaluable
in the constructive and impartial guidance of our debates.
It would be a dangerous mistake to shut our eyes to
the harsh realities of the present world situation. The General
Assembly meets at a moment which might even mark a crucial turning
point in the history of the Organization. Upon how we tackle the
problems which confront us will depend whether we shall turn onto the
path of progress in international co-operation or will see the triumph
of those negative forces which could shatter once and for all the
hopes and beliefs which inspired the founders of the United Nations
meeting at San Francisco after the Second World War-hopes and beliefs
that, in subsequent years, led so many new States to join the United
Nations.
Our responsibility is great because by our actions
we can either dissipate this great moral inheritance, showing that it
was nothing but an illusion, or can defend and add to it, proving to
the world that the ideals of international co-operation are a reality
in which we firmly believe.
This is certainly not the time for high-sounding
phrases and general declarations of principle, which are easily made,
but for deeds and for deeds alone. And the facts show that just when
the international horizon is clouded by the Berlin crisis, just when
our Organization is deeply involved in the Congo and just when the
responsibilities of the United Nations in such matters as disarmament,
assistance to the under-developed countries and support for the
independence of countries that have not yet attained that goal have
become more pressing than ever, the tragic death of our
Secretary-General has robbed our main executive organ of its head. The
problem of restoring the efficient functioning of the Secretariat is,
in the view of the Italian delegation, the number one problem on which
rests the solution of all other questions.
How is it to he dealt with? And how is it to be solved? There are
some considerations that I would like to submit.
The San Francisco Charter clearly embodies a principle, namely, that
at the head of the Secretariat there should be a single individual
personally responsible for the implementation of our decisions and for
the administrative work of the United Nations. This principle is
tacitly reaffirmed upon the admission of new Member States joining the
United Nations, and these States not only accept the rules contained
in the Charter but also automatically acquire-on the same footing as
other Member States-the right to withdraw in the event of reforms
should they be considered unacceptable. Thus any departure from the
institution of a single office of Secretary-General, besides
jeopardizing the efficiency of our executive, could, we feel, gravely
complicate matters by casting doubt on the continued presence in the
United Nations of part of its existing membership.
At
this stage I should like to emphasize that, when the principle of a
single Secretary-General was accepted without dispute, the
international community was substantially no different from now. Even
then there were Member States ruled by the Communist doctrine, while
others followed a policy of neutrality and still others favoured
active democratic solidarity. So the present tripartite grouping
existed even then. Moreover, the Charter even then provided in Article
51, for the regional arrangements that were to be the possibility of
disagreement between the permanent members of the Security Council as,
in fact, it gave them the right of veto. Why, then, did this right of
veto not extend to the activities of the Secretary-General? There were
several obvious reasons:
First, if Security Council decisions already required the consent of
all the permanent members, it was generally agreed that the work of
the General Assembly should be governed by a different principle ,
that of the two-thirds majority. It did not occur to anyone at that
time that the Assembly's decisions could be vetoed, which would
happen, however, once the Secretariat was given the power to obstruct
the implementation of its decisions.
Secondly, the main executive organ of the United Nations cannot be
paralysed at the whim of one party except at the cost of total
inefficiency.
Thirdly - and this deserves special attention - the General Assembly
should, like any political assembly, have to deal with a single
responsible individual from whom, in given circumstances, it can
withdraw its confidence by a vote of censure. But, by accepting the
"troika" principle, we would he taking the serious step of sanctioning
what would amount to irresponsibility on the part of the Secretariat,
as it is obvious that you cannot censure a person to whom you have
accorded the right of veto. In essence, the so-called “troika” system
would introduce the veto - which would turn the executive organ into a
deliberating body - not merely into the Secretariat but, as a matter
of fact, into the General Assembly as well, and that would clearly be
unacceptable.
Once we have shown the legitimacy and the need of having one
Secretary-General, the course we must take to ensure the smooth
running of the only executive organ we possess is revealed in its true
light. We all know the rules laid down in the Charter. We therefore
know that the Security Council is competent to make a designation
which the General Assembly is asked to ratify. But while awaiting that
designation, which we hope will he made as speedily as possible, can
we just stand back and implicitly abdicate our right to adopt any
further valid decisions simply because there is no one to implement
them or to continue to carry out decisions already taken in the past?
Do we consider that the problems confronting us are not urgent and
that we can complacently postpone their consideration indefinitely?
Such an attitude would, in our opinion, be irresponsible and would
certainly fail short of the expectations of public opinion in our
respective countries. We therefore have no choice but to find a
provisional head for our executive. Besides, when the United Nations
was first established and when, on the expiry of the first
Secretary-General’s term of office, the General assembly was faced
with a similar problem - since the Security Council could not agree on
a new nominee - it solved it by taking immediate action. In the
present international situation it is imperative that we should assume
the responsibilities that the General Assembly, at an earlier session,
had no hesitation in assuming.
In
dealing with the grave problems that cloud the political horizon I
have already had occasion to mention the question of Berlin. Let me
now make a few brief comments on that subject.
