Carlos P. Romulo 

I bring to this Assembly the greetings and cordial felicitations of His Excellency, the President of the Philippines, General Manuel Roxas.

We are confronted during the present session of the General Assembly with a multitude of grave problems. It is not necessary, I am sure, to inspire in us the sense of earnest dedication which the occasion requires. We have arrived at a crucial moment in the life of the United Nations and in the history of mankind. The task before us is both an opportunity and a challenge, and the manner in which this Assembly will meet it may well prove to be the measure of our success in tiding humanity over the engulfing crisis toward better times.

In the face of the insecurity and violence which afflict so many parts of the world today, it would be difficult to dissemble and most unwise to deceive ourselves. Men everywhere await with anxiety the balm of the peace that is still to be made. Peace which in due course should have been the fruit of our common victory continues to lie beyond our reach. What men feel today is something compounded of impatience and fear—impatience with the slow progress that has been achieved in promoting confidence and cooperation among nations, and fear of the final disaster that would attend the failure of our present efforts.

One year ago, or two years ago, it was much easier to minimize the social and economic disorganization of many countries and the political conflicts and rivalries between various States by considering these conditions as the inevitable aftermath of war. Today we can no longer seek solace in that attitude. It has become clear that we are now faced not simply with the disorganization which normally follows war, but with a calculated confusion which, in the past, has usually led to war.

Fortunately, the situation is not without its redeeming aspects. For the long and heavy agenda of the current session accurately reflects the universal anxiety over the deterioration of the social, economic and political conditions of humanity, the general desire to hasten the improvement of these conditions, and—what is even more significant—man’s abiding faith in the United Nations as the chosen instrument for effecting such improvement.

It would be impossible to dwell on the threat of failure which hangs over the Organization without reference to the veto power of the permanent members of the Security Council. It is not an exaggeration to affirm that the entire structure of the United Nations Organization must at some time crumble and collapse under the continued sledgehammer blows of the veto. One can make this affirmation—even those among us who have been fighting the veto since San Francisco—without excitement or passion. Quite calmly and deliberately, we say that the world must choose between the United Nations and the veto in its present form. We cannot have both. We may soon have neither.

Let the record speak for itself: twenty-two vetoes in the space of two years, twenty of them by only one of the permanent members of the Security Council. Through crisis after crisis, the Security Council has been stalemated into virtual inaction. On the Greek question, on the incidents in the Corfu Channel, on the proposals for atomic control, on the Dutch-Indonesian conflict—even on the question of admitting new Members to the United Nations—certain permanent members of the Security Council have seen fit to exercise their privilege of the veto to prevent decisions calculated to promote international cooperation for the maintenance of peace.

In opposing the principle of the veto, my Government is moved by no desire to question the well-merited preponderance of the five permanent Members in the councils of the United Nations. But my country does deny the right of any one of these five States to condemn so important an organ of the United Nations as the Security Council to a condition of permanent paralysis.

The main objection to the veto is not that it has been used too often by one of the permanent members. It is rather that the veto is a weapon which any one of the five permanent members may wield, as we have seen it wielded by one other permanent member, whenever such action suits its own conception of its national interest. From this example, it is obvious that the veto does not encourage unanimity; it encourages rather the adoption of rigid attitudes and unalterable positions and is bound to result in a condition of alternating challenge and defiance.

The principle of unanimity cannot be established by fiat. It can only spring from an inward discipline which is strong enough to dissuade the permanent members from acting on the impulse of naked self-interest, inspired on the one hand by the foreknowledge of substantial majorities, or on the other by the certainty of defeat. Such discipline cannot grow so long as each of the permanent members knows that it has always close at hand the invincible weapon that is the veto. Modify the veto, place it beyond reach and use, except for extraordinary and justifiable occasions, and you open the road towards the methods of compromise and adjustment which constitute the discipline of which I have spoken.

In accordance with these views, my Government would support every reasonable proposal to limit or regulate the exercise of the veto—if possible by measures voluntarily accepted by the permanent members, or if necessary by appropriate amendments to Article 27 of the Charter.

It used to be said of the opposition to the veto that it was instigated by and solely in the interest of the smaller Powers. Although this may have been true in the beginning—in San Francisco and then later, last year in New York—it is not so any more. The permanent members themselves are no longer unanimous on the principle of unanimity. We heard with satisfaction the Secretary of State of the United States affirm before the Assembly yesterday that the United States would be willing to consider measures for the liberalization of the voting procedure in the Security Council indefinitely.

