United Nations Oral History Project

General Carlos P. Romulo 30 October 1982

ST/DPIORAL

/

HISTOR'i. (02)/R65

Oct::3-0-~--- .

1982

':;'"':t-ft -;!.:UN INTERVIEW

General Carlos P. RomuloOctober 30, 1982

Interviewers: William Powelland Rebecca Akao

Table of Contents(Foul1di ng of the United Nations)

American OpinionAppointment to Philippine DelegationArticle 99Atomic EnergyAutomatic MajorityBi-polar WorldBretton Woods ConferenceBrown Colony FreedomConference Preparation and LiaisonConsultationsde Cuellar, Javier PerezDiluting Veto PowerDocumentaryDumbarton OaksEnergy crisisHammarskjold, DagHuman Rights in PreoriaIndependenceInternational COurt of JusticeLeague of NationsLie, TrygveManila DeclarationMass MediaMeKico's Foreign MinisterMolotov's ProposalNeutralityNew International Economic OrderNomination to Secretary-GeneralPacific/Atlantic CharterPalestine Partition PlanPeace-keeping OperationsPl1ilippines as CommonwealthPreamblePresident of security CouncilRestudy of the CharterRllssian RevolutionSan FranciscoSeoretal-Y Edward StettiniusSmall Nation Perspeotive&nuts, Field MarshallSocial ReceptionsSpaak, Paul HenriSpecialized Agencies, UNICEF,

UNESCO, no

19,201132572579227196,2737,38230,3118388142 .186293328721,223,3230-3273,415266,14,15231,33,344291535,369,10,15

7

Thant, UTruman, Harry S.Trusteeship COmmitteeTyranny of the MajorityUnanimity RuleUN ForceUN SiteVice Presidency of PhilippinesVoting Formulaswaldheim, KurtWorld Peaoe ~velopm~nts

1816..188,10,1164,~,11

1412,1324111a20,28

= """"...~. -

Narratorls Name~ General Carlos P. Romulo; Tape Number: RollI, Set B

Date of Interview: Saturday, 30 October 1982Place of Interview: Philippine House, New YorkInterviewers l Name: William Powell

Rebecca AkaoFor: Oral History of the United Nations Programme

Powell: And before asking you some questions, General, I have been asked torecord this introduction.

General Romulo, you are a man of great distinction and diversity. Fewcan equal your experience and accomplishments as a teacher, reporter, editor,publisher, soldier, lecturer, writer, and diplomat. with immense dedicationand drive, you have achieved excellence in your varied endeavors. Given youractive role in drafting and signing the UN Charter at San Francisco in 1945,as Head of the Philippine delegation, your presence today revitalizes theideals of the founding fathers envisaged as they laboured to bring this neworganization into being. From your initial participation in the first sessionof the UN General Assembly to the present, you have remained steadfast in thecause of peace. In the shadow of adversity, when others have long grownweary, your faith and zeal have remained unfailing. You havve always been andcontinue to be a man of great vision) one who has been able to transcendinsurmountable obstacles with hope. We are very priviledged to have you withus today to share your personal experience of the drafting of the UN Charterand to evaluate the nature and functioning of the Organization as it hasdeveloped to this day. Your insight and unique perspective of the events ofthe past may provide us with a clearer vision as we look toward the future.

Now, General, I believe that you were appointed as Head of thePhilippine delegation to the San Francisco Conference at a rather late date.How, when your President asked you to assume this responsibility, how did youbegin your preparation?

Romulo: I donlt see why you say that I was appointed at a late date. When itwas announced from the White House that the United Nations was going to beorganized at the instance of Pres. Roosevelt who first got the approval ofseveral other nations, this was about one month before San Francisco.

Powell: Yes,

Romulo: So, it was not a late date. So, one month before San Francisco, Iwas called up by the President of the Philippines who was in Floridaundergoing surgery, in JacksOnville, Florida. And he called me by phone atabout 11 olclock midnight and said to me, "1 1m appointing you as Chairman ofthe Philippine delegation to the United Nations." I was prepared for thatbecause I was in washington at that time, as the Resident Commissioner of thePhilippines. We were not yet independent) we were still a Commonwealth. Andso, instead of an Ambassador, we had what is known as the ResidentCommissioner of the Philippines to the United States. And I was that. So,

-2-

when he called me up; I said to him, "Well, Mr. President, thank you. Iexpected that because I have been studying this matter and thinking aboutiteversince we were fighting in the foxholes of Bataan. I thought that thesufferings we were going through, the sacrifices we were going through shouldend in a peace that will be shared by everybody in our world." And so, when Isaid to him, "Mr. President, thank you for this appointment. I'll beginworking on it right away."

So, the following day, I went to see secretary Stettinius, theSecretary of State whom I knew. I informed him that I had been appointed bythe President of the Philippines, whose name was Sergio Osmefia,as Chairman ofthe Philippine delegation to the United Nations. And I said to him, "Mr.Secretary, I came to inform you of that and to tell you that the Philippinedelegation will work closely with all the other delegations and with Americandelegation provided you'11 have a liaison officer with us in my delegation andthat we will know what is happening." I said "There had been otherconferences where the Philippines was apparently inside the conference butoutside, insofar as the inside stories were happening. So, he said,"Certainly, I will be glad to appoint a liaison officer with you in SanFrancisco." So, I said, "No, Mr. Secretary, I want it now so that I canprepare." So, he said, "Okay."

So, he appointed somebody - I forgot his name - who came to see me thefollowing day and we began talking about what I believed should be the UnitedNations. Well, I began to tell my staff in Washington to get ready and Iwanted a complete dossier of all the statements made by President Wilson. Iwanted to know what happened to the League of Nations. I wanted to know whythe American people refused to join the League of Nations and all theincidents that took place during President Wilson's administration and how hetried to convince the American people that it was worthwhile for them to joinor to be interested in the League of Nations. That's the first thing that Idid.

Then, secondly, I wanted to know the biographies of all the leaders atthat time like Churchhill, Orlando of Italy, Clemenceau of France and theother leaders during the war. SO that's how I begin working on the UnitedNations.

Then, I heard that there was an informal meeting in Dumbarton Oaks ofsome officials of the State Department. So I asked if I could be allowed to bepresent in some of the meetings. So, one of the State Department officialssaid to me, ."Well you can but you'll have to get the permission of theSecretary of State." So I said, "I have it already: So they said, "WellWe'll let you know what days we meet." So, they told me they used to meetthree times a week. So, I went to about three meetings and after that, Irealized that it was~important that there should be a sort of an outline forme to follow during the conference. So, I draftaed an outline and then, Icalled up the President of the Philippines in Florida and I said, "Mr.President, in compliance with your order, I have seen the Secretary of State,I have been present in some meetings as an obseraver in the Durnbarton Oaksmeetings and I've drafted what I believe should be my guideline during theconference.". So, I said, "I'll mail it to you." So, but at that time, one ofour assistants, whose name waS Leo Virata, was going to Florida anyway, so Igave him the draft that t had on what I believed was the important featuresthat I could espouse in the conference. And I remember now, the main feature

;

-3-

was that there should be some sort of a Pacific Charter, something like theAtlantic Charter, and that we, the small nations, could espouse and fightfor. So, the President, after one week, called me up and said, "fine. Iapprove your outline. So, go ahead."

Then, later, when I arrived in San Francisco, I had my staff with meand the American liaison officer called on me in that St. Francis Hotel andsaid, "I have orders from Secretary Stettinius to continue being the Liaison

, Officer between your delegation and our delegation." I said, "Fine."

So, then I saw some of the Latin American delegations. They were ­some of them were - my friends. Some of them I didn't know. Butparticularly, the Foreign Minister of Mexico, whose name was EzequielPadilla, and so I talked to him, and I had a meeting with the ForeignMinister of Australia, Herbert Evatt. So we discussed what we thought wouldbe the important phases that would be discussed in the meetings of theorganizing committee.

The day before the opening of the conference, a caucus was called ofall the chief delegates. So, we met and that was when Molotov, the PrimeMinister of Russia, proposed formally in the meeting that there should be fiverotating chairmen, that is, all the chairmen of the victorious allies, thefive nations. (sic) (editor's note: actually the proposal was for four co­-presidents) Foreign Minister Padilla of Mexico opposed the proposal. Hesaid that it was against all international precedents that in all conferencesin the past, the chairman of the host delegation should be, and was always,the chairman of the conference. So, Molotov answered that, "No, this isdifferent. This United Nations of all nations of the world who are willingto join." And he said he believed that there should be five rotatingchairmen. I then stood up to second Foreign Minister Padilla's opposition tothe proposal. And I remember I said, "How can a ship or an airplane fly withfive pilots?" Molotov looked at me, rather stared at me and said, "What righthas this gentleman from the Philippines to be in this conference? ThePhilippines is not yet independent. It's only a Commonwealth. So, I don'tbelieve the gentleman from the Philippines has the proper credentials to be atthis conferencae." So, I adressed the Acting Chairman, Stettinius, and Isaid, "Mr. Chairman, may I answer the question of the Prime Minister ofRuss.ia?" And said, "Certainly." So, I said, "Well, may I ask the PrimeMinister of Soviet Russia why Ukraine and Byelorussia are here when they arenot independent and they are part and parcel of Russia?" And that was greetedby an applause by the crowd. I suppose the applause silenced Molotov, whodidn't pursue the question further. But it was decided, after a brief recess,to approve the proposition of Molotov. So, we were to have five rotatingchairmen. One day, one chairman; the other day" so on. And that was whatwas decided that first caucus meeting, which, apparently, was called byMolotov in order for him to make that proposal of the five rotating chairmen •.So that was the first victory of Russia in the conference.

Powell: May I ask you a follow-up question since you referred to thecommonwealth status of the Philippines. Did you find this a disadvantage inworking at the San Francisco Conference, or did it give you a specialposition?

'."

-4-

Romulo: No, no, no disadvantage and no respected position either. I was justset equal after that. It was not a favoured position; it was not, in any way,a disadvantage. But after my statement in the caucus, apparently, thatsettled that question ••

Powell: Now, you were mentioning Mr. Evatt of Australia. I believe that youand he worked very closely together on two matters: the trusteeship systemand the veto. Is that correct?

Romulo: No, only on the veto.

Powell: Only on the veto.

Romulo: Yes, and I'll tell you how tha t happened.

We were inviting some delegations to either breakfast or lunch with usto explain our side against the veto. It was not known as the veto, it wasknown as the unanimity rule. So, I think we were progressing and somehow, Ithink our liaison officer with the American delegation knew my activities inthat regard. So, one day, he said to me, "Secretary Stettinius would like toinvite you for breakfast. He has also invited, "he said, "the ForeignMinister of Australia." So, I said, "Fine." It is in his penthouse in one ofthe hotels in San Francisco, Mark •••

Powell: Mark Hopkins.

Romulo: Mark Hopkins. Yes. So, I asked Foreign Minister Evatt if it's truethat be was invited and he said, "Certainly." This is for, I remember,Wednesday, Wednesday morning. This was Monday. So, I said to him, "I'm sureit is about our fight against the unanimity rule. Secretary Stettinius wouldlike to discuss it with us." So, he says, "Yes, I think you're right." hesaid.

So, Wednesday morning at 9:30, we went to the suite of SecretaryStettinius, who was very amiable. As we came in, he stood up and put his armaround me, so I knew he wanted something. So we sat down for breakfast. Iremember we had scrambled eggs and bacon. So, after having finished ourbreakfast, Stettinius said to both of us, "Gentlemen," he said,"I want to knowfrom you, do you really want the United States in the United Nations or youdon't?" So I answered, "Why, certainly, Mr. Secretary. We want the UnitedStates in the United Nations. Otherwise, it will be another League ofNations. So we are very much interested in having the United States in theUnited Nations. Not only that," I said, n this organization of the UnitedNations is also an American initiative. It was proposed by PresidentRoosevelt.', So, certZlinly, we want the United States in the United Nations."So, he smiled, he looked at b_oth of us and then he said, "I'm glad to knowthat. Beacause if you c~:aUy want the Uni ted States in the Uni ted Nations,1'11 have to ask you to stoP' your campaign aga inst the unan imi ty rule.

;;;

-5-::

Beacuse," he said, "The United States, I assure you," I mean, he said,"theUnited States Senate will not ratify the Charter without the unanimity ruleprovision in the Charter." And he said, "if you don't believe me, you can gonow to the session, I will go with you and you will confront Senator Connallyand Senator Vandenberg. They are there in the delegation and you can askthem." So we said, "Yes,. weill do that." We made no commitment to him. Weshook hands, and Evatt and I went to the Veteran's Memorial Building, where wewere meeting. And so, I said to Foreign Minister Evatt, "Well Herb, I thinklet's go and see those two Senators."

So the session was about to open so they were there, both of them. Andyou know, you remember, Senator Connally is a big man with a white mane,wearing a coat tail, you know, the fur coat. So we went to them in their seatin that conference, and I asked, "Senator Connally, we've just been fromSecretary Stettinius' hotel and he told us to ask you whether itls true or notthat the United States Senate will not ratify the Charter that we are draftingwithout the unanimity rule in it." And Connally, big fellow, looked down onme and he said, "Young man, mark my words. Without that unanimity rule, theUnited States Senate will not ratify the Charter." So, I looked at Evatt andEvatt turned to Senator Vandenberg, "What do you say, Senator?" SenatorVandenberg said, "Amen." That ended that.

Akao: And how did you feel about that?

Romulo~ Well, we thought that that was a wrong move that the United Stateswas taking. We foresaw that veto power could be abused. As it was, SovietRussia exercised it 200 times plus. But, as I said, we wanted the UnitedStates in the United Nations so we didn't say anything. We didn't tellConnally or Evatt that we were not going to stop our campaign and we both wentto our seats and then I consulted the President of' the Philippines who was inFlorida, by telephone. I said, "Mr. president, the Foreign Minister of

. Australia and I just saw Stettinius and the two Senators in the Americandelegation. And they told us that without the unanimity rule, the UnitedStates Senate will not ratify the Charter. And, therefore, the United Stateswill not be a member of the United Nations." And the answer of PresidentOsmefia was very clear: "We must not insist on your opposition. If the UnitedStates is not in the United Nations, it will fail. So I leave it to you. Ifeel that we need the United States in the United Nations." So I said,"Alright, Mr. President, then I will not insist on our fight against the vetopower. II

So, I told Evatt. And Evatt said, II No , 1 1 11 continue fighting. Ibelieve in the fact, "he said, "that the United States should not insist onthat veto power." And he said, nI'm sure time will vindicate me." And I toldhim I had talked to my President. He said that we must have the United Statesin the United Nations and so I will not continue fighting the veto power.

