34th Session
18th Plenary Meeting, 3rd October, 1979

Speech by Mr. S. N. Mishra *

Mr. President, it is indeed an honour and a privilege to greet you on your
unanimous election, because you bring to this high office not only your outstanding
skills and rich experience, but also something of the idealism and high sense of
morality that characterises your country's role in international affairs.

It is also no mere formality when I express our great appreciation for the
leadership provided by Mr. Lievano of Colombia as President of the thirty-third
session of the General Assembly. The zeal and ability he displayed in discharging
his responsibilities has enhanced his reputation, as well as his country's prestige.

In the exemplary dedication to duty and the practical wisdom of our
Secretary-General, Mr. Kurt Waldheim, we have an assurance that the challenging
tasks ahead will be met with faith and fortitude, vision and constructive
statesmanship.

Our family of nations has grown as Saint Lucia, our youngest and newest Member,
has joined us. We wish the people of Saint Lucia prosperity and assure them of our
goodwill and co-operation in the responsibilities awaiting them.

India comes to this Assembly with the strength of a tradition which is more than
4,000 years old, dating from when our Vedic ancestors had the insight to declare;
"the soil is my mother; I am the son of earth". This was the germ of the concept of
"one world", the unity of which was to be ensured by peace. This is why "peace,
peace and peace" has been my country's constant invocation.

I stand here today conscious of this rich heritage and of its reflection in the
continuing national consensus which prevails in the pursuit of international
objectives. Independent India's policies and attitudes to international problems
show a continuity and consistency of which we are proud.

Since the time, 31 years ago, when India's first Foreign Minister and Prime Minister,
Jawaharlal Nehru, declared in this Assembly that "India adhered completely to the
principles and purposes of the Charter",1 there has been in our expressions of
support of the United Nations and its Charter every year a repetitive rhythm which
should not be mistaken for ritual or formality. The United Nations unmistakably
symbolizes the best balance between the right to independence and the
compulsion to work together. It represents a warning that we can survive only in
good-neighbourliness. If international problems have been aggravated at times
during the 34-year career of this Organization, this is due to the fact that in our
national perspectives we have overlooked the fact that we form one world and not
152 worlds of various sizes. Despite all the lessons of history, we are still bogged
down in short-term problems and are still overlooking the fact that our long-term
destinies are intertwined and must be safeguarded.

If we look back over the decade of the 1 970s, which are now drawing to a close,
we find repeated confirmation of the fact that the world's political problems arise
from the short-term perspectives of many of the powerful-nation States which
virtually distort the long-term imperatives. If we still see recalcitrant imperialism,
malevolent or defiant racism, persistent habits of intervention, manipulation,
domination and even aggression, this is because there are forces trying to stem the
tide of history. So many world-wide and regional problems are the result of the
obdurate refusal to accept the logic of coexistence and co-operation.

This Assembly is meeting again after one more year and it can be seen that the
world has been changing fast. The past year has not been more tranquil or less
dangerous. The world continues to hang precariously between war and peace,
development and stagnation, domination and justice. Many of the old myths have
died, but not the belief in them. The time when the world order could be
maintained through the strength of military establishments is over. While many
still see military power as supreme, its political consequences often mean that it
cannot be used. No doubt there is a fleeting intellectual realization that things
have changed, but this has not kept pace with the formulation of foreign policy by
important countries.

The days of an imperial role are gone; neither is there any scope for imperial
management. Even the management of crises can no longer be left to a few great
Powers, although they have an important responsibility. Countries may differ in
power, wealth and beliefs, but the world community cannot be managed now
without the voluntary participation and equitable involvement of the largest
possible number of countries.

It is also clear that the leverage of the weaker countries is a factor to be reckoned
within the emerging international order. Military power may have remained
concentrated in a few hands, but popular power, if one may use that term, has
become more widely dispersed. Recent events have again shown that, given will
power and determination, even a small Power can hold a big Power at bay. The
strength of the non- aligned movement is really the collective leverage exerted by
the weaker countries on the global scene. This collective leverage, reflected in the
demand for a new international economic order, is in essence a call for the
democratisation of world power.

