23rd Session
1700th Plenary Meeting, 21st October, 1968

Speech by Mr. B. R. Bhagat

I should like at the outset to add my own tribute to that of the Prime Minister of India and offer Mr. Arenales my felicitations on his election to the high office of President of the United Nations General Assembly at its twenty-third session. This Assembly is meeting once again in regular session in a continuing effort to deal with issue that trouble mankind and try to overcome force which frustrate the achievement of the noble objectives enshrined in the Charter of the United Nations. It seems appropriate that the deliberations of the Assembly this year should be presided over by a distinguished statesman from Latin America. I am deeply aware of the important contribution which the countries of Latin America have made to the instrument for the preservation of peace and the promotion of international co-operation. I have no doubt that under our President's wise leadership and guidance this Assembly will take significant decisions aimed at strengthening peace and security and the further development of international co-operation and friendly relations among nations and peoples.

I should also like to pay my own warm tribute to our distinguished
Secretary-General. It has been a matter of great satisfaction to us that in these trying times we have been fortunate enough to have U Thant as the Secretary-General of the United Nations. I am sure I speak for all when I say that his total dedication to the furtherance of the objectives of the world Organization, his sensitive and impartial handling of the various problems with which it has been faced and his high sense of integrity and devotion to duty have amply justified the confidence Member States have reposed in him.

It was over two decades ago that the United Nations came into being as an abiding expression of man's determination to rid the world of war and want. The optimism and hope of the founders of the United Nations have unfortunately not been borne out in the quarter of a century that has elapsed since the Charter was adopted in San Francisco. The obligations then assumed by Member States had led us to hope that the high standards of international behaviour implicit in the Charter would be maintained and there would follow an era of co-operation and dedication to peace. But the expectation that disputes and conflicts would be resolved exclusively by peaceful means has proved to be wrong. Nations and peoples have failed to subordinate the attainment of narrow national ends to the larger interests of orderly relations between States and peace and security for all. In the process, the new world order we have struggled to establish has been undermined and the prospects of peace remain uncertain.

The reason for this sharp deterioration in the climate for peace and progress is not far to seek. It lies in the deliberate and callous disregard for the principle of the inadmissibility of the use of force in relations between States. It has been our view, as indeed that of many others, that only the practical application of the principles of peaceful coexistence would enable the hopes of the post-war world to be realized. The non-aligned nations of the world which have struggled hard to promote the principles of peaceful coexistence have always intended that the concept should represent something more positive and constructive than the old stratagem for maintaining peace between opposing armed camps. The peoples of the world had begun to hope that peaceful coexistence would become a meaningful way of international life and would facilitate the elimination of the causes of conflicts and disputes, so that conditions could be created for genuine peace, freedom and justice. Nations and peoples had shown an increasing willingness to understand and co-operate with one another and this had resulted in a noticeable reduction in international tension. But this trend has unhappily received a severe setback.

The reason for this retrograde development has been that nations have not hesitated to use force to secure national interests in violation of all objective standards of international morality. Wars have been waged or pressures have been excercised obstensibly in the name of freedom, in the name of security, in the name of ideology or in the name of religion. The consequences of this state of affairs are serious. Relations between States are being increasingly based on respect for the power they wield, or can be expected to wield, rather than on their adherence to established rules of international behaviour. As a result, the faith of the weak is dwindling in the protection afforded by the Charter of the United Nations. Tragically, it is those of us who seek to order our actions in strict conformity with the code of international conduct and eschew the use of force that pay the price.

Advances in military technology have brought about an intricate interplay between military and political actions calculated to maintain the so-called balance of power. These actions are unfortunately based less on considerations of ensuring security than on the urge to consolidate and extend political and economic control beyond the limits of national sovereignty. Reversion to the concept of spheres of influence would be the natural result of this development.

Persistent and irresponsible efforts are also being made by some to disturb peace and stability in pursuit of their ambitions, ideological or religious. This particular phenomenon manifests itself in insidious attempts to foster local wars and to undermine established political authority in States struggling to protect their freedom and independence.