Powell: Do you think that, ].0ok ing back at it in re trospect, was the questionof the veto the great criSl$ of the San Francisco Conference or were thereother times when it ml-ght ttave appeared that there wouldnlt be a Charter atall?

;;

-6-

Romulo: No, the veto power was not questioned by the other delegates and whenI stopped fighting, Evatt continued opposing it. But apparently, he did notget enough support.

Akao: Who else supported him?

Romulo: I don't remember who are those who ••• But you can get that in thevoting record. But I could stop fighting the veto power.

Powell: Over the years, you have spoken from time to time about modifying theveto.

Romulo: Yes.

Powell: Do you have any particular proposals, suggestions in that di~ection?

Romulo: Now, you used the wrong word - not 'modifying'. I am advocating therestudy of the Charter beacause when we signed the Charter, there were only 54nations. Now, there are 157 nations. So the balance between 54 and 157 didnot have any chance to express their opinions on the Charter. And so, Ibelieve that these nations must now be given the opportunity to express theirviews on the Charter. So, I have been advocating, for the last five years, arestudy of the Charter, as a result of which a special committee has beenappointed to study and restudy the Charter. And now, one of the meetings ofthis committee was in Manila, when we approved what is known as the ManilaDeclaration, which was endorsed by the Sixth Committee here and which will qebefore the General Assembly Plenary Session sometime the middle of this month.Now, what change do you think I should make or should suggest?

Our campaign to restudy the Charter has been opposed by thesuperpowers. The main reaSon for their opposition is they are afraid the vetopower will be abolished. I am not in favour of abolishing the veto power. I'min favour of diluting the veto power so that it cannot be used for trivialcases. That the veto power should only be used on matters affecting war orpeace. And that's my stand on the question. Now, I don't believe in theabolition of the veto power. Because when we wrote the Charter and decided onthe 'one nation, one vote' in the General Assembly, there was need, we felt,of a counter-balance of a veto power in the hands of the superpowers in the .Secur i ty Council. SO, while ther e is the veto power in the Secur i ty Council,there is the 'one nation, one vote' in the General Assembly. And that was ourtheory~ it did work that way. So that when the nations of the world began tojoin the United Nations and were approved to be members of the United Nations,in complianc~ with the rule in the Charter that there should be universalityfor the Unit~d Nations, there begun what is known now as the 'tyranny of themajority' which is counter-balanced by those in that majority as the 'tyrannyof tbe minority t in the security CounciL Now, I believe that when we restudy

;

;-7-

the Charter, as we are studying it now ---- you see, there are two UnitedNations~ the successful United Nations which is the specialized agencies ­the UNICEF, the Food and Agriculture, the ItO, and all these other specialized~gencies, the UNESCO - the successful. It's been helping the world. Theother United Nations, which is not successful as we envisioned it to be, isthe United Nations endowed with the power of the peace-keeping operations.Now, the world blames the United Nations, specially the Americans, that it's afailure; it's useless; it should go home, .get out of New York and all that.Now, when we organized the United Nations, there were 54 nations and therewere more than 20 Latin Americans, all of whom, more or less, always sidedwith the United States. So that was then called the 'mechanical , or the'automatic majority'. At that time, there was no uproar from the AmericanpUblic about the decisions of the United Nations. But then came in theAfro--Asians and all that, which increased the number of the members of theUnited Nations. '1'he "mechanical majority" was absorbed by these new nations,who had other views, who entertained other ideas quite different from that ofthe Uni ted Sta tes. So then, the uproar began in the American pUblic. Bu tthis was a ••• -

Akao: Did you •••

Romulo: Yes,

Akao: Did you anticipate that the number of members would increase when you

Romulo: Oh, yes!

Akao: ••• wrote the Charter?

Romulo: Well, in this connexion, the year after the signing of the Charter ofthe United Nations, I attended the Bretton Woods Conference in New ijampshire.When we signed the agreement, I make the statement that, I said, "Last year,54 nations signed the Charter of the Uni ted Nations~ I envision that as theyears roll by, there'll be more member s." And I said, "This Agreement that weare signing now here in Bretton Woods was really fashioned and patterned anddrafted in accordance with the wishes of the victorious allies. The time willcome when there will be more nations and this economic order that we arefashioning now will not be agreeable to them. And they'll have to demandchanges in this economic order.

Powell: The New International Economic Order.

Remulo: That's now the New International Economic Order. This was in 1946when I said 'this. I just mentioned that in connexion with your question.

-8-

Powell: Yes. Now, I have read that you feel that perhaps your proudestaccomplishment at San Francisco was to get the word 'independence' into theCharter.

Romulo: Ah, well, that's some other question. When we were discussing theCharter, there were, of course, several committees. And in the Trusteeshipcommittee, we were discussing a proposal of the superpowers or the colonialpowers then, that the aspiration ofrion-self-governing peoples should beself-government. I opposed that. I said, "That's not complete. Theiraspiration should be self-government or independence. Because self-governmentis not independence." Well we had a real fight on that. Lord Cranborne ofthe United Kingdom opposed that. So did Henri Spaak of Belgium, all thecolonial powers. So, I went to Harold Stassen who was the American member ofthe Trusteeship Committee and I explained to him our views. He wasnon-committal. I told him that I believe I was speaking for the smallnations, the not-yet-independent nations

End of Side 1

and, I said, that we must insist on "self-government or independence." So, hesaid, "Well, I'll refer this to our delegation. We'll discuss this."

We discussed that point for 2 nights. Finally, we won. It's"self-government or independence." And I don't remember the number of votes.But I think, in the Committee, we won by 12 or 14 votes. So, I got a notefrom Stassen after my reply to the statement of Lord Cranborne:"Congratulations. Well done." So, I think he's still living now - HaroldStassen.

Powell: I think he is.

Romulo: Yes. He was a studious member of that Committee. And hisinterventions were always well taken. I'm not sure now whether the Americansvoted wi th us, but I think the records will show whether they abstained orthey voted with us. But I remember now, we won by 12 or 13 or 14 votes. Butthey took it to the General Assembly. Again, we had a debate there. Spaakwas a very fiery orator, spoke against it. I answered them. When the finalvote was taken, we by, I think, 19 votes; I' not sure. Let's check it up inthe records. So that's why I always say that the contribution of thePhilippines to the Charter were two words: or Independence. But that openedthe door for the non-self-governing peoples which were under trusteeship atthat time, to enter the United Nations. .

End of Side 2

End of RollI, Set B

-9-

Tape Numben Roll 2, set B, side I

Powell: In connexion with the words 'or independence',

Romulo: Independence, yes.

Powell: Ms. Spencer, in her biography of you, quotes you as saying at thattime, presumably during the debate, "I am not advocating that brown coloniesbe given their freedom at once. They are no more prepared for theresponsibility of freedom than we were 50 years ago in the Philippines."

Romulo: Yes,

Powell: "I advocate, instead, that their goal be freedom and that the vestedpowers begin in instituting of that freedom."

Romulo: correct.

Powell:years.

Now, this raises, in my mind, a question.That was in 1945.

You have mentioned 50

e:.

Romulo: Yes,

Powell: Now, in less than 40 years, all of these countries have becomeindependent. Do you think the process has gone on too fast?

Romulo: No, not at all.

Powell: Not at all.

Romulo~ .1 think the 50 years that I said was an arbitrary number.

Powell: Yes.

Romulo: But what I wanted to have the colonial powers understand is that theymfiust prepare~all these nations for independence and not merelyself""9overnment and that it may take time, maybe 30 years, 40 years or 50.

;;

-10-

Powell: You think they did a good job, General, in preparing these countriesfor independence?

Remulo: Some, yes.

Powell: Some.

Romulo: Some, yes. Now, in connexion about trusteeship, one of mydistinguished opponents was Henri Paul Spaak of Belgium, who already becamePresident of the General Assembly. And One day I was in the cafeteria-in theVeteran's Memor ial wi th my tray-and I took a table, sat down at the table andI saw him coming with his tray. I had no personal relations with him. All Iknew of him was what I hear in the Committee meetings and his replies to meand my replies to him. So, I said to him, "Mr. Spaak, why don't we share thistable?" He said,"Oh, certainly." So he sat down. SO, we had our lunchtogether.

After our lunch, when he was about to stand up, he said,"Now, General,I want to take this off my conscience. Listening to you in the Committee, Ihated you. I thought you're a monster. And I hated your guts." But hesaid,"After talking to you, and I'mglad I had my lunch with you, now, I knowyou better." Well, I said, "Mr. Spaak," I said, ·what does that show?" Itvindicates my theory, which I've always said, that in every human being, ther~

must be, somewhere, a spark of the Divine. "NOW," I said, "You spoke to me, Ispoke to you, the spark of the Divine in you struck the spark of the Divine inme and there is mutual understanding." We shook hands and he said, "you areright." And we became very good friends since then. And that was an incidentin connexion with this Trusteeship Council Meeting.

Powell: Yes.

Romulo: Yes. Now, as to your question about the 50 years. Well, that was anarbi trary ••• \

Powell: I understand.

Romulo: ••• number that I set. But.... Look at the Philippines. In oneyear, we were given our independence. This was in 1946. We were speaking of1945 in San Francisco. But in 1946, we won our independence from America. Ittook only one year. But in the meanwhile, in the Commonweal th, we were beingprepared for independence. That's why connnonwealth waS self-government. Wedidn't want that at all. We want self-government but in preparation forindependence.

-11-

Akao: When you were· drafting the Charter, did you anticipate that theTrusteeship system would be so successful and did you think ahead of what therole of the Trusteeship Council might be, if any, after all the Trusteeshipterritories had gained their independence?

Remulo: Well, I was hoping because I attributed to myself the title "thevoice of the voiceless millions" in the Assembly there. Because I was theonly one really at that time - only China and the Philippines were members ofthe United Nations. 1 So, I credited myself, quite immodestly, as the "voiceof the voiceless millions". And so, I felt that in the near future, theuniversality characteristic in the Charter of the United Nations will becarried out and that more nations will be members of the United Nations. Now,I can understand that the Americans cannot really go with the idea of allthese small nations, with say 50,000 population or 100 ,000 population, havingone vote as against the 200 million Americans. Well, that's understandable.And yet, in the world today, we must be compelled to understand that becauseif we follow what the Americans accepted in the Charter as the universality ofthe Charter, we have to accept all nations whether they are small nations orbig nations.

Powellt At San Francisco, General, was there a discussion of other possiblevoting formulas besides 'one nations, one vote'? Did they consider, forexample, the system of weighted voting?

Remulo: Yes, yes, that was discussed in the caucus meetings. There werediscussions of the weighted votes. But that did not win. They say 'onenation, one vote', vis-a-vis, the unanimity rule in the security Council. Wethought that that would ••••

But what happened in the United Nations is this, unfortunately for theworld: The United Nations became the battleground of two ideologies, which wedid not forsee. So we became a bi-polar world. That, I think, wasunfortunate. There was polarization and that helped to make the American mindprejudiced against the United Nations. Because the simple American inKalamazoo cannot understand why Tobago or seychelles, with a hundred-thousandpopulation or two-hundred thousand, should have the same vote as the Americanswho have 200 million people. Now, this simple Americancannot understand.Forgetting that when the Charter was draftaed, it was because the 'one nation,one vote' was approved as the counter-balance of the unanimity rule in theSecurity Council. Now# again I say, the American people do not understand whycertain nationsshould havae views opposite to theirs. Well, that'sunderstandable. I understand that side; but I also say, we have , in theUnited Nations, the only world forum that we will ever have. You abolish theUnited Nations and we'll have to create another one. Voltaire once said, the

• great Franch writer, "if we didn't have a god, we'd have to create a god."The same thing is true.

Now, another thing. When I read an article the other day, "UnitedNations Go Home", well, in San Francisco, I was fighting for San Francisco tobe the site of the United Nations. And my reason was that the future drama of

-12-

the world would be in the Pacific not in the Atlantic. I was fighting forthat. Mayor RoSS of San Francisco was my friend and he was enthusiastic tohave San Francisco as the site of the United Nations.

But one day, about 2 o'clock inthe afternoon, my good friend NelsonRoCKefeller came to me. And he's a very good friend of mine. And he said tome, "aomy," he called me Remy, "I know you are fighting for San Francisco."But," he said, "really, my Government wants it to be in New York." And hesaid, "tonight, I am flying to New York to convince my brothers to donatemoney and real estate so that the United Nations can be in New York."

So, I called up Mayor Ross in the presence of Nelson.

"Mayor, Nelson Rockefeller is here with me. He's going to New Yorktonight to convince his brothers to donate, "I think "2 mill. •• "

Romulo: "e million", I don't remember, "and such real estate as is neededthere," I said, "for New York to be the site of the United NationsHeadquarters. Can you top that?" Mayor Ross said, "I have to think that overand consult our council here."

So, two days later, he called me up and said, "we can't." so, then, I"said, "Then, I want to serve notice that I'm going to change my fight from San

Francisco to New York." He said, "Well, I can't blame you. Go ahead."

So then, Philadelphia wanted to be the site also. So the Mayor ofPhiladelphia came to San Francisco. I don't remember his name~ And he said,"I understand you are fighting for San Francisco and now, there is the bid ofNew York. We also want to bid in Philadelphia." Well, I said to him, -Mayor,I've given my word to Rockefeller after giving up for San Francisco, I amgoing to vote for New York. And if I change nmy mind now, both San Franciscoand New York will think I'm a cad. So, I'm sorry," I said, "but I will stickto fighting for New York."

So, when it is said now, that we must go home and get out of New York,it was the American insistence again, like the veto power, that we are in NewYork.