Some time before the Conference of Non-Aligned Countries held at
Belgrade, the Italian Government, through its Prime Minister and
Foreign Minister, who had returned from a journey to Moscow, voiced
the belief that the time was ripe for direct negotiations between the
Powers concerned. This belief still holds firm. But, in our minds,
negotiation means the exchanging of views in search of a solution that
would take into account the interests of both sides, and not the
unconditional acceptance of all the requests advanced by one side. We
have a different word to define that type of exchange: we call it
capitulation or surrender, not negotiation.
Yesterday the Foreign Minister of the Soviet Union pointed out the
danger to world peace stemming from the present partition of Germany
[1016th meeting]. But he forgot to mention where
responsibility lies for the failure to reunify Germany. Reunification
by means of free elections. which was also reaffirmed in principle at
the conference of Foreign Ministers held at Geneva in 1955, was never
permitted precisely by the Soviet Union.
Mr. Gromyko, who yesterday so solemnly and firmly assured us that the
Communist countries had chosen that order of their own free will,
forgot to mention the reason why the inhabitants of East Germany have
always been prevented from expressing their free will. It is simply
because they have never had the opportunity to do so, that even today
a barrier still stretches across the Brandenburg Gate in the centre of
the city of Berlin.
It
is hard to counsel acceptance of the view that what is lawful for one
party is not only unlawful for the other but actually a threat to
peace. In this respect the case of East Berlin is of considerable
relevance. Originally its status was governed by the same agreements
as those which gave rise to the régime in West Berlin. But whereas any
discussion of the de facto absorption of East Berlin into East Germany
was taboo-even though its inhabitants were so eager for a different
arrangement that a sort of Chinese wall had to be erected to prevent
their exodus to West Berlin-the citizens of West Berlin are denied any
contact with West Germany Sic voc non vobis.
From this rostrum we wish to renew our appeal for negotiations, with
the hope that there will be no misunderstanding as to its meaning.
Anyone who would today passively agree to a different course might
find himself tomorrow the prisoner and victim of his own weakness.
In
the view of the Italian delegation, the problem of disarmament today
is more crucial than ever for the preservation of world peace. This
belief springs from the awareness that the solution to all the
delicate problems that vex us can be more easily found once a bold
step has been taken towards a system which, by progressive stages, can
bring about general, complete and controlled disarmament.
In
stressing the urgency of disarmament in an age when technology
conditions the lives of nations as a whole, both in the civilian and
the military fields, we are none the less aware that such priority is
conditional upon a complementary but equally important requirement, as
the Foreign Secretary of the United Kingdom pointed out this morning
[1018th meeting], that is the simultaneous establishment
of an adequate security system.
This system should be the cornerstone of any effective and fruitful
international reconstruction. Our inclination to proceed towards
general and complete disarmament can be justified only in so far as,
in our progress towards the ultimate goal, we can be certain of
safeguarding an international justice which will guarantee that all
parties respect their undertakings. The present balance of terror
should therefore be replaced by a system of guaranteed co-operation
which will permit economic and social development for all peoples
based on freedom and respect for individual opinions.
With these considerations in mind, the Italian delegation heartily
welcomed the United States-USSR statement of agreed principles of 20
September 1961 [A/4879]. These principles enunciated for the
safeguarding of disarmament negotiations fully reflect our views. We
have always held that a programme for general and complete
disarmament, in order to cope with the realities of present and future
situations, should be combined with limited but progressive measures
designed to promote that "gradual approach" to the problem, to which
President Kennedy referred in his address to the Assembly [1013th
meeting]. These initial measures, which could even be adopted
immediately, as they present no inherent difficulties, would be of
great psychological value and would mean a substantial step towards
solving the disarmament problem.
The thorny but vital question of controls, so well defined in the
statement of principles, nevertheless impels us to associate ourselves
with the reservations put forward by Mr. Stevenson and reiterated in
his letter of 20 September. The latest happenings with regard to the
nuclear test talks as well as the previous experience concerning the
Ten-Nation Committee on Disarmament, considered in the light of Soviet
statements on control, justify this caution. At the same time, the
Italian delegation cannot but restate its conviction that any proposed
agreement for the suspension of nuclear tests or for the reduction of
armaments and armed forces would be meaningless in the absence of
suitable guarantees.
The Italian delegation hopes that the present inconsistency between
the readiness to sign a joint statement on the principles of
disarmament and the Soviet Government's decision to resume nuclear
tests will soon be overcome. It would not be hard to quote entire
pages from speeches made three years earlier by Soviet statesmen and
diplomats in the United Nations and elsewhere prompting separate
negotiations on the cessation of nuclear tests as a necessary
precondition for disarmament, and roundly condemning any Power that
would dare to be the first to break the moratorium. But I shall
refrain from doing so and shall simply recall here that it was the
Prime Minister of the Soviet Union who made a solemn appeal to the
conscience of the entire world when he stated: "If in the present
circumstances a State should resume nuclear testing, the consequences
of this action would be hard to foresee”, and he added that it would
"assume a heavy burden of responsibility in the eyes of the peoples of
the world".