The aggravation of these tendencies is bound to undermine any established international machinery for ordering relations between States. However, the moral imperatives of this very situation have produced a state of uncertainty in international relationships which are undergoing transformation. The compulsions of technological advance and the inevitable movement towards one world have given the interdependence of State a new urgency. Therefore, the situation calls for more determined efforts to evolve relations between States based on mutual respect and sovereign equality. It also calls for mutual accommodation and endeavor in seeking peaceful solutions to international disputes and conflicts. The United Nations still represents the only means by which nations, large or small, can ensure their security and live together in peace and friendship. We hope that this Organization will not accept as permanent its present inability to apply the established code of conduct for nations.

Among the issues before this Assembly, the unresolved situation in West Asia is of grave concern to us. Twenty years and three wars after the partition of Palestine there is no light at the end of the tunnel. Is it possible that even after this harrowing experience the belief persists that peace can be imposed by the use of force or that aspirations of vast masses of people can be set aside? The core of the problem is the rehabilitation of people uprooted from their homes and separated from their children. Unless the international community which continues to share the blame and the responsibility comes up with a viable solution taking into account the fundamental rights of these people, the precarious nature of their existence will continue to impinge on the situation in West Asia.

Almost a year ago, the Security Council unanimously adopted a resolution [242 (1967)] to provide ways and means for bringing peace to West Asia within the framework of certain fundamental principles. My Government fully supports that resolution in all its parts. It is our belief that lasting peace can be brought about in  that region only on the basis of the recognition of the just rights of all the States in the area. However, I should like to underline again what my Prime Minister said to this Assembly on 14 October 1968:

"Essential for a peaceful settlement is the withdrawal of foreign forces from all Arab territories occupied in June last year. The process of the restoration of peace can begin and Ambassador Jarring's mission be fruitful only with the clear affirmation of this". [1693rd meeting para. 159.]

South-East Asia is another neighbouring region which still continues to be tormented by strife and thus cause serious concern to us. Since my Prime Minister's Address to the General Assembly we have been encouraged by the efforts that are being made to find the way to start a peaceful and negotiated settlement of the conflict in Viet-Nam. We fervently hope that those efforts will succeed and lead to the fulfilment of the Geneva Agreements. In this context it is relevant to refer to the anxiety that has been expressed that the possible peaceful settlement of the Viet-Nam conflict and the withdrawal of extra-regional forces from that area would create a vacuum which must be filled by one Power or another. It is true that that area has been the cockpit of international rivalry. But any solutions for the problems of the region can be based only on the clear recognition of nationalist urges and the political and economic viability of the States of South-East Asia. In short, the so-called vacuum has to be filled by those nations themselves, whose sovereignty, territorial integrity and independence should be respected by all. This can be made possible by bringing about intense and durable regional co-operation in both the political and economic fields. In our view, the answer does not lie in inviting extra- regional Powers to become protectors. This is not to say that extra-regional assistance is not welcome. But it does mean that such assistance should be for the purpose of augmenting the resources of the region and not supplanting them.

The acceleration of the arms race in the post-war period has been one of the principal contributory factors in the aggravation of international tensions. The growing dimension of the nuclear weapons system has come to be accepted as a fact of life. This is a matter which must be of grave concern to all of us. The spiralling arms race has undermined the concept of peaceful co-existence. The great Powers continue to augment their overkill capacity for nuclear destruction, since its logical conclusion is that peace can be maintained only through a balance of terror.