We are indeed in an era of increasing plurality. Just as the managerial revolution
has replaced family management, the transformation of the world situation has
brought about a diffusion of the power to shape and influence events. This requires
a new awareness, a new approach and a new adjustment which would facilitate
the evolution of a more just and equitable world order.

May I underline in this context the growing revolutionary significance of a factor
that has been emerging over the last two decades in the United Nations. The fact
that well over 90 Members of the United Nations have joined the non-aligned
movement has effected a quiet revolution in the functioning of the international
Organization. This constitutes a guarantee against the misuse of the United
Nations or, for that matter, of any inter-governmental organisation.

The fundamental problems of today arise from not accepting the natural and the
inevitable. We have seen resistance and delay in the process of decolonisation and
the fulfilment of the will of all peoples for freedom and national emancipation.
Even today, this important historical process is not complete. The war in Viet Nam
arose from attempts to frustrate the national aspirations of the Vietnamese. We
failed to recognize, and perhaps we still often deny in action if not in affirmation,
the fact that each nation has the right to choose its own pattern or political
system for social and economic fulfilment. Today, we see the vindication of the
notion implicit-in the first principles of the United Nations Charter: that differing
ideological and socio-economic systems have to coexist. As an Indian, I cannot but
recall that the principles of coexistence were first enunciated in the middle of the
1 950s and enshrined in the Declaration adopted by the African-Asian Conference,
held at Bandung in 1955.

Detente was enthusiastically acclaimed by some, much wished for by many. But in
its realization we find that the effects of the cold-war years have been effaced
neither in the functioning of this Organization nor in the various regions of the
world. There is even a danger of detente's becoming a facade behind which the
role of the Organization stands reduced in the priorities of the great Powers and
paradoxically, regional wars and conflicts also flourish.

Surely, if detente means the mere normalisation of bilateral relations among the
great Powers, then the vast majority of members of the international community
will have little interest in it. Though normalisation among great Powers is
essential, an honest detente has to be global and universal and this indeed is our
goal.

It would also be wrong to assume that the process of even this limited detente is
irreversible. The stalemate in the ratification of the treaty resulting from the
second round of SALT negotiations, the deepening crisis in West Asia, the
hardening of attitudes in relation to southern Africa, the polarized postures in
South East Asia and the disturbing trend towards the formation of destabilising
political combinations are ominous portents.

Consequently, reinforcing the fabric of peace must remain the primary concern in
our discussions. Progress on disarmament in all its various aspects has to be seen
as the touchstone of our commitment to peace. Lasting world peace can stand only
on the foundation of effective disarmament.

We must remind ourselves that the United Nations was established to say'
"succeeding generations from the scourge of war." For as long as nuclear stockpiles
exist in the world, there is a definite threat of a nuclear holocaust. Nuclear war is
possible through accident, miscalculation, misperception and impulsive or
irrational behaviour under tension. The most urgent task facing humanity today is
to delegitimize nuclear weapons, to dismantle the hierarchical international order
that supports the present military system and to replace it by an alternative
security system based on peaceful coexistence and the acceptance in practice of
the equal sovereignty of all nations and of the right of each nation to choose its
national and international policies.

The tenth special session of the United Nations General Assembly, devoted to
disarmament, laid down a programme of action for nuclear disarmament
[resolution S-10/2]. That programme consisted of steps for freezing the present
nuclear arms race and for initiating reductions leading to the eventual elimination
of all existing stockpiles of such weapons. It is a matter of deep regret that,
despite the consensus behind that programme, there has been no progress towards
its implementation. We are particularly concerned to note that the draft of the
comprehensive test-ban treaty is not yet ready and the negotiations continue at a
glacial pace. We strongly urge that the draft of the treaty be finalized without
further delay.

We welcome second SALT treaty. But it is only a beginning-though an important
beginning, which must be formalized and implemented so that the world may
move further towards real nuclear disarmament. At the same time we cannot but
note with regret that that treaty does not incorporate any measure for the
reduction of nuclear arsenals and that the growing and deadly sophistication of
nuclear weaponry presents an ever greater danger to mankind.