The issue is not just overuse by one member. The veto is a weapon that any permanent member can wield, as others have done, to suit national interests. It does not foster unity; it entrenches rigid stances and leads to defiance and impasse.

True unanimity cannot be imposed; it must arise from self-discipline—strong enough to prevent members from acting out of self-interest. Such discipline cannot exist while each permanent member clings to the invincible veto. Limiting the veto—reserving it only for extraordinary circumstances—would open the way to compromise and real diplomacy.

Thus, the Philippine Government supports every reasonable effort to regulate the veto, whether through voluntary restraint or amendments to Article 27 of the Charter.

Once, veto opposition was attributed solely to small powers. That is no longer true. Even the permanent members no longer speak in unison. We welcomed the United States Secretary of State’s willingness to revise the veto in matters under Chapter VI and membership applications. These proposals deserve thoughtful consideration. Let other permanent members step forward with their own ideas and show their commitment to resolving this grave concern.

In recent months, various initiatives have emerged that, in effect, bypass the United Nations. This trend is regrettable, yet we cannot condemn it if we, through obstruction or veto, block every meaningful solution. Stalemates solve nothing. If the United Nations fails to act, the world will turn to alternatives that the veto cannot stop.

This is the heart of the matter: either empower the Security Council by reforming the veto or render it impotent, forcing the world to rely on external mechanisms that may ultimately undermine the Organization.

The Council’s inaction on vital issues has increased the Assembly’s burden. The General Assembly remains free of the veto and is responsive to world opinion. However, it lacks the Council’s binding authority and is not in continuous session.

The United States has proposed an interim committee on peace and security. The Philippines supports this, as it is feasible under the Charter and would ease the Assembly’s workload between sessions.

Still, the challenge of strengthening the Assembly's authority remains. Decisions—such as on India’s complaint against South Africa or calls for metropolitan powers to consult non-self-governing peoples—have not always been faithfully observed. Ignoring the Assembly’s will is no less condemnable than abusing the veto. In fact, morally, it may be worse. Thus, we call upon Member States to consider appropriate measures to address noncompliance.

We also welcome the establishment of the Economic Commission for Asia and the Far East. While its early work is promising, we remain cautious, especially after seeing the Commission for Europe suspended, with its work overtaken by another entity. Will Asia’s Commission share the same fate? We may find out when it meets in Baguio later this year.

Similarly, the new Economic Commission for Latin America gives hope for effective cooperation under UN auspices, as it should be.

We are encouraged by the creation of the Trusteeship Council and the apparent goodwill of administering powers to fulfill their obligations. Still, a disparity remains. Non-Self-Governing Territories are not receiving the same political advancement as Trust Territories. I urge Members to review the records of the Ad Hoc Committee led by New Zealand’s Sir Carl Berendsen, which examined reports under Article 73e of the Charter.

The findings are sobering. They reveal a reluctance among some powers to acknowledge the right of colonized peoples to freedom and independence—a dangerous delusion in this enlightened age.

Yet, there are signs of hope: the creation of India and Pakistan, discussions on Palestine’s independence, greater self-rule for Burma and Ceylon, and the U.S. pledge to address Korea’s independence. These are signs of freedom’s unstoppable advance.

We commend the U.S. and the U.K. for applying the same democratic principles abroad that have shaped their own national greatness.

Freedom may lie dormant, but it never dies. In Asia or Africa, it will grow, eventually overcoming economic exploitation, political control, or military force.

Recent examples of states voluntarily relinquishing power have inspired the oppressed. The question now is whether others will follow suit peacefully—or risk the bloodshed seen elsewhere. The peaceful path exists. The U.S. showed it in the Philippines. Other powers have done the same. This peaceful path must become the norm.

As we open this session, we face immense challenges. We may feel overwhelmed or inspired to act with the tools available to us. Our agenda proves the world’s desperate longing for freedom, peace, and social progress.

Some say the United Nations cannot solve all of humanity’s problems. We of the Philippines disagree. The danger lies not in bringing our burdens to the UN, but in two failures: failing to give the UN the authority it needs, and failing to assign it the tasks it is chartered to carry out.

The road is long and hard, but we are not discouraged. With patience, goodwill, and faith in our shared purpose, we will find agreement. We will overcome today’s deep anxieties and dispel the looming fear of disaster that haunts our troubled world.