Another reason, whentfie First Lady of the Philippines decided to invitethe General Assembly to a meeting in Manila, there was an uproar of oppositionfrom the Mayor here, fromthe Senator and all that. And then, I asked them,"Why can 't you let the Assembly go to Manila for one session?" They say, "Westand to lose about 400 million dollars. Our restaurants, our taxicabs, ourplace ••• " .They said, "We ask you not to insist on having that Assembly in.Manila. "

-13-

so, everytime .1 read these things, like ftGo Home United Nations ft Ilaugh because I knowthe background of these things.

P'o~ell: Tell me, on balance r do you think it's been a good thing, thedecision to put the UN in New York City rather than another site in the UnitedStates?

Remulo: No, I still believe San Francisco would have been the ideal site. Istill believe that - that San Francisco is the ideal site for the UnitedNations.

Powell: Coming back to San Francisco and the Conference, General, there's aquestion that always intrigued me and that is about Article 99 of the Charter- the one which empowers the Secretary-General to draw the attention of thesecurity Council to situations that may be a threat to international peace.

Reroulo: Yes,

Powell: Was that much debated at San Francisco? Do you think the delegatesrealized the significance of the power that they were giving to theSecretary-General?

Remulo: No, not so very easily.

Powell: They dldn't.

Remulo: Yes, because it was felt that somebody in the United Nations shouldhave the power to call the attention of the Council on some grave problemfacing the United Nations. If we didn't have that, who would do it? Not thebeligerent nations. So, somebody in the United Nations should have the powerto draw the attention of the Security Council to any zone of danger that isfacing the United Nations.

Powell: Now, the new Secretary-General, Perez de Curllar, In his recentreport to the General Assembly, has indicated that he intends to use thepowers under Article 99. Do you think that this is a constructive suggestion?

Remulo: Well, you see, I've been readingthe report of our newSecretary-General. It's one of the bestreports ever submitted to the UnitedNations. This fellow, having been Permanent Delegateto the United Nati¢ns formany years, and having worked under his predecessor as Under-Secretary, heknows the nee ds of the Uni ted Nations. And I think he is one man who canobjectively ~ssess the situation in any area of the world. And onthat point,call the attention of the security Council. So far, his decisions nave beenobjective. And that's what we need in the UN - objective decisions by the

..

-14-

Secretary-General. When he admitted, for example, the weaknesses of theUni.ted Nations, well,that has never been admitted before -by aSecretary-General. And a fellow who knows the weakness of the united Nationscertainly can do something to improve the mechanism of the United Nations.

Now one of the changes that we would like to make in the United Nationswhich we hope will not be objected to by the super powers as they would objectto tbe veto, abolition of the veto, is the fact that in the peace-keepingoperations, every nation, every Member State of the Organization now Should beready to have a number of its troops as part of a United Nations force.

Powell~ Standby.

Romu10: Yes. So that in case of any emergency, we have the power to back upour resolutions. As it is now, our resolutions are pious resolutions withoutany power backing them up. So that every Member State of the United Nationsmust be ready to contribute to that force its men. SO that at a given moment,we have a force to back up our decisions.

Another change that we would like to make is the International court ofJustice, it's now optional. NOW, if you have an International court ofJustice where the Member States are not bound to submit their cases before it,it's useless. Now, the International court Of Justice decides six, five casesa year. Now, we believe that if we have an International Court of Justice,every rtation must be bound to gubmit its case whenever necessary to thatcourt. That's another weakness of the United Nations.

Akao: How difficult do you think it will be to get these changes actuallymade?

Romulo: Well, it's a long, long fight. Any attempt to change the status quois difficult.

Powell~ Were you envisaging, when you mentioned restudying the Charter,having a general Charter review conference?

Romulo: No, it is provided in the Charter •

Powell: I know it is provided for in the Charter.

Romulo: So far, we've ignored that provision. And I voted for that provisionbecause I be~ieved that in 10 years, there'll be changes in the world. Andthat was before we knew anything about the atom bomb

-15-

Powell: That's true.

Romulo: The atom bomb has changed the world. Now, we believe that the timehas com~ when we should have this general conference, but the super powers aretooth-and-nail agCiinst it. Gromyko once came to me and he said, "Now General,why are you insisting on this restudy of the Charter?" He said, ·You are afather of this baby and you want to kill it." I said, "Mr. Gromyko, I~m notkilling this babYF I'm just trying to give it more vitamin5 to make itstronger. That's all I want to do." But they feel that any change in theveto power is going to get threats of withdrawal from the United. Nations. Andcertainly, we don't want any super power to withdraw from the United Nations.We want the super powers there.

Powell: Tell me this, General. In the course of our conversation, you havementioned 2 or 3 personalities at San Francisco. You mentioned Mr. Molotov,you mentioned Paul Henr i Spaak, Lord Cranborne. Who were the outstp.ndingleaders? We sometimes hear the name of Field Marshall Smuts, South Africa.

Remulo: Who? I want to talk about him. Yes. One of the ironies of theworld is that Field Marshall Smuts of Africa was the one who wrote thePreamble - the Preamble of the Charter which is an immortal declaration ofhuman right and was written by Field Marshall Smuts of Africa. That's one ofthe ironies of the world. That it is his country now who is reneging on theprovisions of that Preamble. And I am told, I don't know if it is correct,one of the reasons of his fall from power in South Africa was that preamble.

Akao: With regard to the wording of the Preamble, how did you feel aboutField Marshall Smuts'

~mulo: Well, I want to •••

Akao: Draft?

Romulo~ ••• you to know that I used to walk from the St •. Francis Hotel withField Marshall Smuts to the Veteran's Memorial and we used to talk together.Of eourse, every step of his was two steps for me because he's a tall man andhe ~as discussing this Charter and he said, ·Well, we'll write a Charter, inmy belief, that it is not so much for today as for tomorrow." He said, "Andthat's what I'm putting in the preamble." And he was a convinced man that thePreamble was the hope of the world. That was Field Marshall Jan Smuts. Andhe was a dedicated man. And convinced that what he wrote in the Preamble iswhat the world needed and needs. But, as you see, it's his country that isreneging on the Preamble of the United Nations.

Powell: And I think you also mentioned that you became good friends with JanMasc1ryk of C.zechoslovaki.:a; at. that time in San Francisco.

-16-

Remulo: Yes, yes, yes. He's one of the prominent leaders of the ••• Wecrossed the Atlantic together. When I was on my way to Geneva to help writethe Declaration of Human Rights, we were on either Queen Elizabeth or QueenMary toge ther • And we used to walk around it on deck. And in one of my talkswlth him, he said, "You know, General, this may be the last time I can come tothe United States." I said, "Why?"

"Well, I have that foreboding."

Of course, you know he was the son of the patriot Masaryk and he knewthe ideals of his father. And he once told me, "You know, my father had hisvision and I want to see that vision realized." Well, he never said anythingagainst the communists. But his country was already under communism. And hewas going back to Czechoslovakia. And that's why he said, " I have theforeboding that this is the last time that I will be in the United States."He was a great man and he spoke English fluently.

Powell: And I believe on the final day of the Conference, President trumancame out to address the meeting, didn't he?

Remulo: Yes.

Powell: And then you had the signing the following day.

Romulo: Well, there is an incident about his going to San Francisco which hetold me himself.

He had a friend in San Francisco and he had the address. So, insteadof calling him up, he decided to tell his driver to go to this address.Appar~ntly, it was the wrong address. So, he got off the car, he pushed thebutton and somebody inSide opened the door and said, "Why, God damn it, youlook like that son-of-a-bitch ~ruman.· And he said, "I'm not a Republican."He tells that story on himself. So he went to the wrong house, yes.

.'

At any rate, when we speak of the United Nations, I remember anincident after my election as President of the General Assembly in 1949. ~he

Mayor here then was Mayor O'Dwyer •

So, he decided to give a lunch to the chief delegates in GracieMansion. And, of course, he inVited President ~ruman, who happened to behere. So, ~s President of the General Assembly, I went with Tryve Lie, theSecretary-General, and Count Denue who was then the Chief of Protocol. And aswe were greeted by Mayor O'Dwyer with President Truman with him, Mayor OIOwy.e~

said to me, "Now~ General:, you see- those two flagpoles there? One is for th~

" -17-

Onit.ed Nations. flag and the other for the United States flag." He said, "I'mgoing to ask the President.to hoist the United States flag and you, the UnitedNations flag." I said. "fine, thank you." So then, the loud speakerannounced that I was going to hoist the United Nations flag and PresidentTruman, the American flag.

so as we were walking towards the flagpoles, an elderly American ladyrep~e~enting maybe the extreme right here, stopped President Truman.

"Mr. President, may I know why is it that the United Nations flag isgoing to be hoisted by the President of the Assembly representing a ~ery smallnation like the Philippines? Why not France or Great Britain?" Trumanstopped4 bowed to her and said, "My dear lady, this is a new era, an era ofchange and the small nations are coming to their own." I never forgot that.

Powell: Very, very good answer, wasn't it?

Romulo: That was Truman. Then, the ticker tape parade. I don't remember anyGeneral Assembly President who was ever given a ticker tape parade as I wasgi~en that day by Mayor 0' Dwyer, who was a very close fr iend of mine.

So we were in the car - the President to my right, I was in the centre,and Mayor O'Dwyer to my left. As we were driving, President Truman, with asparkle 1n his eyes, said to Mayor O'Owyer, "Bill, do you realize that you arethe mayor of the greatest city in the world?" And Mayor O'Dwyer said, "Ofcourse, Mr. President."

"But of course, you see, you also know that I am the President of thegreatest country in the \tIorld." And Mayor O'Dwyer said, "There's no questionabout that, Mr. president."

Then, he lOOked at me, "And General Romulo here is the president of thetlorl"d. "

Powell: That's a lovely story.

Romulo: That was Truman.

Powell: Yes ..

fI-

Romulo: That was Truman.

'.Powell: Yes.

..

-18-

RoIfiUl.O: Another.

We met him at the Pennsylvania Station. He arrived at about 6 o'clockin the morning. (End of side 2) And the Chief of Protocol was a French manth~t arranged the sitting arrangements for the cars. So he said, "Mr.PresiCtent," he said "this car: is for you and for the Secretary-General, TryveLie. The next car is for the President of the General Assembly and for theChief of Protocol." Truman said, "No. The President of the Assembly sitswith me. The Secretary-General in the next car." That was Truman.

Powell: Tell me. You have worked with and been closely associated with eachone of the five Secretaries-General.

Romulo.: Yes.

Powell: Would you like to Characterize •••

Romulo: Oh, yes: I can - I will. Tryve Lie was a great organizer. He hasnot been given enough credit for having organized a Secretariat from nothing.He was a great organizer. And the Secretariat was organized and formed byhim. And that credit should be given to Tryve Lie. He was followed by •••

Powell: Hammarskjold.

Romulo: In my opinion, Hammarskjold was an excellent Secretary-General. Hehad also visions of the future. Three of us used to breakfast with him in hisapartment: Lester B. Pearson of Canada, Andrew Cordier and I. And he used tooutline to us his beliefs and his ideals about the United Nations. And hiscontribution to the United Nations is something that you don't find either inthe Charter or the resolutions in .the General Assembly. It's the UnitedNations presence. He invented that. And the time has proved that that was anexcellent contribution, the United Nations presence, which, in my belief,could have been strengthened by the United Nations force contributed by allthe other nations.

U Thant was a quiet, meditative Secretary-General. He didn't believein spectacular decisions. It was a quiet diplomacy that he exercised and hewas quite forceful in that. So those are the three •

Now, Waldheim. Waldhe!m,. as an Austrian, had also the ability tomoderate and negotiate. As you remember, in the history of the world, Austriaused to be the marriage broker. The great dynasties used to get married inAustria. When Waldheim was the Secretary-General, as an Austrian, he was thepower broker of the world.

..-19-

No~ comes this new one, who starts very well. And I hope he wiilcontinue. And he told me confidentially, "Five years is too long for aSecretary-General."

Povrell: Tell me this, if it is an indiscreetquestion, General. Last year,.you wel:'e on the Security Council when the question of the appointment of. aSecretary-General •••

Reroulo: Yes.

Powell; was being considered. What was the attitude of the Philippinestowards, let us say, the Tanzanian Foreign Minister , and Mr. Waldheim?

Remulo: Well, yes. Well, I had instructions from my President to vote forboth. There were separate ballots at that time. The Tanzanian President inCancun talked to my President. And the President said, "Yes, we'll vote forSalim." SO the Prime Minister of the Philippines came to New York to transmi tto me the instructions of President Marcos that I should vote for both. Andfor every ballot, we voted for Waldheim and the next ballot, for Salim. Thatwas our stand.

Now, Salim would have made a good Secretary-General. But at thesametime, I believe it was a good choice that this fellow •••

Powel·l : Mr. Perez de Cuellar.

Romulo: Yes, yes, de Cuellar. I don't know where he got that name1 so hardto pronounce. Yew. In SOuth Africa I think, they called him several ••• five,names before they got the right spelling.

At any rate, he is doing very well, so far. And I agree with thetribute paid to himby Secretary of State Schultz, that he is aSecretary-General from whom we could expect a lot of good.

Now, when you come to the criticisms of the United Nations, which aremany, most of which are from the American people, I think that we should giveour second thoughts to these criticisms. The Americans are against the 'onenation, one vote'. That to them, they cannot swallow. That they pay a largeshare of the contributions and yet they have the same vote as the country thatpays say 1/100 of the total budget. That, of course, is understandable fromthe point of view of the American taxpayer. But I think the time has comewhen we shoul.d think of the world. There was a time when power was supreme.Th~ United Nations .has created a world opinion. So I sak, "What preventsAmerica from \Is·ing its, nuclear power on Cuba? In ten minutes, Cuba wou1.d pe

-20-

under the power of the United States with the nuclear bomb." But the UnitedStates dare not do that because there is a world opinion for America to recKonwith and which America respects. That is the United Nations. It is the ~orld

opinion now that has been gradually formed and which all nations must reckon~ith. Where can you find a forum of 157 nations? In the general debate, youhear not a kaleidoscopic view but a view in depth of the gr ievances, thefeelings, the ideals of the world. Now, Seychelles, yes, Tobago, they paymaybe 1/100 of the budget but this is the first time that they can appeal tothe world. Otherwise, they have no forum. Your western press is too involvedin the affairs of the western world.