Much is being said, and rightly, about the problem of the proliferation of nuclear
weapons. I think it would be pertinent to remember that it was India that brought
this issue to the attention of the United Nations when, in 1964, it specifically asked
for the inclusion in the agenda of an item entitled "Non-proliferation of nuclear
weapons".2 Our approach was based on the premise, born of bitter historical
experience, that both horizontal and vertical proliferation were integral parts of
the problem which needed to be dealt with as a whole. The General Assembly
accepted this concept and resolution 2028 (XX) stated that:

"The treaty should embody an acceptable balance of mutual responsibilities and
obligations of the nuclear and non-nuclear Powers."

Unfortunately the Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons [resolution
2373 (XXII), annex] concluded in 1968 deliberately sought to alter this concept. It
addressed itself only to the aspect of horizontal proliferation, and if the Treaty has
become an unworkable document, it is only because of this narrow and illogical
approach. The protagonists have been trying to buttress their position by
cartel-type arrangements and further discriminatory measures, such as the
establishment of the so-called "London Club"3 of nuclear suppliers and the
attempted imposition of full-scope safeguards, on the peaceful nuclear activities
of non-nuclear-weapon States, something that the nuclear-weapon States are
themselves not prepared to accept.

In a world where we now grapple with the task of evolving the methodology of a
new international economic and political order based on justice and equity, it
would be nothing short of anachronism for some Powers to play the role of barons
and overlords in a system of nuclear feudalism. Such an attitude tends to make
nonsense of national independence, equality of nations and the very concept of
peaceful coexistence that is at the heart of the United Nations.

It may be recalled that during the special session on disarmament held last year,
India took two significant initiatives-one seeking the non-use of nuclear weapons
under any circumstances,4 and the other calling for a suspension of
nuclear-weapons testing pending a complete ban.5 We are gratified at the
endorsement that the Assembly at its thirty-third session gave to those initiatives
[resolution 33/71 F]. We would urge the nuclear-weapon States on whom the
primary responsibility lies to take meaningful steps in this direction.

One further initiative I have in mind is the dissemination of public knowledge and
through it the creation of enhanced awareness and popular will against the use of
nuclear weapons. Efforts to build world public opinion would assist the
Governments concerned to turn away from the path of nuclear competition in the
direction of practical measures for avoiding nuclear war. The United Nations has
achieved significant success in the past in helping to rouse the conscience of
mankind on a number of humanitarian issues, through a variety of special
observances. Would it not be appropriate that this vital question, on which
depends the future and fate of man himself, should receive similar attention? It is
only fitting that the second Disarmament Decade should begin next year with
measures aimed at mobilizing world opinion for international co-operative action
to consolidate world peace. The year 1980 could be- the commencement year for
laying the foundations for eliminating for ever the danger of nuclear war.

If I have spoken at length on nuclear disarmament, it is because of the
overwhelming fact that nuclear weapons, with their mind-boggling destructive
capacity and their increasing degree of "overkill", constitute the greatest danger to
mankind.

The relationship between disarmament and development has been stressed by
many earlier speakers, and I need not dwell upon it at any great length. The point
has often been made that the total annual world military expenditure, now
exceeding $40G billion, is equivalent to half the combined gross domestic product
of all the third- world countries. It exceeds the global government expenditure on
education and is more than twice the expenditure on public health services. In a
world seriously afflicted by an energy crisis, by inflation, unemployment, mass
poverty and so forth, it is surely criminal that our dwindling resources should be
expended in this extravagant fashion for military purposes. In this, the
International Year of the Child, is it not revolting that one Trident submarine costs
as much as would be needed for the schooling of 16 million children in developing
countries.What is the legacy we shall be leaving for our children if we continue in
the present insane manner in the name of safeguarding security?

Another problem that threatens civilized existence is the criminal combination of
racist policies and colonial ambition that adds up to apartheid. A minority regime
continues to violate openly and flagrantly the resolutions, decisions and sanctions
of the United Nations and to subject the majority of the South African people to
extreme forms of degradation, repression and torture. This situation is a reflection
of the barrenness of our ritualistic reiteration of opposition to apartheid without
our being able to ensure effective and comprehensive action against it. We have
to mobilize the entire world community, without exception, if the opposition to
this outrage is to be credible and effective. We should like to reaffirm our
continued support for the measures to implement mandatory economic sanctions
against South Africa. We also reiterate strongly our opposition to the economic and
military collaboration- including nuclear collaboration-between certain Western
countries and other States with South Africa.