On
4 November 1958, in this very Hall, we unanimously approved a
resolution [1252 (XIII)] endorsing those principles.
Would we be prepared to repudiate them today? Such an attitude would
fail to reflect the deep-seated conviction of our peoples. Nothing has
changed, technically speaking, since the day on which we took that
unanimous decision.
We
cannot fail to face two unpleasant facts which, alas, do not seem to
aim at promoting the climate which is essential for a constructive
resumption of negotiations on disarmament and international security.
The first of these facts is the torpedoing of the negotiations which,
in the space of three years, had almost resolved the difficult task of
preparing a draft treaty. The second is the unilateral violation of
the moratorium on nuclear tests, accompanied by the proclaimed
intention of endowing the arsenals of the communist world with
100-megaton atomic warheads. But what most alarms and even terrifies
people are the reasons which the Prime Minister of the Soviet Union
has given for his decisions. He has stated plainly and explicitly that
"the resumption of nuclear tests is in the interests of the Soviet
Union". I confess that it is hard for me - and perhaps not only for me
- to regard this as a contribution to disarmament rather than as a new
and powerful incentive to the armaments race.
My
country, however, notwithstanding this bitter and frightening
situation, considers that every effort should be made to leave the
door open for an agreement. At Geneva we took part in the disarmament
discussions and concurred in the efforts towards a true agreement. We
even tried to curb our impatience and that of others and to spur
ourselves and our friends on to persevere in the undertaking, however
arduous it might appear. And it is in that same spirit that we now
lend our support to the plan laid down by President Kennedy. This
plan, in form and in substance, seems to us, within the framework and
in accordance with the principles of the United Nations, to provide a
basis for negotiations which, by paving the way for disarmament
through security, could usefully contribute to the establishment of a
new and better world order.
Allow me to make a few comments on economic problems which, in my
view, are no less important than the political ones for the survival
of mankind.
The United Nations is the largest body in which countries with
different patterns of production and different levels of economic
development can air their problems and exchange opinions with a view
to taking common action to promote economic growth and social progress
throughout the world. The need for a balanced expansion both of
production and trade has emerged in recent times as the key to the
development of all countries irrespective of their stage of economic
level. This need did not fail to obtain a response in the United
Nations.
Italy has already made a substantial contribution toward the goal of
economic interdependence and general co-operation and is now taking an
active part in the many activities that the United Nations is carrying
out in all spheres of economic and social development - be it the
expansion of trade and increased financial assistance or intensified
efforts in the field or pre-investments or the utilization of human
resources. To that end, Italy has also substantially increased its
contribution to the Special Fund and the Expanded Programme of
Technical Assistance. Italy's over-all economic effort, up to the end
of 1960, had already reached the figure of $930 million.
The last session of the Economic and Social Council showed the growing
importance of social and economic factors; and the declaration adopted
at Belgrade at the conclusion of the Conference of Non-Aligned
Countries, concerning the strengthening and development of our
Organization, reflects the belief of those countries that it is these
very economic and social activities of the United Nations which had
and will have the greatest impact on the civil progress of the less
developed nations. We feel that the United Nations would do well to
explore further the opportunities for expanding co-operation
especially in those regions where appropriate action and methods of
consultation could promote a greater flow and better use of economic
and social assistance. My Government is fully aware of the magnitude
of the problem and of its moral and political scope. We therefore
propose to increase our efforts in order to assist those opportunities
which are now in the process of development. Of course, we can do so
within the limits of our economic possibilities and of our basic
commitment to develop the depressed areas of Southern Italy. We
also hope that every effort will be made by all of us here to expand
and intensify this Organization's economic and social activities. The
primary task of the Organization is to discourage, impede and halt any
threat to world peace; but this task is closely linked with economic
and social action to combat poverty and improve the living conditions
of mankind.
In
concluding my remarks, I should like solemnly to reaffirm the complete
and unreserved support of the Italian Government for the principles
underlying the United Nations and our firm determination to contribute
to their defence and implementation. In bequeathing them to us, the
founders of this Organization have bequeathed us a priceless legacy.
Once again, as far back as 1945, when it was first established, and
later at the time of the Korean crisis, the Suez crisis and the Congo
crisis, the world looked to the Nations as to the only pillar of
peace. It is in this building that the hopes of troubled mankind,
aghast at the spectre of a new war, are centred. The world knows, to
echo the words of President Kennedy that "Mankind must put an end to
war, or war will put an end to mankind" [1013th meeting,
para. 40]. It knows that this is still the only the only urbs pacis,
the only real citadel of peace on earth. The very fact that in times
of greatest international tension, when the fate of the world seems to
hang on a slender thread, all mankind looks to the United Nations as
its last sheet anchor, shows that this Organization really possesses
great moral strength.
I am sure, Mr. President, that
the sixteenth session of the General Assembly will measure up to the
challenge of the times and will, under your able guidance, stand the
test and jealously guard its great heritage of ideals so as to hand it
down intact, and perhaps even enriched, to further generations. One
thing is certain: the future of the United Nations is in our hands and
depends solely on us. For its part the Italian delegation pledges all
its endeavours to safeguard it.
|