The question of preventing the proliferation of nuclear weapons has attracted world- wide attention in the recent past. Unfortunately, there is a continuing refusal to deal with the heart of this problem. My Government has repeatedly urged that problems of insecurity cannot be solved only by the arbitrary imposition of restrictions on those who do not possess nuclear weapons, without any corresponding steps to limit and reduce the stockpiles of these weapons of mass destruction in the hands of a few Powers. We realize that that is a difficult task. Progress towards disarmament has necessarily to be a slow and at times a painful process. However, that process can be set in motion if the States which possess nuclear weapons are prepared to undertake serious negotiations on the limitation, reduction and eventual elimination of nuclear armaments. As far as India is concerned we have repeatedly declared our intention to use nuclear energy exclusively for peaceful purposes. We will continue to develop our knowledge and capacity for the utilization of nuclear energy for peaceful purpose because it is essential to the economic development. Without the development of this and other branches of modern science and technology we could not hope to fulfil the aspirations of our people in a relatively short period.

The adoption of the Charter of the United Nations reflected the determination of mankind to shift its attention from war, and preparations for war, to the promotion of better standards of life for all. In the promotion of this objective there has been increasing awareness of the community of interest among countries at different stages of economic growth and having different socio-economic systems. This has pointed to the conclusion that prosperity, like peace, is indivisible and that the only way of fulfilling the objectives of the Charter is to reduce disparities among nations and peoples by mutual co-operation.

Despite general acceptance of these principles, it is an unfortunate fact that the vast majority of the human race is still haunted by want and poverty. It is ironical that such a state of affairs should exist during a period of unprecedented scientific and technological advance which has furnished unlimited possibilities for accelerating growth and eliminating social and economic disabilities. Events have in fact moved in the opposite direction. Technological advance has only further widened the gulf separating the rich and the poor nations of the world.

It is generally realized that development must be based primarily on self-reliance. There is, in fact, no other choice if the developing countries are to preserve their hard- won independence. However, if development is to take place solely on the basis of national efforts, it will require the mobilization of domestic resources on a more rigorous basis. The consequent severe restrictions on the already low consumption standards are not only socially undesirable but politically impracticable in a democratic society. Development becomes the common responsibility of the world community because it is only within this framework that the inequality and injustice which have characterised the world trading system and the international economic relationship since the colonial days can be eliminated.

The prevailing climate in the field of development appears to be of fatigue and frustration. Much was expected from the second session of the United Nations Conference on Trade and Development,1 to which my Government had the honour to play host. The somewhat limited results of the Conference failed to measure up to the expectations of the world community. Various explanations have been offered for the failure of that Conference. We are asked, for example, to wait for a more favourable international economic climate. There will always be difficulties and problems, but the lot of the developing countries is such that they cannot afford to wait upon better times in affluent countries. The only way to overcome present frustration is to rekindle hope; the only remedy for disenchantment is the reaffirmation of our faith in more purposeful and effective international co-operation. As in the political field, so also in the economic field international co-operation involves a deliberate process of accommodation and adjustment. It is only by a collective effort to shoulder these responsibilities that lasting foundations for a secure peace can be laid.

As evidence, of our determination to discharge these responsibilities, we should agree on at least the following objectives to be fulfilled during the current and next United Nations Development Decade.

First, we should agree on a target for the economic growth of developing countries which will enable them to bring about a perceptible change in the living conditions of their peoples.

Second, to impart a practical meaning to that target, a firm commitment should be given by all developed countries to accept and implement the target of flow of financial assistance equivalent to one per cent net of gross national product to developing countries.

Third, continuity of aid flow should be ensured and a time dimension should be imparted to the aid target by all developed countries, emulating the commendable initiatives taken by some of them.

Fourth, the confidence in the ability of international institutions to discharge their basic minimum responsibilities towards developing countries should be restored by fulfilling before 1970 the resources targets set for those organisations.

Fifth, a more determined effort should be made to prevent the erosion of the real value of aid by giving up the practice of aid being tied to sources of procurement and to specific projects.

Sixth, ways and means should be found to alleviate the mounting and oppressive debt-servicing burdens of the developing countries.

Seventh, as an important element of international development policy, we should agree on a package of trade measure which will enable the developing countries to cover a substantial part of their resources gap by an increase in their export earnings.