Roll 3, set 5, Side 1

Reroulo: My American friends, when I won theUnited Nations Peace GOld Medal,all of my friends, American friends, congratulated me and said, "But what doesthat mean? To us,that doesn't mean anything. There is no peace in the ~orld

today. II I said to them, "My dear friend, if there is no peace in the worldtoday, why are we talking right on the sidewalk.? You told me a minute agothat you're going to see "A Chorus Line". If there is no peace today, how canyou go see the "Chorus Line"? There are danger zones, yes, as there willalways be in the world. But humanity is evolving and developing. Now, take alook at the history of the world. At one time, feudalism was sacrosanct.Nobody dared touch it. The fact thatthe lord of his fief had the right to bewith the bride of his fief for the first night and not the bridegroom - thatwas accepted. It was sacred. Nobody dared touch it. But the worlddevelops. Humanity develops and that went by the board.

Then came the divine right of kings. Louise XIV said, "I am thestate." That was also respected. Nobody doubted that. But there were voicesthat gradually rose and that disappeared.

Came imperialism, colonialism; the right of a strong nation to ruleover the weak and get all its material resources. Well, that's alsodisappearing. Whether we like it or not, humanity is evolving, is developing.

Now, the United Nations is another sample.· It has its critics nowbecause we have our failures. We have our defects. But sooner or later, theworld will realize that like feudalism, like the religious wars, the HolyCrusades, now we have ecuminism. All these disappeared. Now, this battle o£ideologies, I hold that will also disappear in the near future. Thehandwriting is on the wall. It cannot subsist. When humanity develops andevolves, all these things that are basically immoral will have to disappear.Why? Because one ideo1.ogy you have to hate another human being. that too, isuntenable in the future. We have to be one world. Now, those who believe inone world now are dubbed as "do gooders", visionaries, idealists. Well, thosewho preach against feudalism, at one time, against holy wars - imagine aThirty Year~ War and all that. That will have to be ~ the truisms of todaywill be known as the heresies of tomorrow. And that's because human.itydevelops. And that's why t say, no matter what you say against th.e. Vol·tedNaU-on-s, this will develop_ It is now the world opinion and· woe lte unto him

.'-21-

who dares and ignores that world opinion. And the super powers know thatnow. As I said, Cuba that is a thorn in the neck of the United States, if theUnited States wanted to use its naked power, in one hour, Fidel Castro isincinerated or less. But Am~rica is too sensible to use its naked power now.~cause America knows there is a world opinion that will brand America as anagressor. And America does not dare use its megaton bomb against Cuba. Whathappened in Vietnam? A small nation, insignificant nation. Of course, I saidto the Hanoi Ambassador in Manila. He said, "We licked the Americans." 1said, "Oh no, the Americans licked themselves." That was a divided peoplethat fought that war. So I said, "I must correct you." 1 said, " theAmerican licked themselves."

And so, when you look at the world from a perspective of one who feelsthat the world is improving with the years, well certainly, you have to beoptimistic as I am.

Powell: Now General, you have held two of the most important posts in theUnited Nations - the President of the Assembly and the President of theSecurity Council. And you, I think at one time, were a likely prospect forthe third important job. That of the Secretary-General.

Romulo: Yes, 1 was vetoed by Russia. Yes.

Akao: Can you tell uS something about that?

Romulo: Yes. Well, one day, secretary of State Dulles called me up here fromWashington.

Powell; This was about 1953, right?

Romulo: Thereabouts, yes. And he said, "General, 1 am nominating you in theCabinet to be our candidate for the Secretary-General." Well, that took me bysurprise. I said, "1 1 m generally not speechless, sir, Mr. Secretary. Butyoulve caught me. You are nominating me to be the American candidate for theSecretary ••• ?"

"Yes. And 1 1 11 tell you why. This is not a second inspiration of themoment. I have instructed Edgar Hoover to look into your record. He haspresented me with a dossier about your record. And I think you III be the bestmanto be the Secretary-General." I said, "Thank you. Thank you very much."

One week later, Ambassador Cabot Lodge went to JIrj office at the EmpireState Building. And he said, "The Cabinet decided yesterday that weillnominate you"to be Secretary-General." well, 1 said, "Thank you."

•

i

-22- . .

..

"And I have instructions from President Eisenhower to nominate you attomorrow's meeting of the security Council." I said, "Fine."

A joke was among my staff. You know, they're saying about the Lodgesand the Cabots only talk to GOd. When they saw Lodge enter my office, one ofmy assi.stants said, "Now, a Lodge is talking to God".

Well, at any rate, the following day, I was nominated. Vyshinsky, \'Ihows then President, vetoed me. So Cabot Lodge called me up and said, "I'msorry, Generl, but you were vetoed. You can't be Seretary-General." SO Isaid, "Okay, fine. I didn't aspire for it anyway."

Then, two days later, he said, "Pres. Eisenhower instructed me tonominate you again in the next security Council Meeting." So I said,"Well, ..... I told my wife, "Let's pray. Maybe, I will be nominatedSecretary-General. "

That time -heatedly Vyshinsky said, "I have instructions from mygovernment to veto the name of Romulo as often as he is nominated by theUnited States." That finished me.

But then, I was in the Delegates' Lounge and pretty soon, I sawVyshinsky coming to me with his interpreter. So I said, "This is the fellowwho just murdered me." So he extended his hand. We were friends. He said,"General, I'm sorry I had to do it." I said, "That's alright."

Before he left for Russia, he sent my wife 24 red roses and a packageof caviar and vodka. That's how he thought of me personally. And that endedmy career as possible, I was a frustrated secretary-General.

Powell: Would you have liked the job, you think?

Romulo: I would have enjoyed it, yes. I would have liked it very much. Infact, I think that's one of my greatest disappointments. Yes.

Akao: Was there any specific reason why you believe he was instructed to vetoyour nomination?

Romulo: Well, of course, we had always the debates. I was always againstRussia. The first one was in caucus when Molotov questioned my credentials.Secondly, in. the general debate, I always had a ••• for example when the BalkanCommission w~s in Greece, the Russians presented a resolution to abolish it.The night before, Secretar.y of State. Dulles, called a meeting of the delegatesof. toe free world in his suite at the Creon, no, George Sand. And \'IE! deCided

i'

-23-

that .we were going to oppose the resolution and we decided on the orper of thespeakers to oppose the resolution. And, fortunately or unfortunate for me, Iwas chosen to be the first speaker against the Russian Resolution.

So, the following day, when the House was to discuss the resolution, Iwas the first speaker and I gave it all I had. And I noticed that Vyshinskywas on the third row. And as I spoke, he was turning red. Without asking forthe floor, he immediately moved to the podium. I thought he was going to havea stroke. And he said, "Mr. president, that small man from a small nationdared attack the motives of SOciet Russia. He reminds me of that Russiansaying, 'his ambition is worth a ruble but his ammunition is only worth acent. ,,, So I heard that. spaak, who was the President, winked at me. Hesaid, "I'll recognize you." So as soon as Vyshinsky sat down, I stood up andI said, "Mr. President, we just heard the personal ventriolics of thedistinguished Foreign Minister of Soviet Russia. I want to remind him, "Isaid, "that we, the small nations here, are the Davids who are not afraid tofling our pebbles of truth between the eyes of the blustering GOliaths andmake them behave." You know, inthe Assembly, they applauded that. And Isaid, "Mr. President, as to my ambition being worth a ruble and my ammunitiononly worth a cent, may I remind Mr. Vyshinsky that with the present rate ofexchange, the cent is worth more than a rUble."

Well, those were the things that made them hate me.

Powell: And of course, at that time, the cold war ••••

Romulo: One day, in the San Francisco, Molotov said, "the matter with thatdelegate from the Philippines is that he looks at all these internationalquestions wi th eye glasses bought from an American optometrist. 11 So when Ianswered, I said, "For a slight correction, these glasses were bought from aRussian optometrist called Purdisky. That's why I seldom wear them becausethey distort my vision.

Those are the things that they hated.

So, when I was proposed t well of course, they know that we were alliedwith the United States and they wanted a neutral to be the Secretary-General.So, finally, Great Britain suggested Hammarskjold. That was a good choice.Hammarskjold was an excellent Secretary-General. Andr admire him and respecthim and I'm glad that he was chosen because he really, at one time, put theUnited Nations on the right track. He fought the Russians. Be fought the .Russians.

Powell: Did the Russians also oppose your election as President of theGeneral ASS~ly?

Romulo: Who?

-24-

Powell: The Russians?

Romulo: Yes. They ordered all their stooges to vote against me or to abstain.

Powell: To abstain.

Romulo: To abstain. But Yugoslavia refused and voted for me.

Akao: You mentioned that being deprived of the opportunity to becomeSecretary-General was one of the most disappointing aspects of your ••••

Romulo: my career. Yes, yes.

Akao: career. What are some of the other most frustrating moments for you?You've maintained such high idealism throughout and yet, I'm sure you've facedmany ••••

Romulo: Well, no. Every man has his frustrating moments in life. Butanother frustraating moment for me was in the Presidential election in thePhilippines. At that time, President Osmef'ia was a candidate for re-election.I was the Resident Commissioner then. And he called me up and wanted to offerme the Vice-Presidency. BU~ I said, "Well, Mr ~ President, I have a job to dohere. We are fighting for rehabilitation funds for the Philippines. Well, Iappreciate the honor but I would rather stay here." So I refused.

When his rival, Roxas, learned that I refused Osmef'ia to be hisVice-president, he sent two of his friends here, who are my friends, Or. Sisonand Mr. Eloriaga, to ask me to be his Vice-President. And again, I said,"After having turned down Osmef'ia, how can I accept your offer?" So t turneddown both.

Well, it so happened, as they say that if I would have accepted theVice-Presidency of Osmena, the veterans of the war and the youth would havevoted for me. And while osmefia would have been defeated I could have beenelected Vice-President. That's what they say. Then, if I would have acceptedRoxas' invitation and have accepted his Vice-presidency, he died after twoyears in an airplane accident, then I would have been President then of thePhilippines. But I always have a brush with fate, you know. But thefollowing year, t was elected President of the General Assembly. So that'sthe law of compensation.

Powel!:; How would you characterize that session, the 1949 fourth session ofthe General Ass-embly over which you presided; what, in r.etrospect, do you

-25-

think was its most significant accomplishment?

Romulo: Not a significant accomplishment, for me, the most significant eventunder my pr~sidency was the announcement by Vyshinsky that the Russians havebrOken the American nuclear monopoly. That was the second day after myelection. He took the flOor to announce to the world that Russians had brokenthe Amer ican nuclear monopoly. That, I think, was significant.

Akao: How did that influence you?

RomUlo~ Well, I felt that the bipolar world was then in existence, that theworld would be polarized into two sections and I felt that we were leadingtowards a possible war.

Powell: And it was the following year, I believe, that you took an initiativeon the peaceful uses of atomic energy. Is that correct?

Romulo: Yes, yes.

Powell: Where did that occur, in the General Assemably?

ROmulo: In the General Assembly. I announcead it as a statement whiCh,fortunately for me, was followed through by Eisenhower with a statement forthe peace£ul uses of nuclear power. But I felt, after listening to Vyshinsky,that the best thing. was to counter balance that use of the nuclear power bytwo nations to emphasize the peaceful uses of the nuclear power. So I madethat statement. And in the General Assembly - - - I know it wasnot comingfrom me but the own initiative of the American cabinet for Eisenhower tospouse the peaceful uses of atomic power.

Powell: Then we can sort of call you 'the Grandfather of the InternationalAtomic Energy Agency'.

Romulo: Oh no, no, no. I've been called so many names.

At any rate, I felt then, and I still feel now, that having beenChairman of the Experts' Commission on Disarmament and having seen the failureof the Special Assembly on Oisarmament, that I think with this acceleratedarms race, I think that super powers should turn their attention fromarmaments for wars to the nuclear uses for peaceful purposes. So that myoriginal idea, I believe, which is accentuating the positive, should be donenow more than ever. Beacuse as we have found in the Disarmament Commissionebe two nations, the two super powers have really reached the perfection inatomic power and it's a gr~at danger to the world, a great danger to theworld. A little mistake Of one little finger pushing the nuclear button ts

-26-

the end of civilization. And I fear that; I fear that very much.

Powell: Well, we haven't discussed orie area that I think would be of interestandthat is your presideocy of thesecurity Council.

Romulo: Yes.

Powell; You served on two occasions, I believe.

Romulo: Four times.

Powell: Four times, you have.

RomulO: It's a record. I've been president of the Security Council fourtimes.

Powell: And I recall that on the first occasion, the sUbject was theIndia-Pakistan question.

Romulo: Yes, oh yes. Well, I remember that because Krishna Menon spoke for 8hours on thatquestion,the Kashmirquistion. And he was quite an arrogantfellow, a good friend of mine but quite arrogant. And the first time Ipresided over the security Council to take up the Kashmir question, thisfeUow Kr ishna Menon said, "Since our President has just come to this podiumas the President of this Council, I suggest that we adjourn for one week sothat he can study this question of Kashmir." I said, "May I inform thedistinguished delegate from India thatthe President is ready now to discussthis question because I have studied it carefUlly for several months."

Well, we discussed it. Then he took the floor for 8 hours after whichhe fainted. Well, we took him to the room next to the Security Council, gavehim smelling salts. He revived but of course, thatwasa ploy. He was acandidate for parliament in Bombay, and he wanted this. So, they tookpictures of him and all that so when hecame to, I said, "Krishna, you know,you won the Oscar Award?"

"For the bestact iog ," I said.

"Oh, go to hell," he said.

End of Side 3

•

-27-

. Powell: And on the other occasions, what were the subjects that the SecurityCouncil

~omuio: Oh, several, I don't remember now. Several.

Now, recently, the question of Belize and several other questions. Idon't remember now. But we have taken very important questions in theSecurity Council. But I still believe that the veto power should not beabolished but should be diluted.

Akao: In line of what the founding fathers envisaged for the role of theSecu~ity Council, how do you evaluate it as it functions today?

~mUlo: Yes. Well, the functions are as they are in the Charter but, as Isaid, the all-powerful e}tercise of the ve to should be, as I said, diluted, Imean ••••

Akao: How do you suggest it be diluted?

