follows the sense of a duty to draw inspiration from this spirit in our international work, and to work within its requirements.
Second — the spirit of tolerance, forbearance, and mutual accommodation in dealing with the differing points of view and opposing positions we run up against in our international work. This spirit, which has learned to see as natural the difference, multiplicity, and clash of points of view, leads us to accept them without adopting them, to resist them without hating them, and to shape our positions in a manner that permits peaceful coexistence with them (excepting positions contrary to right, to law, and to the Charter).
Third — the international sense, which makes us alert beforehand to the effect that the idea we declare, or the proposal we put forward, or the act we perform, will have upon the other states that may be affected by it; we anticipate the possible reactions and reckon with their consequences, and so we amend and modify the idea or the proposal or the act in the light of those consequences, or make the necessary preparation to meet them.
Q — These benefits are such as to influence a delegate's mentality and his position on the various questions laid before him. To what extent, then, are the representatives of states at the United Nations bound by the views of their governments in voting on international problems? And what usually happens when the two points of view conflict?
A — It is natural that a delegate should be bound by his state's instructions, because he represents it. The truth is that a delegate who contents himself with expressing his personal opinions carries no weight and no influence in the world organization, because what matters to the representatives of the other governments is the positions of his government,
not his own positions, however great his personality may be.
But there are cases in which the delegate cannot obtain instructions from his government, or in which those instructions are general and do not serve the purpose, or are built upon considerations that have changed in the course of the debate. Moreover, most instructions concern the manner of voting and do not go beyond it to the manner of arguing for the point of view the government adopts. In all these cases the delegate is left to himself, to his responsibility, to the mental powers he possesses, to the boldness he has acquired, and to the moral virtues that adorn him. There remain, however, his state's general policy, its traditional course, its systems and laws, and its general intellectual and spiritual tendencies, from which he must draw inspiration in what he says or in what
he keeps silent about. If, on the other hand, his government's instructions do not agree with his personal opinion, he must first try to persuade it of his point of view — and governments attach great importance to the opinion of their delegates. If it is not persuaded, then he must either submit to the duties of his office — for it represents his government, not himself — or resign, if the demands of his conscience impose that upon him.
Q — How can a small state stand out and make its voice heard at the United Nations, in view of what is commonly said about the domination of the great powers over this organization?
A — There is no disputing that the great powers hold a special position and a great influence at the United Nations. But it is necessary to distinguish among the various fields of United Nations activity in order to show