In Namibia, the action of the General Assembly and the Security Council over the
last decade and beyond constitutes a history of lost opportunities. This continuing
inefficacy casts serious doubts on the prospects for success of the United Nations
plan for Namibia.6 SWAPO, for its part, has displayed a consistent willingness to
accept United Nations-supervised elections for the transition to majority rule and
independence in Namibia. As long as South Africa continues its illegal presence
inside Namibia, a just and peaceful change-over would be well nigh impossible. My
delegation fully supports the adoption by the Security Council of concrete
measures to compel South Africa to end its illegal occupation of Namibia.

In Zimbabwe, the liberation struggle continues at great cost in human suffering
and ominous portents of escalation. The Rhodesia Constitutional Conference
currently considering the problem of the transfer of power to the majority
oscillates between hope and despair. We had welcomed the Lusaka agreement [see
A/34/439-S/13515, annex, para. 15] and had cautioned that its implementation
should be a matter of timebound urgency. We hope that a constitution acceptable
to the Patriotic Front will be evolved in the Conference.

In West Asia, developments in relations between certain States should not obscure
consideration of the deteriorating situation in the occupied Arab territories in
southern Lebanon.

India believes that nothing but a comprehensive solution of the problem will bring
about peace in the area. Central to this settlement is the exercise by the
Palestinian people of their inalienable rights, including the right to establish an
independent State in their own homeland; the total and unconditional Israeli
withdrawal from all the occupied Arab territories, including the Holy City of
Jerusalem; and, finally, the right of all States in the region, including Arab
Palestine, to live within secure borders. Full and equal participation of the PLO in
any peace negotiations is a sine qua non for a final settlement. The growing threat
to international peace and security resulting from Israeli policies and partial
solutions can no longer be ignored. The continued Israeli acts of aggression in
Lebanon also bear testimony to the Israelis' belligerent intentions.

It is also painful to note that Cyprus continues to suffer foreign occupation of a
sizeable part of its territory. We welcome the 10-point agreement reached in May
1979 7 and we urge the parties concerned to recognize each other's legitimate
rights and interests and to display a spirit of mutual accommodation. Let us hope
that the talks will lead to a just and peaceful resolution of the problems between
the two communities, within the framework of the unity, sovereignty, territorial
integrity, political independence and non-alignment of Cyprus.

The South Asian region, earlier plagued by war and dissension, is now freer from
tensions. We have been able to respond to each other's interests and concerns in a
spirit of accommodation. My country feels a sense of satisfaction at the resolution
of some intractable problems. The improved environment provides scope for
greater contacts and co-operation which will benefit the countries of the region.
We rejoice that at last the entire subcontinent is now committed to the principles
and policies of non-alignment and of peaceful coexistence. All this should augur
well for peace and stability in the region. If, however, I advert to Jammu and
Kashmir, which is an integral part of India, it is because there was reference to it
by the foreign affairs adviser to the President of Pakistan in his statement to this
Assembly on 1 October [l5th meeting]. We have repeatedly made it clear that
United Nations resolution have ceased to be relevant and the Simla Agreement 8
holds the field. So the issue has to be bilaterally settled in accordance with the
Simla Agreement.

We are happy that in the region of South-East Asia, economic co-operation and
efforts to establish a zone of peace, freedom and neutrality on the initiative of the
Association of South-East Asian Nations have been making progress in spite of the
many pressures operating in the area.

We had thought that the retreat of foreign troops from Viet Nam over four years
ago would usher in the new era of peace and co-operation in Indo-China and in the
whole region of South-East Asia. That expectation was, unfortunately, short-lived.
Foreign intervention and foreign involvement in Indo-China continued in new
forms distorting the entire situation in that strategic area. Distrust and suspicion
are rife in the region, as is the apprehension that great Powers may become
involved. In consequence, the countries of Indo-China have not been allowed to
settle down in peace to the reconstruction and development of their economies.