~mulo: Who?

Akao: How?

Romulo: Well as I said, it shouldn't be used except on trivial cases. ItShould be used only for cases that involve peace or war. But I believe thatwill be a hard job. To change the status quo is not easy because, as I havetold the Special Committee, we'll approve maybe all these changes that we wantbut there's still the veto in the Security Council. They'll veto all these.But just the same, I said, we must prepare mankind for what we believe Shouldbe done that may not be done but we should start the ball rolling.

Powell: Now, as President of the Council, did you frequently have informal,behind-the-scene conferences?

Romulo: All the time.

Powell: All the time •

Romulo: All th~ time. Consultations, we call them. Consultations, yes,c.onsul tations.

-28-

Powell: And this is a useful diplomatic device.

Romulo-: Very, ver''i necessary. Not only useful but necessary to get themeeting of minds of the delegates to the security Council before any decisionis made. And I think that's the duty of the President: to get them togetheron every issue that is of importance.

Akao: Did you find it diffieult to maintain neutrality as President?

Romulo: Not difficult because when you are president, you should forget that'you belong to a nation, that you are for the world. And that was easy for mebecause I have always been, I've always had a world viewpoint. And I believethe other Presidents have also the same thing •• I remember the delegate ofTunisia. He's one with the world opinion and several others.

You know, we have a United Nations that is composed of men who, manytimes, forge t the ir ideologies to vote for the world. For example, whenRussia invaded Afghanistan, one month before that, the non-aligned group metin Havana, Cuba. And with Ti~o there and Castro, Tito was voted down. Castrohad the master voice. And the non-aligned group then made commitments alongthe lines of communism. Came the Afghanistan invasion by Russia. When thevote came to condemn Russia, those members of the non-aligned group who madetheir commitments in Havana forgot their commitments and they voteover-whelmingly to condemn Russia. The same thing is true about Kampucheanow. SO they are voting wi th the ASEAN condemning the invasion of Vietnam.

Nowt of course, your media here does not feature those things. TheAmerican people are not conscious of these votes against communism, againstRussia. And that's why American opinion is really against United Nations.Sample is that fellow who said to me, who is a business executive, "Well, whatthe hell is that Peace Medal? What's the use for that? There's no sUChpeace." SO I said to him" "Isn't it peaceful that we are talking together,that you're going to see 'A Chorus Line'?" And then, I added, "that you'restill making profits? Isn't that peace?" I said to him.

Well, I tell you, your mass media here is really biased against theUnited Nations, unfortunately, because the United Nations is an Americancrceation", Just like the Arabs, they want to destroy Israel. Well, Israel isa state created by the United Nations. So I'll favour the Palestiniansprovided they admit that they will tespect the integr i ty of Israel.

Powell: Let me ask youa question. We've been discussing the pUblic image ofthe United Nations

Remulo: Yes,

,...

...29-

Powell; in the United States. NoW, what is the pUblic image of the UnitedNations inthe Philippines or in Southeast Asia?

Romulo: Different, entirely different. or in Africa. It's different. Fromthe developing nations, it's a different perspective.

Akao: Bow do they view it?

Romulo: Eh?

Akao: How do you perceive they •••

Romula: Well, it's a difference in perspective, you know. The Americans,being a powerful nation, who cannot stomach the 'one nation, one vote' cannotfavour the United Nations in that light. But, as I said, there is a world.opinion growing in the United Nations. well, just go to the United Nationsand yousee all the nations there. The world passes you by when you arethere. Now, isn't that already an achievement of the United Nations, that youcan have all the nations of the world together? Now, of course, as I alwayssay, the longest speeches in the general debate are always delivered by thesmallest nations. Why? It's their only chance to be heard by the world.'1'he ir only chance. They haVe no other chance. And they say here, forexample, as I read in the New York Times, that the speeches in the generaldebate are only for home consumption. That's not true. It's true here thatthey only feature in the New York Times and the Washington Post the speechesof Schultz and Gromyko. But in the smaller nations, these speeches deliveredare featured.

End of Side I

Of course, we don't have the means of the mass media that you have here,. Yes.

Akao; What suggestions would you have to improve the image of the UNespecially in the western mass media?

Romulo; Well, that's a difficult problem because, you know, the Americanpress here is really dictated and ruled by the publisher. The reportersfo~lo\i1 what is told· the1n by the copy desk. So they will only write that whiChthey know favours the views; of the pUblisher. Not that they themselves followthat; but they know to keep their bread and butter, they must follow the ideasof the publisher. So it's dif£icult to change that unless there is a changeof heart on the part of the publishers. But the publishers also lOOk forprofits and they know the ~~rican pUblic opinion must be catered to. And the'American. pUblic optnion 1s against the United Nations. So then, it's a'Vtcious circle. If eney want to sell their papersi' well, they must say, "uN

..

•

•

-30-

Go Home".

And in elections, of course, the Jewish vote is very important. Noton.1y the vote but the money, the contributions to the campaign. Now forexample, in this election that's coming next Tuesday. This statement that ifIsrael is excluded from the UN, the US will withdraw its contribution. That'Spart of the electoral campaign to get the Israel vote. So you have tounderstand ---- of course, Fulbright, Senator Fulbright, when he was chairmanof the Foreign Relations Committee, and I think one of themost sensiblesenators who ever had here, said, "Why link American national security withthat of Israel?« well, of course,he cansay that because in his district,there are no Jews. But Moynihan cannot say that here. He cannot say thather~.

(skip) had dinner here with me once, and I said, "DO you knowthat you Chinese discovered America before Columbus?" And the Chairman said,"No, that's not true, General."

"Yes. But you see, your Chinese pioneers came by ship across thePacific Ocean and they climbed over the Rockies and they saw the nakedIndians. So then, they returned to China and they were asked why. 'Well, weonly saw naked Indians. No laundry business there.,n

Powell: Oh, that is very good. There's one otherbe interested to explore, General, andthat is your1947-48, vis-a-vis, the Palestine partition plan.events around that?

area that I think we wouldvery difficult position inCan you recall some of the

Romulo: Yes, well, I was the first to take a stand against that Israel.Because I felt that we had an experience inthe Philippines. A certainCongressman by the name of Bacon, introduced a bill in the United States Houseof Representatives dividing our island and setting aside Mindanao as anothergroup. And we opposed that. Because that was fragmenting our country. So,in the light of thatexperience, I opposed the partition as proposed. that wasin '47. And when I made tha-t speech, the first one against partition, after Igot out of the Assembly on my way to thecar to take the Queen Elizabeth to goto Europe, to Geneva for the Declaration of Human Rights - because we werethen drafting the Declaration of Human Rights, with Mrs. Roosevelt as ourChairman - group of young Jewish - - - they wanted to attack me as I was goingto - - - that was in Flushing Meadows. And when they saw that, they came tome and surrounded me and took me to my car. Well, Prince Faisal, who laterbecame King Faisal, never forgot that.

50 when the energy crisis came up, President Marcos sent me to Riyadhto talk to the King so that we could be included among the friendlycountries. As soon as I arrived, when I arrived at 2 o'clock in the morningf.r;om LOndon, ~he Chie f of Protocol was there to meet me, of Saudi Arabia, andhe said, "His Majesty will see you at ten o'clock this morning." That was 2

•-31-

o·cloCk in the morning. I said. "Fine, we'll be there." So my assistantsaid, "Sir, two o'clock in the ••• ten o'clock ••• we haven't slept yet." Isaid, "That's alr-ight. Let's go."

Ten o'clock, we went. As soon as the King saw me, he made me sit down,he said, "I know why you're here. About the evergycrisis, tell yourpr~siQent not to worry. I'll see to it that you're considered a fr iendlycountry. n

Ten minutes! so, I went back to the hotel, which was called the GreatSahara Palace Itotel; it was neither great nor palace. I saw the ForeignMinister of Japan there. He met me at the lobby. He said, "When did youcome?" I said, "This morning. I just saw the King" He said, "You just sawthe King?" I said, "Yes". He said, "I've been here four days waiting for anaudience."

But that hotel then, they have good hotels now. But I went to my room,the tap was yellow - the water - the bed sheets were yellow. So I told myassistant, "You buy at least 30 bottles of soda water. We'll brush our teeth,wash our faces with soda water." And I went to the john, ah, it wasterrible. So I was glad; we arrived at 2 o'clock in the morning, I saw theKing at 10. I made arrangements so that we could fly the next day.

So the President from the Philippines called me up. No, I called himup to tell him that it was okay. So I said to him, "But please be verycareful, Mr. president." He said, "Why?"

"Oh, this telephone," I said, "is bugged." He said, "What do youmean? Securities ••• 1"

"No, Sir. Two cockroaches just jumped out of this telephone."

Powell~ Well, come back to the partition plan of 1947, of course iteventually went through- and it was rejected by the Arabs.

ROmulo: Yes, yes, yes.

~ Powell; If there had not been a partition, if your initial view had beensustained in the General Assembly,

Romulo~ Yes,

PowelL: do you think that it woul~ materially have changed the history oftn~Mld4le East in the last 10 year~?

-32-

l«:>rnulo: It could have changed that materially. But the Palestine questionwould not have taken the colour that it has taken now. Because I beLievel asI told my ASEAN Foreign Minister colleagues when the refugees from Vietnamwere going out, I said, "Now, let's be careful we don't create anotherPalestine here in our area." Becausewhen you have refugees, homeless, gettingout of their country, they'll be compelled to indulge in terrorism. 50 let'sbe very careful we receive these refugees and make them feel that they are notrelly homeless. So let us' not create another Palestine question here inSootheast Asia.

And so the Philippines created the Refugee Centre in Asia where wehave" I think, now about 30,000 refugees waiting for their final asylum. Andso, tfiat's the worldf' :[ mean, you wouldn't say that a small country like thePhilippines can hold refugees, 30,000, I think now, there are 70,000. But wemust all join in any effort to help the world.

Now, here, they emphasize heman rights, but we have dictatorship andthe American press is always •••• That's a difference in perspective. 50 Itell the American correspondents here, "We fought for the Atlantic Charter.In the Atlantic Charter, we fought for what? Freedom of expression, freedomof worShip, freedom from fear and freedom from want. Well, it's alright foryou here to emphasize tOe first freedom. You are technologically advanced.You are advanced in education, your frigidaires are foIL of goodies. You haveall the best shows in the world. It is alright for you to express the freedom;of expression. But in our countries, in the developing countries, moreimportant to us than freedOm of expression is freedom from want~ Where we'llget ,the next meal, where we'll get medicimes for our children. So thattherefore, there must be a difference in priorities. Your priority here isfreedom of expression. We don't ignore freedom of expression, but thepriority must be freedom from want. You don't know what it is to see yourchild not have medicimes or doctors. You don't know what it is to be hungry.It's alright for you to read editorials here, hear speeches and all that. Butin a developing country, some of them cannot read. Some of them cannotunderstand editorials. Some of them are enthralled by demagogues. So moreimportant than all that, is freedom from want. Give them the food that theyneed. Give them the m:~dicimes that their sick children need. So I say, whileyou emphasize freedom of expression, we must emphasize in our developingcountries freedom from want. That's a difference in priorities.

So, When Mondale went to the Philippines, Vice-president Mondale, andhe was lecturing me on human rights, I said, "You're okay, I agree with youMr. Vice-President. But this morning, I want to take you around Manila." .

"Why?"

"I wa'nt you to see whether there is one home for old men, ladies' home,nursing home and all that. If

•-33-

"Well, what do you mean?"

"Well, to us here, freedom to survive is more important than freedomthat you are speaking about. Because you have a custom and I don't criticizeyou. Your old men, you simd to the old men's home, to old ladies' homes.Here, ~e keep them until they die. There's a difference in perspective." Soagain, I said, "That's quite different. It's alright for your Congressmen tospeak of freedom of expression. That's fine in the States.- I agree with youin the States. But here, you don't see one nursing home, not one old ~adies'

home, not one old man's home, which, by the way, are creating a lot ofscandals in the United States - how they're being administered. OUr parents,we keep them in our homes, take care of them even better than they took careof us. And they die in our homes. We don't send them to old men's homes, oldladies' homes. Well, I'm not criticising your custom. That's you tradition.But at the same time, we have a different tradition here. So when you look athuman rights, you must look at it from different perspectives."

Powell: You were mentioning earlier on, and I'd like to have you speak now,if you will, about some of the towering figures in the UN that you have knownover the years and when you were mentioning human rights, of course, EleanorQoosevelt's name immediately came to mind.

Romulo: Yes, well, I revere the name of Roosevelt. Then, I remember Acheson.

POwell: Dean Acheson.

Romulo: Acheson was one of the best Secretaries of State I've ever dealtwith. So once, they asked me, a newspaper man here, "What's the differencebetween Dulles and Acheson?" 0 saod. "Well, I'll tell you.- Acheson was anarchitect. Dulles was a carpenter. That's the difference between the two."

Powell: Are you thinking of the Uniting for Peace plan?

Romulo: Once, he spoke in the POlitical Committee, in answer to a tirade byVyshinsky for one hour. I saw Acheson taking down notes. Then, he tooK thefloor. He just murdered Vyshinsky. He replied. The first time in thePolitical Committee, that excepting the stooges of Russia, everybody stood upto give him an ovation.

tIe was very able, that fellOW. Bu t he had one de feet. He had contempt.. for the POliticians, for- the Congressmen and they reciprocated it you see ­

but he was a good Secretary of State.

Powell, Now, Anthony Eden was at San Francisco.

•

..-34-

RomuI~: He did participate but he was there for a while and then left.

Powell: But you didn't get to know him.

ROmulo: No, no. I didn't get to know him. I got to know Bidault of France.Bidault of France, then the one from Italy~

Powell: And We11ington Koo was there.

Romulo: Oh yes. But he was only an adviser. D.V. Soong was the PrimeMinister. So, when they say, for example, that I am the only survivingsignatory to the United Nations, that's true. Because there were others whowere there but they were advisers. I was the only Chairman who is surviving.Now Molotov is also surviving but he's a "none person", he's being somewhere.Nobody knows where he is now, Molotov. But he was arrogant in those days,very ar rogant.

Powell.: Did you know Gromyko there?

Romulo: He was one of the assistants there also. Yes, I knew Alger Hiss.