Eighth, correspondingly, the developing countries should redouble their efforts for the mobilization of domestic resources, by increasing agricultural productivity implementing appropriate population programmes, developing indigenous technology, and intensifying economic co-operation among themselves.

Preoccupation with issues of war and peace, and the persistence of conflict and injustice in the world, have inevitably led to a lowering of values and to diminishing respect for the dignity and worth of the human person. In many parts of the world, practices of racial discrimination prevail and serious economic imbalances inhibit the enjoyment of economic and social rights, with adverse repercussions on the exercise of civic and political freedoms. Despite all the valiant efforts of the United Nations, it is unfortunate that these deplorable situations have not been remedied. This cannot but be a matter of general concern, since the implications of this state of affairs are far wider than may appear at first sight.

Respect for the dignity of man is not a narrow sociological concept. Recognition and faithful application of this principle constitutes the very foundation not only of the international order we seek to establish, but of world peace itself. The problem we face cannot be solved by pious declarations, however sincere they may be. They call for urgent and resolute action. The urgent and important problem in this field is the elimination of racial discrimination, and, in particular the abandonment of the pernicious policy of apartheid, which represents the most flagrant violation of human rights and fundamental freedoms. The danger of the outbreak of massive racial conflict is both real and imminent. Unless its root causes are eradicated firmly and soon, we shall be faced with a holocaust of far wider dimensions than the religious and ideological conflicts which have disturbed the peace of the world in the past. We have a serious responsibility to avert that catastrophe.

There are also, unfortunately, other fields in which a refusal to recognize and respect the dignity of the human person still persists. Though the frontiers of freedom are gradually being extended and newly independent countries are taking their rightful place in the community of nations, the cancer of colonial subjugation eats into the vitals of the world community. Despite the concerted efforts of the United Nations and the pressure of world public opinion, the pace of decolonisation has slackened and in many areas is depressingly slow. This problem is most acute in southern Africa. The peoples of that area have been victims of the most flagrant mass violation of human rights and fundamental freedoms. The efforts of the United Nations to mitigate these problems have met with the strongest resistance.

South Africa continues to maintain its illegal control over Namibia. The people of that Territory continue to be subjected to blatant indignities and to the application of pernicious forms of the policy of apartheid. The situation in Zimbabwe is no better. None of the steps adopted by the United Nations has led to progress towards majority rule and a just society free from discrimination. The illegal Smith regime becomes more intransigent as each day passes. Atrocities are committed; freedom fighters are repressed; execution are carried out without any legal authority whatsoever. As far as the Portuguese colonies are concerned, Portugal has persistently refused to decolonise the territories under its administration and has, in fact, been resorting to brutal military operations against the people of those territories. Those are but a few examples of the rule of force being applied with scant respect for the just aspirations of the peoples to whom those territories rightfully belong. Obdurate refusal to accept peaceful solutions will inevitably breed violence.

My Prime Minister surveyed the prospects of peace against a broad perspective and set out the basic approach of my Government in dealing with the many intricate problems and issues that face the world community. The conclusion which emerges is that a fresh and serious effort has to be made to lay firmer foundations for peace and to eradicate the root cause of tension and conflict. This would involve a reaffirmation of faith in the principles of coexistence and non-use of force, the sovereignty, integrity and independence of States, the elimination of glaring economic disparities, and full respect for the dignity of man and for fundamental human rights and freedoms. The most appropriate machinery available to us for the achievement of those objectives is the United Nations itself. It is only by stricter and more dedicated adherence to the purposes and principles of the Charter that we can lay the foundations for peace. It is not beyond our collective effort to build a new world order calculated to stabilize peace and to promote prosperity. As my Prime Minister indicated in her statement, we shall begin the second United Nations Development Decade two years hence, in 1970. We have another year in which to suspend the hostilities of today and lay the foundations of peace for tomorrow. Let 1970, as suggested by Prime Minister, be the "starting point of a united endeavour to give mankind the blessings of a durable peace". [1694rd meeting, para 177]


=====================

Back to Statements in the United Nations