Powell: Oh yes.

Romulo: But he was only an ASsistant Secretary. He didn't play an importantrole in the ••••

Powell: This is something I think is very important to get down because hehad the ti tIe of the Secretary-General of the Conference.

Romulo: No, no, not Secretary-General.he didn't play any important part there.married to a daughter of the head of thePhil;.ipp1nes, Funsler. That's how I onlyno important part at all. (Editors note:Secretary-General)

He was ASsistant Secretary ••• no,no,I only knew him because he is

English department in theknew him. But in the ••• he playedHiss' title actually was

POwell:c I think it's v-ery important to emphasize that.

!Kao: At San Francisco, what sort of social activities took place outside th~

actu.al wOrk of Qrafting the Charter?

-35-

~'tlIulo; Oh bOy, that's another good thing, yes. The Russians gave the most~avish rec~ption there. They had it in a glittering room of the St. FrancisHotel. They had in the centre, the Russian flag in caviar. The sides and thesickle in red and white caviar. Then, they had two orchestras. It was aLaviSh reception the Russians did.

Then,. the Americans had a very modest reception. I mean, SanFrancisco, the host city, gave a very nodest reception. But the most lavishreception was by the Russians. Others gave individual receptions.

Akao; Were the srnallel:" nations included in all of these receptions'?

Romulo; Oh, yes. Yes.

Akao: Everyone was.

Romulo; Yes, yes. yes, yes. Because everybody was trying to woo the smallnations at that time.

Akao; What sort of relations· developed among the smaller nations? Did anysort of coalition ••••

Romulo; They became very friendly, very friendly. With the Latin Americans,t was very fr iendly. That was the mer i t of Nelson Rocke feller. He was closeto the Latin American countries. He spoke Spanish fluently. So he always gotthe Latin Amertcan vote. See, yes. Nelson Rockefeller was, in Spanish,called simpatico. He was an old friend of mine so he came to me about thesite~ So in a reacep~ion that he gave here about five years ago, inPocantico, I related how we owed it to him that we have the United Nationshere in New York as against San Francisco.

Powell: Following on to the question about the soCial life in San Francisco,have you found the inumerable receptions and cocktail parties and buffets thatgo On every year here, are they useful to you in the process of diplomaticnegotia tions?

Romulo~Well, that's another thing that is misrepresented here. To beginwith, it makes the New Yorl<- City ••• it makes money for the people of New YQrkCity. Secondly, the- smaller the nation, the more lavish the party. Why? Thesmaller nation wants to impress, wants to impress the other nations. It'svery important, these receptions, because there we get to know each other. tnthe Assembl-Y, it's difficult to get to know each other very well. We go fromthese dinnerswhere we ge"t to know each other better than otherwise. So theSeare very impot-tant part. Well, from my point of view, I hate them. Because

-36-

I' a ra"ther be in my pyjamas in lny room watching the TV or reading than goingto these. But that's part and parcel of the duty of a delegate to know theothers better. So when you want their vote, you can get their vote. Manydeals are made in those dinners.

Now, another thing· is the smaller nations, when you don't go to theirreceptions, they resent it because they way you are ignoring them. So it's:i.mportan·t that you appear there because otherwise, they say ,"He's too big forour reception." And that's where sometimes, the Americans make a mistake.But Russia always goes to those receptions. The Chinese always go to thosereceptions. But the Americans, they are too busy. And you know, you can'texpecat Mrs. Kirkpatrick to go to all these because she has to go toWashington many ttmes. But the smaller nations say, "see, we're being ignoredby the Americans. Welre not important enough." Now, the Chinese, forexample, they invite the delegations by groups. Our ASEAN group of Thailand,Malaysia, Philippines, Jakarta, and Bangkok, they give us a dinner. So we

. enjoy' their Peking Duck and all that and that's where indirectly, they beginto •••• Also Russia gives all these parties. Now, the newspapermen make funof these receptions. Well, they don't realize the good that these rec~eptions,

that we get from these receptions, and which the New Yorker makes money out ofthem.

I read a story the other day in the New York Times making fun Of thesereceptions. They said that the Philippines had 200. That's not true. Thatwas not in connexion with the United Nations. That was in connexion to thevisit of President Marcos. He had his security guards; but they were notdelegates to the United Nations. But in the story on the parties of theUnited Nations, they included that. Even the Philippines had 200. That's nottrue: My delegation here is composed of what - five (End of Side 4) And Ihave this office, we have the centre here, we have here, theConsulate-General, the Mission of the UN, the Philippine Airlines, theNational Bank, so they're all grouped in this centre.

Akao: To what extent do you think it is possible to cover· all the work of theUN as you would like to with five delegates?

Romulo: Well, to begin with, the fare of these five delegates is paid by theUnited Nations. We give them their living expenses. They get a per diem ofmaybe $90 a day which is not enough for the hotels here. Now, can you imaginewhat I pay the Waldorf, which comes from my own money, not from thegovernment. Because the government of all these delegations allots in thebudget so mucb, you can't go beyond that.

Now, one day, when Seychelles was just admitted, they gave a lavishparty in the UN. Oh, the t.ables were groaning with the •.•• So one of thedelegate said to me "Say,. the Whole year's budget of Seychelles is in thisparty." That's true perhaps because Seychelles wanted to make an impression.Because they "are so unimportant, so ignored that they wanted •••• That's theone chance they have to ma.ke an impression with the other delegataes. Well, abig country like America (ipesn't need that. And the American writer, seeing­that,..- begins to make fun of that.

•

-c

-37-

So, I said to this American correspondent who was in Manila, "It'salright for you to have your own views, your own perspectives. But changethose perspectives when you deal with other countries. Don't apply to othercountr les your standards in Arner ica. You can't do that. Your standards aboutfreedom of expression, you cannot apply that to the small countries.

Powell; Well, General, I think we have used our alloted time and it's been aunique opportunity to talk to you this way.

Romulo~ Well, that's nice.

Powell: And you have given us a great deal of valuable material for theArchives of the United Nations.

Romulo~ I hope so.

Akao: Thank you very much.

End of Published Transcript

Romulo: I hope so, yes. Because maybe, 5 years from today, or 10 year,s fromtoday, I'll be gone.

Akao: I hope it's 10 at least.

Romulo: All these things that I know will be gone, too. That's why theBranders University had this documentary because one day, a millionaire here,a Jewish millionaire, saw a play with President Grant as the hero. But he wasbeing impersonated by an actor. So he thought "Why don't we get these leadingmen now, have a documentary about them so they don't have to be impersonatedwhen they're gone." So he gave them a grant of $20 million at the BrandersUniversity.

So they began to get, I think somebody in England, Mendez-F~ance, inFrance, Eisenhower he~e, and myself from Asia and I don '~t know if theyfinished the documentary. But they paid $25,000 with free expenses, liVingexpen~es. They put me in a house there where I had my help and all that forone week. Well, you know how rich the Jews are. You can't do that with theUN or the Americans will withdraw their contribution.

Powell: Very true, very true.

-3B-

Remulo: But now, let's settle.

I would want this documentary released only when I am dead. And youcan release parts of it now with my permission so that there'll be nomisunderstanding about this. Although everything I said, I'm afraid tor~veal, but just the same, there must be some portions that may hurt certainpeople and that's why that provides only when the one speaking in thedocumentary is dead, when these things can be revealed.

Powellt Yes, sir.

Romulo~ But I think the Uni~ed Nations is so much misunderstood here. Theyonly know here the failures of the Uni ted Nations and the question of theMiddle east. And the United Nations is not all Middle East.

~he other day, this is another point that I want to tell you. There isa prisoner in South Africa who has been there I think, 47 years. And he wasgoing to be executed. The United Nations approved a resolution asking theUnited States --- the South African Government to reprieve him. The wholeUnLte(i Nations voted except the United States. Now, that's human right. Andthe United States voted against it. Why? Beacause now, they're courtingSout.h Africa. For what? First, the strategic position of South Africa; theydonft want that to get into Russian hands. Secondly, the Chase Manhattan Bankis in Pretoria. It is in violation of the resolution of the United Nations isimposing economic sanctions on South Africa. So these are things that do notescape us there in the United Nations. And while I'm very friendly and aloyal ally to the United States~ I cannot gloss over these things. So, thereyou are,.

Well, I think I have a lunch wi th •••

Powell: You have a lunch with Mr. Akashi.

Romulo: Akashi, yes.

End of Side 1

End of Roll 4, set B

United Nations Oral History Project

General Carlos P. Romulo 17 November 1982

ST/DPIORALHISTOR't(02)/R65Eng.

---~~- --ff-~~~....leop.3 -1f, v JVt

.- ...._.________ ~ -~-~-_._--"',I

UN INTERVIEWGeneral Carlos P. Romulo

Interviewer: William Powell

Table o£ Contents

ATIO

aAR

America Liaison (Philippine Delegation)Announcement of Soviet Nuclear PowerArticle 76Balkan CommissionBattlegrounds for Two IdeologiesChairman Rotation-Charter (writing of UN)

Conference at San FranciscoEvolving ProcessProvisions for ReviewSpecial Committee for ReviewStipulations to Avoid Failure

Commander Harold StassenCritical Issues at San Francisco ~

Dumbarton Oaks ConferenceEconomic and Social CouncilInternational Court of JusticeIntervention in KoreaManila DeclarationMedia ExpectationsPeacekeeping OrganizationPresident of General AssemblyPresident of Security CouncilRegional Organizations-ASEANRockefeller, NelsonSecretary Edward StettiniusSite of ConferenceSpecialized AgenciesState of IsraelUN ForceUN PresenceUniting for PeaceVeto Power

3182121193,11

120712,132352615895,161417196.1011101418159138

j

Powell: Good morning, Gen. Romulo.

Romulo: Good morning.

Powel I: During our previous interview, we talked about many aspects

of your involvement in the United Nations. Today we would

I ike to focus on some of the issues that we were not able to cover

in depth, starting if we may, with your participation in the UN Charter

Conference in San Francisco in 1945. General, when you arrived in

San Francisco, did you have the feellnq that the superpowers had cal led

the Conference together merely to ratify the proposals and decisions

which had been taken at Dumbarton Oaks and Yalta, or did you feel that

they were genuinely interested in seeking the views of the smaller

nations as to how the draft proposals could be revised and improved?

Romulo: Well, I bel ieve that the superpowers really wanted to have an

organization, a world organization, that would help to organize peace

and world security. do think they had the idea of making of us, the smal I

countries, robots that wil I only approve whatever they have decided. In

fact, the Dumbarton Oaks meetings were only preliminary to establish the

groundwork for what they bel ieved would be the United Nations organization.

Now, In the Dumbarton Oaks there were scholars who were there and I believe

they knew In depth the reasons for the failure of the League of Nations

and they wanted to avoid such gaps as caused the failure of the League of

Nations. They were scholars and they were well-versed in what the

government of the United States wanted to organize -- that was an organization

of nations that could come together and think of havinq peace established

after the Worl d War.

Powell: You mentioned the Leaque of Nations, sir" during the course of

the San Francisco meetinqs, were the precedents, the procedures,

the experience of the Leaque of Nations taken into account in draftinq the

Charter?

II •••

..

Romulo: In some phases of the Charter, yes. Ah, in many instances the

we rds of Woodrow Wi Ison •• • words of Woodrow Wi Ison were taken

into consideration and the failure of the ••• the fai lure of his efforts

to make the United States join the League of Nations were considered quite

in-depth.

Powell: As you were saying, General, about Woodrow Wilson and the League

of Nations, this was very much on your mind and on the minds of

the other delegations in San Francisco.

Romulo: Yes. All of us wanted to avoid the steps that caused the fai lure

of the League of Nations. Now what we envisioned in San Francisco

was an organization that would be universal. That was one of the out­

standing characteristics that we wanted for the new organization to have,

universal ity, and that was very well placed In the Charter, the

universality of the organization.

Powel I: You mentioned- earl ier the pumbarton Oaks Conversations in which

you participated, hence you came of the Conference relatively

well-prepared and you had a close liaison with the US State Department.

Did you feel that some of the smaller countries came less well-prepared?

Romulo: First of al I, I must correct. I did not participate in the

Dumbarton Oaks Conference. was only an observer; I was there

under sufferance because I had no business being there, but I was allowed

to observe and listen. I never said a word; So let us not make that

mistake. did not participate in the Dumbarton Oaks. I was there as a

by-stander, that is the correct word, as an on-looker, a by-stander.

Now, I was interested in how the State Department was going to organize

a world organization that would give the small nations the participation

that I wanted the smal I nations to have. You see at that time we had

the Asians voiceless. In several conferences before the orqanization of

the United Nations, the Asians had no participation and so my interest was

to listen and see what the intention was of the organizers of the world'..

I

e' •••

organization reqarding the role of the smal I nations and I found that

they had that in mind, that the small nations had to participate. In

fact, when I was appointed Chairman of the Philippine deleqation by the

President of the Philippines, the following day I went to see Secretary

Stettinius in the State Department•. I was fortunate to have been his

friend for some time. So told him that I had been appointed and that

I wanted him to know that was qoinq to be In San Francisco, but that

at the same time I wanted him also to tel I me whether or not a small

country like the Phil ippines would be outside the United Nations

organization during the Conference or that I would be in. And he said,

"How would you remedy that?" So , said, "Well, how about appointing a

member of the American delegation as your I iaison officer with the

Philippine delegation?" He said, "We will do that." And that was done.

Powell: Was that Commander Stassen?

Romulo: No. It was somebody ••• I don't remember his name now. ~b,

Commander was a member of the American delegation and he was

the representative of the American delegation in the Trusteeship Council,

or the Trusteeship Committee. There was no Oounci I yet.

Powel I: Tell me, at the beqinninq of the San Francisco Conference, what

was the atmosphere" ike; was it cordial, co-operative, or was

It strained?

Romulo: It was cordial, except when ~40lotov, at the first caucus of the

Chief deleqates, proposed that there be five rotating chairmen

of the Conference ~-Edltor's Note: r40lotov actually proposed there be

four~7 and not as had been the international practice, (that) the

Chairman of the host delegation should be the chairman of the entire

Conference. He opposed that, as I said to you last time, and he won.

So there were five rotating chainmen.

.: ...

Romulo: It does.

Powel I: I thought it was in (the section on) Trusteeship system.

Pomul~: Well yes, because that was the important thing. But we did

not fight in the other one.

Powel I: Oh, I see.

Romulo: Because we thouoht that was needed in the non-self-governing

peoples (section); "independence" was the key~word and we won

there.

PoweLL: Now, you have mentioned the Trusteeship system and you have

mentioned the veto. Were there other crucial issues debated at

the Conference?

Romulo: I think there were. I think there were, but those were the

crucial issues. Yes, I do not remember now. If I think further,

I can remember some.

Powel I: We may come back to that then. Did you ever anticipate that

the Conference might end in failure~

Romulo: No, although the Chicago Tribune practically every day wrote

articles foreseeing the failure of the United Nations. The

Chicaqo Tribune cal led the United Nations the tower of Babel and it said

that these fighting nations wII I not be able to sign the Charter because

they are a tower of Babel. The ChicaQo Tribune cal led us the tower of

Babel. But after three months, we signed the Charter.

Powel I: Yes. Now, I recal I that the Phil ippine delegation was active

concerning the Charter provisions for the Economic and Social

Council. Why did you favour regional representation in the Council?

I......

Romulo: \~ell, to begin with, from the very beginntng,we believed

that regional organizations would help make the United Nations

more effective. And so there is a provIsion in the Charter which appl ies

and appncrves regional orqanizations. For example now, if we did not have

regional organizations in the United Nations, we would not be able to

approve many of the questions that are submitted to the United Nations.

Take our group, the ASEAN group, for example. Five nations together, we

vote always as one, after we discuss the problem. The latin American

group also votes as one. Compare the United Nations to a crossword

puzzle. \'then you have these puzzles together, it ;s easier to put them

together instead of putting them separately one by one. So that is the

advantage of having these regional organizations.

powel L: Now, as a fol low-up to this matter of the Economic and Social

Cou nc ii, has it lived up to you r expectat ion" ~·1a ny peop Ie have

criticized it as being swamped with paper and dupl icating the work of

the second and third committees of the Assembly.

Romulo: That is a misunderstanding of the work of the United Nations.

The Americans always think that there is too much documentation,

too much paper work. Well, without that paper work, we would not be

intell igent enough or reasonable enough to know what is happening. Because

there are so many questions in the United Nations. And we need paper work

to study them. Without that paper work, we wil I be voting ignorantly of

the.questions involved. Now for example, they say -- and your peper

always say that -- that this General Debate Is useless, it is only for

home consumption. Wei I, they say that because the New York Times

always pUbl ishes only the speeches of the Secretary of the State of the.

United States and of the Foreign Minister of the Soviet Russia in full. They

ignore the speeches of the smal I nations. But it is not true this is only

for home consumption. It is only now wOrth the United Nations that the

sma I I nations can lift their heads above the water and talk to the world.

That was not possible before. Before, if was only Great Briatin, Germany,

France, United States, Soviet Russia who could speak to the world. Now

the smaH nations nave this forum where they can air their grievances,

., ...

,~

"..~,.

.,;.

speak of their ideals and aspirations, which was unknown before. And

so, first, documentation is necessary to make us more knowledgeable

about what is happening in the United Nations. Secondly, the United

Nat Ions is now the on Iy forum. Where can you find a forum anywhere in

the wor Id of 157 nati ons together? \"'hen the oenera I debate happens and

al I the foreign ministers are there, 157 foreion ministers from eve~1

corner of tne qlobe speak to the world and they tell their qrievances,

their ambitions. Well of course, the New York Times and the other

. American papers are not Interested in what these smal I nations say. But

what they say is publ ished in the small papers allover the world, you

see, and that is quite the difference. The Americans think that they

are only the ones who must be heard. Well of course, they are entitled

to that; they are a superpower. But if we have universal ity in the

United Nations and we have small nations there, these sma I I nations are

also entitled to be heard.*ATIONS

Powell: Now, one of the final paragraphs in the Charter, I think,

General, has a provision for a periodic review of the Charter

and, as we all know, no formal Charter Review Conference has ever been

called because of the opposition of the superpowers.

Romu 10: J was one of those.

Powell: Did the superpowers oppose the Charter review provision at

San Francisco or hadn't they looked far enough down the road?

Romulo: Well, there has been initial opposition to that article in the

Charter which about ten of us insisted that it should be there;

that is ten years after signing the Charter there should be a qeneral

conference in order to find out what chanoes or suggestions can be made

.in accordance with the circumstances of the day to improve the Charter.

Well, the United Nations superpowers have always opposeo the holding of

the Conference. So that article in the !Jnited Nations Ch~rter is a.deadletter. The superpowers are a~ainst. And they say, "\~hat is the use

* Technical Interruption

."

of openinq Pandora's box?tI Well, I said, "Pandora's box is ful I of holes

anyway~" And I remember Fore iqn r.H ni ster Gromyko came to me one day

and he sa id, "Genera I, you are one of the fathers of the Charter and you

want to kil I the baby." said, "No, what we want is to give the baby

more vitami ns so it wi II be stronger and I Ive longer~" But that is theI r

opposition to the conference. They do not want to have any conference

that may endanger their veto power because they know, there is a feeling,

overwhelminq feeling in the United Nations that that veto power must

be changed. I personally am not in favour of abolishing the veto power,

. but I be I Ieve Itshou Id be d II uted in the sense that it cannot be used

for trivial cases; that the veto power should only be used when the

question involves peace or war. But as you know, Soviet Russia exercises

the veto power more than two hundred times, for some of them, very trivial

cases.

For example, how did we qet the United Nations intervention In

Korea without the veto of Soviet Russians? Wei I, that is a very good

story. You know the strategy of the Communists, as it, was the strate~y

of the Japanese during the war, was always to attack on a Saturday

because they know that the Christian world is paralyzed on Sunday. Well,

that happened in the case of Korea. So when Secretary -- I do not know

whether this was Acheson or Dulles -- cal led me up and said, "We do not

want America to be branded as a warmonger or as an aggressor but we

believe that there sho~ld be intervention in Korea, and if we intervene

alone, we wi 1\ be branded as a war aggressor." So I said to him, "Wel',

let us have the United Nations intervene there." "But," he said, "it is

impossible; the Russians will veto it." So I said, "It is Saturday today;

tomorrow we can have a meeti ng of the Security Counei I." "Yes, we tri ed

that. We cannot locate Tryve lie, we do not know where he is." I said,

"1 know where he is. He is with Barnard Baruch. They are hunting in

some place. And if you send an American plane, military plane, pick

them up, and we can meet on Sunday." So they dId that. They found Tryve

Lie with Baruch. The meetino was Sunday; the Russians were not there.

The I~tervention in Korea was decided. The United Nations took up the•

fi~bt instead of America alone takinq up the fight and there was no veto.

• •• e,.

The Russians were not there. And that is how Korean intervention took

place. Now, I ask you, since Truman was a ~resident who was always

deciding cases on the basis of Is it moral, is it right -- if it is

moral and right, we do it. Well, that was moral and rlqhteou5 inter­

vention in Korea. So he would have decided America to intervene there.

But if America atone would have done it without using the cover of

the United Nations, well the world would have said America is an aqgressor,

a Warmonqer. And that is one of the uses that the Un ited ~Jat ions has

made that is ignored by the Americans.

Pow~: Right. let us come back for a moment to this Question of the

Charter review. Recently, I think only yesterday, the Assembly

adopted the r~anila Declaration on the reaceful settlement of disputes.

What Is the signifcance of this Declaration and this development, General,

in your view?UN

Romulo: You see now, before ~he r·1anila Declaration, the adversaries

had a cease-fire. In the interregnum of the cease-fire, nothinq

is done by the United Nations. Now this Manila Declaration provides that

there be a continuous discussion between the adversaries In order to

come to a conclusion that may mean peace, and that is the importance of

the Manila Declaration. There is no such provision In the Charter. So

it Is not only the cease-fire which is a cooling-off period, but a cease­

fire cool ing-off that is useful, because the adversaries mus~ continue

to talk and negotiate.

Powel I: So in a sense, this is an extension of the Charter.

Romulo: It is a question of an extension of the Charter. Another extension

of the Charter that is iqnored is what Secretary General Hammarskjold inventE

when he invented what is known as the United Nations presence, which has

been very eff€ctive. That is not in the Charter, that is not in the

Security Council decision, but the Secretary-General took the lnitiative•

of inventing that word "United Nations presence" and it has been very

effective in many cases.

. ....•

,.

Powel I: Now, looking back over 37 years to San Francisco, General, who

was the leading personality or who were the leading personal ities

at the Conference?

Romulo: Oh, there were several of them. Ezequiel Padll la, the Foreinn

Minister of t4exico, took a very important role there. From

behind, not a member in the delegation, but a very active force was

Nelson Rocketeller. He was then the Assistant Secretary for Latin American

affairs, but he had such friendly relations with the Latin Americans that

every time their vote was needed, Nelson was there lobbyinq, one by one.

Take for example, the site of the United Nations. I was for San Francisco.

I felt that the future drama of the world would be in the Pacific. So

felt that San Francisco was the ideal site of the United Nations. So

when I read the other day a co IUl"ln wh ich sa id, "UN C-.o Hornell, we II, it was

the insistence of the Americans that we have the United Nations in New

York. Nelson Rockefeller came to me 4 o'clock one afternoon in my hotel

and said, "Now, General, you and other small nations are fiqhtlnq for San

Francisco. \>/e have no objection (to) San Francisco, but we would like to

have it in New York. am flying tonight," he said, lito Now York to

convince my brothers to donate 2 or 20 mil I ion dol lars -- , do not remember

and our real estate there .50 that it wil I be in (New York). I called up

r-1ayor Rolf*, the Mayor of San Francisco. I said, llMayor, Nelson Rockefeller

is with me. He is offerinq New York to be the site. He is qoing to flv

now to New York to convl nce his brothers to donate so mUCh, II I do not

re.'Tlember now, "and their real estate. Can you top that?" And Mayor Rolf*

said, "Well, I am afraid we cannot top that. Of course, I wil' consult my

Counci I tomorrow, but I am afraid we cannot top that." So I said, "Your

honour, if you cannot top that, I wll J give My word now to Nelson

RockefeJ lei that I wi II chanqe My position and vote for New Yorl<." So

~'ayor Rolf* said, "That is your decision. \~ell, tomorrO\y morninq, let me

. ....

\

know if your board can top the offer of New York. In which case, if

you can top the offer, I wi I' st I I I be for New York." The fo I low i ng

day, he told me, "No, the board cannot offer that." So that is how

New York became the site of (the United Nations). It was American

insistence that it should be in New York.

Powell: . Speaking of personalities at San Francisco, was Secretary

Stettiniu5 quite active;

Romulo: Yes, he was active, but you see when they emasculated his

position as chairman of that Conference, he was one of the

five, instead of bein~ the only one, as was the international practice

that in any international conference, the chairman of the host deleqation

should be the chairman of the entire conference. Wei I, ~~Iotov opposed

that. So then, there were five chairmen, and every day, there was a

different chairman. So the power of that office of Stettinius which

could have been very influential, was emasculated by Molotov.

Powel I: Was Anthony Eden active?

Romulo: Not very. He was present a few days and then left.*

Powell: Just before we had to break for the fi 1m change, General, I

believe you were saying that Anthony Eden, the leader of the

British deleqatlon did not playa particularly active role In the

Conference. He was only there a short time •••

Romul~: ~~ell, openly in the Conference, on the floor, he did not

participate very actively. ~bw, behind the scenes I do not know.

powel I: It was more Lord Cranborne?

* Technical interruption.

.." ~'.-.

Romulo: Well, yes and others too of the British delegation. But

Anthony Eden was not very active, on the floor anyway.

Powe I I: \'/e have discussed ear I ier the 14an i I a Dec Iarati on and the

question of Charter review and revision. Where do we qo from

here, in your view?

Romulo: \~ell, there is a special committee in the United Nations which

is for the stren!=]theninq of the role of the United Nations and

that committee meets every year. In fact, originally, the superrowers

were against the organization of that committee. So that now, every year

it has to be reorganized. It has to have a new mandate eve~1 year; but

because of the overwhelmtng majority in favour, we always, for the last

five years (have) been able to have that committee continue. The work

continues and as I said in my statement on the floor the other day, the

tJlanila DeclaratIon Is only a beginning. It is not the arrival. \'/here

we are going, it will depend on the United Nations Organization. But

there are changes that we would like to make and changes that are

fundamenta I. First of a I 1, when \"e signed the Charter, none of us knew

anything about the atom bomb. don't think even Stettlnlus knew anythinq

about the atom bomb. After we signed the Charter, then the atom bomb was

exploded. WeI I, it is a pre-atomic Charter, and world has changed since

the atom bomb was exploded. It is a new world. Now, we were fifty-four

nations who stgned the Charter. There are now 157 nations in the United

Nations. Should we not give a chance to the balance between 54 and 157

to have their views expressed on the Charter~ For them to tell us what

they think of the Charter? Why should we forbid them or prevent them

from making their views heard on the Charter"

Powel I: You have anticipated my very next question, General. I was

go ing to say how \vOu I d you eva I uate the Cha rter in the 1i ght

ot the vast changes which have taken place since 1945. If at San

Fran~isco you could hve foreseen the ~rowth in membership, the threat

of the nuclear bomb, just to take two examples, how would you have drafted

the Charter diff~rently:

. . ..

RDmulo: The Special Oommittee is now studying the changes that should

be made in the Charter. We have to be very careful. We do

not want to say that we want to "revise" the Charter, because that wil I

panic the superpowers. So what we say is we are qoinq to "re-sTudy"

the Charter, and in re-studying the Charter make such suqgestions as

are necessary to make the Charter more in keepinq with the present

times. Now, how far we can succeed, we do not know. Because the danqer

is, we may make. the chanqes that we want, then the Security Council wi I I

veto it. $0 it is a dead end. Now, we hope, however, that the world

opinion wil I be such that the changes we suqqest wil I be supported by world

opinion.

Powel I: Two minutes ago, you were mentioning a fanner US Secretary of

State, Dean Acheson, and I be Iieve that in the autumn of 1950,

it was the UN initiative or the Acheson initiative to introduce the

"Uniting for Peace" resolution and that in a sense is an extension of

the Charter. Do you think that that was a healthy development and how

Romulo: Very healthy. Very healthy.

Powell: How is it • • .B R A Rkjold

Romulo: That was the "Unitfng for Peace" resolution presented by

Acheson. (It) is one of the best Improvements of the Charter

wi thout hav i ng to amend the Charter. Now, I remember, in the Po Ii ti ca~

Committee, Foreign Minister Vyshinsky of Soviet Russia attacked that

proposal for more than one hour. Acheson, I saw he was taktnq down

notes. Immediately afTer Vyshfnsky sat down, Acheson repl ied for anotner

hour. He did it so wei I that for the first time in the Political Committee

the members -- not the members of the Soviet orbit, but all the other

members -- stood up to give Acheson a rousing ovation. And that was why

the "Uniting for Peace" resolution was approved and now it is an imporTant

part?f the United Nations Organization. And that is what made Acheson

win rr{y respect and my adm i rat ion. 'n fact, I be I i eve he is one of the

..

best Secretaries of State America had ever had. And once they aSked

me how do I compare John Foster Dulles, who was my friend, with

Acheson. And I said, '~Yel I, it is simple. Acheson was an architect.

Dulles was a carpenter." That is the difference between one and thp.

other.

Powell: General, what has been your qreatest disappointment about the

UN?

Romulo: Wei I, you see, there are two United Nations: the United

Nations of the specialized agencies, which has been successful;

the United Nations of the UNESCO, the ILO, the UNICEF, the Food and

Aqriculture and al I these special ized agencies which have really been

constructive in their work. That is the one United Nat.ions. The other

United Nations is for its peace-keeping operations that so far is not

as successful as I would I ike it to be, and that is why we want changes

in the Charter. __-

Powel I: take it then that you would think that the economic and

social humanitarian work is the United Nations qreatest

achievement today.

Romulo: Yes, ves; it is, it is. But I bel ieve,thouqh, that if we are---' .

qiven the chance, we can so improve the Charter that wil I make

the United Nations an effective world organization for peace.

Powell: You were mentioning peace-keeping a minute ago. I think that

this is an area where the United Nations has been innovative;

there Is no provision as far as I am aware of peace-keeping forces

envisaged in the Charter as they have evolved.

Romulo: Well, , want to tell you ·this. The peace-keeping operations

have not been as effective as they (could) have been. \'fhy:

That fs another chanqe in the Charter that we would I ike to make. First,

. ...

-.

i f each Member State rea I Iy wants peace, each Member State must be

ready to have a number of Its troops be toqether with others to

compose the United Nations force. It we have any such organization

a United Nations force composed of the elements of the army of each

n~t ion -- then at a CJ iven moment, we have power to enforce au I'" dec is Ions,~

As It Is now we approve piles of resolutions and we have no power to

enforce them, thus far. Second, we have an International Court af Justice

that, according to the Charter, is only voluntary; that is, the nations

are only al lowed voluntary decisions whether they want to be under that

International COurt of Justice or not~ Now if that is compulsory, then

we have a court to decide these cases. Now, jf one nation in a

controversy between another nation does not want to qo to the Court,

that question does not qo to the COurt. It must be voluntary now, but

the Chorter should make it compulsory, so that whenever there are two

nations tn controversy, they should submit their question before the

International COurt of Justice and let the International Court of Justice

decide. And if we have a United Nations force, then the United Nations

can enforce its resolutions.

• ••Powel I: I take it that you are as firm a supporter of the United Nations

today as you were 37 years aqo at San Francisco.

Romulo: ~bre so today than in San Francisco.

Powel I: More so.

Romulo: Because I believe without the United Nations we will always

have a world, as Secretary General de Cuella,r said the other,

day, on the road to anarchy. As I told you, when wil I you have 157 nations

together under one buildinq, under one roof? You have the world theret

Of course, some powerful nations do not I Ike that. They cannot see 157

nat ions toqether. ',~hen they th i nk that they are 5UperpO\'/ers and that,.

the\< have the power, these 157 nat :ons or over 150 nat ions are not worth"

much. But let me tel I you one thinq. The United Nations has created a

• .·,IIt··

..

world opinion. Now tet I me, without that world opinion, can CUba

survive for one minute? Cuba has been a bone in the throat of the

United States. Fidel Castro always, In vitriol ics, attacks the United

States every day. With America's atom bomb, how long do you think

Cuba can stand? In ten minutes. But America dares not do that,

because there Is now a world opinion that America must reckon with.

That is the United Nations.*

~owel I: A few minutes ago, General, you were remarking on world opinion.

Do you think that in a sense, the United Nations has been the

victim of unreal expectations by the people of the world regarding what

it miqht have accompl ished?

Romulo: No. You used the wron~ word. The world did not have unreal

expectations. The world bel ieves that there must be peace. That

is not an unreal expectation. But at the same time, the United Nations

has been the victim of misrepresentation, of distortions. The United

Nations hllS been presented in a counterfeit imaqe to a great section of

the worl d. Now, that must be corrected. That can be corrected by fl rst,

political wll I. The political leaders of the world must see to It

that the United Nations is placed in the light in the eyes of the world

where it should be in. Secondly, that the United Nations, which at tiMes

is also to blame, must so comport itself not to ruin the respect of

the world. Now this second part, say, when we present childish resotut·i'ons

and approve them knowing that those resolutions cannot be enforced, that

does not win the respect of the world. Or when we behave in such a way

here In the United Nations that will justify the Chicago Tribun~'s slogan

that we are a Tower of Babel, now, those things must be avoided. We

must discuss questions here soberly, intelligently, without histeria,

without vitriol ics and think not so much only of our national interest

but world interest as a whole. We must also think that we owe the world

a duty. And that Is in our actions in the United Nations. 'tIe r'!ust shO\,>,

the world that we are responsible, that we are mature, that we are not

* Technical Interruption. .'.~' ...

children or> as the Chicago Tribune said, that we are not in a Tower

of Babel. That is important for us to remember.

Now, we must also remember that the world has changed. It

is no longer the world of 1950. There is a new world now. Which

reminds me of the day \'Ihen I was President of the General Assembly> the

first time a small nation became the President of the General Assembly.

And ~1ayor ot[)..{yer invited us with President Truman present to Gracie

Mansion. As we entered there were two flag poles> one for the United

Nations flaa and another for the American flaq. And the loudspeaker

announced that the United Nations flag wi I I be hoisted by the President

of the General Assembly who Is from the Phil ippines and the other flaQ

pole was for the American flag. And as President Truman ~nd I marched

towards the flagpoles, an elderly American lady stopped him and said>

'·~"r. President, why is the United Nations flag to be hoisted by a small

nation like the Philippines: Why not by Great Britain or France:"

Pres i dent Truman stopped> bowed to her and sa id, "My dear lady> th is Is

an era of change, the smal I nations are cominq . into their own. That

is something that we must remember. The small nations are cominq to their

own." amm oPowel I: You were President of the General Assembly at its 4th sessi0n,

I belIeve> in 1949. Under what circumstances did you become

President of the General Assembly?

Romulo: I was elected. (Laughter) I was just elected, that was al I.

Powell: I did not know whether there was a group who was urginq • • •

JIio ..

,. ,Romulo: No, 'no. What happened was that in the session in Paris, I was

the Chainman of the Special Pol itical Committee, which was an

Important committee, and the fIrst time that a smal I nation was made to

chair that Committee. Wei I, I think I did something that cal led the

attefltion of the other nations, and at the succeeding General Assembly,.I was elected President of the General Assembly. That was all.

..... ~.

Powell: What were some of the key issues before that Assembly~ I

bel ieve they were discussing things I ike the internationalization

of Jerusalem and the Greek question~ and •••

Rbmulo: ~b~ the important question there was the second day that I

was President~ Foreign Minister Vyshinsky of 'Soviet Russia

announced that the Russians had broken the American nuclear monopoly.

That was a sensation~1 announcement.

Pawel I: They had the bomb. Yes.

Romulo: That they had the bomb. Two weeks later~ I made a speech in

which I first made the proposal that nuclear power must be used

for peaceful purposes. And several days later~ President Eisenhower

made a statement centred around that: that the nuclear power must be

used for peaceful purposes. That was the one outstanding question that

was discussed in the 4th session of the General Assembly in '49. But then

much later came the question of Israel but that was not under my presidency;

that was much later. The United tlations decided to create the State of

Israel and so that is what' always say to the Arabs: "How can you ignore

Israel when it is a creation of the United Nations'" It was the United

Nations that created that new State of Israel. So you cannot just ignore

it now." And I always said that.

Powell: Now tel I me~ as President, were you quite active behind the

scenes In negotiations?

Romulo: That was one of the jobs-unseen of a President of the Assembly,

you see. Now, for example~ this President (for the 37th session~

r·1r. Imre Ho" a j) Is negot iati ng beh i nd the scenes on how to carry out the

qtobal negotiations. Well~ that is one of his jobs: behind the scenes

to see how nations can come toqetherand before the matter is taken up

before the General Assembly, there is a sort of consensus already a~reed

upon. T.hat is one of the important tasks entrusted to a president -- to

have behind the scenes consultations. Also in the Security Council, the

. .. ..

...

President of the Security Council must be .in charge of the consultations

before an important question is taken up.

Pow~1 I:. Yes. And you have served four times, I bel ieve, as President

of the Security Council.

ROmulo: I think, yes, I have been four times President of the Security

Counci I •

Pawel I: What was your most memorable moment in connexion with your

Presidency of the Security Counci I:

ROmulo: I had several moments; I do not remember now. (Laughter)

Yes, I do not remember now, so many.

Powell: I would I ike to come back to a couple of final questions, if I

may, General. One, as the current Secretary-General said, The

ill~ is often by-passed in efforts to find solutions to problems on

international peace and security. How can we restore c¢nfidence in the

authority of the UN?

Romulo: Well, that is a difficult question. Because to restore the

confidence in th~ United Nations by the superpowers, there must

first be, what I bel jeve, a sort of a cease-fi re, a sort of a vocal cease­

fire between the superpowers. That is, I mean this: if the United Nations

is going TO be as effective as we want it to be, It must no longer be

the batTle ground of TWO ideologies. ThaT is one of the weaknesses of

the Unit-ed Nations. It started being the battle ground of two ideolo~ies.

So froM that moment on, it became a bi-polar world, and there is always

that difference. Now, if and when this bi-polar world is changed inTO a·

mutti-polar world, when it- is no longer the battle ground of two ideofoqies,

I think the United Natrons can win the confidence of the world. But I

am very optim~stic about this.

!." ...

~.

...

Powell: You are optimistic about the future"

Romulo: am optimistic about this, because if you review the history

of the world, what were once heresies became accepted tools.

For example, there was one time when the feudal system was approved,

respected, sanctified.* I am speaking of that immoral right of the

lord which is known in Spanish as derecho de pernada which meant every

marriaQe in his place, between his vassals, the first night of the bride

must be with him. That was approved, nobody dared question that, but

humanity evolves and that disappeared. Then came the battle of the Holy

Crusades. When religion was the subject of the wars. Wei I, that has

disappeared. Now we have what Is known as ecumenism in which aI'

rei igions must be under one umbrella. Then came "I am the state"

monarchies, where the King of France said, "I am the State". Well,

that was for many years approved, respected, sacrosanct. Humanity

evolves and that disappeared. Then came imperialism, the right of a

powerfu I nati on to ru Ie over the weak and get a 11 the riches of that weak

for itself. Well, that was respected; nobody dared question that. It

was, in fact, sanctified. Humanity evolves and that disappeared.

Powel I: In other words, we are stil I in an evolvinq process.

Romulo: Correct. Humanity evolves and I bel ieve the time wil I come when

the United Nations wil I no longer be considered a Tower of

Babel, but an orQanization that is working effectively for world peace

and security. That is the writing on the wal I that I see in rrr{ optimism, and

I hope that is a dream that will be carried out.

Powel I: I said only two more questions but J just had one that I would

like to as k yOlt. Com i nQ back to you r term as r:3res i dent of the

4th Session of the General Assembly, you said that you were involved in

a 0reat many behind-the-scenes negotiations. Can you recal I any particular

ones th.at mi ~ht be of i nterest':'**

.* Technical Interruption

.If* 0ause

.-.•• «

•

Romuto: Yes~ for exampte. the proposal to abolish the Balkan Commission,

which was placed there in order to report to the world what was

being done In Greece against the freedom of the peoples there. ~/ell,

that took a long time to settle and discuss and finally the free world

(voted) that the Balkan Commission remain; and it continued to work and

I think it was for the good of peace that the Balkan COmmission remained

to do its work there.

Powell: Now my final ouestlon, General. What do you consider the

oreatest achievement, whether inside or outside the UN that

you have done throuqhout your life?

Ro,.mulo:. \~ell, no, I have done nothing very important, but that I

be~ieve the fact that 157 nations as I have already said, •••

wet I, no! ~/hat we have done is to create the th I rd war Idin th e Un f ted

Nations, the admission of at I these nations that otherwfse could not have

been independent if we did not make that change in article 76 of the

United Nations Charter. I think, as Dag Hammarskj61d said in one of

his statements, "That the contribution of the Phil ippines fs a

constructive contribution to the peace of the world." And that I think is

one of the great th ings that has been done • ••

Powell: And I think you are belnq too modest, General, because those

words "or independence" would not have been there if it had not

been for your efforts • • •

Romulo: For the Phil ipptne deleqation. And now I want to say this as.the last word. What I have said of the beginninqs of the United

Nations, that took (place) 37 years ago, human imagination and human

menTal Tty at the age of 84, that I am now, cannot be very accurate. So,

whatever I have said may have some weaknesses and faults because of the

lapse of time, but I feet, however, that' tried to do my best today torecat' as faithfully as I caul d what happened in the years that you had in

. ...

•

mind when you asked me to be in this documentary.

~owel I: General, we value your perspective and your experiences and

your wisdom· which you have shared with us this morninq. Thank

you very much.

Romu 10: Thank you, too.

(~~.rg;J .~

UNITED NATIONS

.-

r· ~Dag Hamma skjOOld

LIBRARY

'f