The Sino-Viet Nam border remains tense, and there is no peace in Kampuchea as
yet. We ardently hope that the tension between China and Vietnam will not be
allowed to escalate, and we believe that boundary questions and other problems
between two great neighbouring Asian countries can and ought to be resolved
through peaceful and friendly negotiations.

The brave people of Kampuchea, with whom we in India have age-old cultural ties,
have been subjected to untold misery and deprivation. The present situation
demands statesmanship from all parties, so that peace, stability, mutual
confidence and co- operation may be restored, and so that respect for the
personality and independence of every State can be strictly observed.

There have been some indications that at least the humanitarian problems could
be mitigated through goodwill and a constructive approach. We should like to
congratulate the Secretary-General for the success of the United
Nations-sponsored Geneva conference on the Indo-China refugees.9 It is gratifying
to note that since that conference the exodus of refugees has dropped to a trickle.

The spectre of famine, however, looms large over Kampuchea. We welcome the
recent understanding for extending international emergency relief and assistance.
India would be ready to make its modest contribution in this regard.

India is firmly committed to the creation of a zone of peace in the Indian Ocean,
as envisaged in the Declaration of the General Assembly [resolution 2832 (XXVI)].
The increase, over the years, in great-Power military presence in the Indian Ocean
and the further strengthening of military bases, such as Diego Garcia, are a matter
of serious concern. On the most important issues pertaining to the implementation
of the Declaration, the majority of the littoral and hinterland States were able to
adopt a common position at the meeting held in New York in July this year [see
A/34/45].

We invite the participation of all permanent members of the Security Council and
the major maritime users of the Indian Ocean in the work of the Ad Hoc
Committee on the Indian Ocean with a view to convening a conference on the
Indian Ocean.

It was a disappointment for us when the negotiations between the Soviet Union
and the United States for the reduction of their military presence in the Indian
Ocean were abruptly suspended in March 1978. We welcome the agreement
reached at the Vienna summit to resume the dialogue and urge early and
meaningful negotiations.

In the field of human rights, it is immensely important to realize that, in the
ultimate analysis, individual human rights must rest on the foundation of
collective human rights. National liberation creates the framework for the latter,
and only after achieving it can one think of ensuring human rights for individuals.
The stability of newly gained freedom is essential for ensuring socio-economic
change and for the widening and deepening of the ambit of human rights. These
need to be properly institutionalised, for only thus will there be a safeguard
against their possible abuse, suppression or total eclipse.

The present world economic order continues to follow the rule that to him who
bath even more shall be given. The two United Nations Development Decades, one
of the 1 960s and the other of the 1 970s, and a series of protracted negotiations,
have proved sterile exercises, belying the hopes that had been raised that inequity
between nations need not be an inexorable law and that, for reasons as much
economic as ethical, the rich should assist the poor.

We are now on the threshold of the third United Nations Development Decade,
covering the 1980s, and of the special session of the United Nations which will be
held next year. Despite the bleakness of past experience, we must not miss this
opportunity to impart a momentum to the negotiations for establishing a new
economic order. Among the vital requirements of such an order, is an international
trading system that would be more responsive to the needs of developing
countries. Multilateral trade negotiations portend nothing more than
disappointment for the developing countries. Protectionism by advanced countries
grows unabated and has assumed new forms. The fifth session of UNCTAD
concluded in Manila without coming to grips with the issues that relate to the
structure of the present economic order. The special session must therefore
address itself squarely to the task of dealing with basic structural issues if it is to
have any meaning. The current imbalance; the dependence and external
vulnerability of the developing countries; the urgent need to make a perceptible
dent in the worst aspects of mass poverty-these are a few of the issues that the
developed countries need to look at from a fresh perspective. Without giving up
existing commitments, they will have to conceive new forms of resource transfers,
which can ensure that responsibility is shared and which are capable of leading us
to greater common prosperity. Even though the main thrust towards development
should come from the developing countries themselves, the developed world in its
own enlightened self-interest must realize that its prosperity is best ensured if the
world at large can meet its basic minimum requirements, thus forming a large and
growing market for developed countries.

The disparity in the dissemination of scientific knowledge and technological
know-how in the world is one of the basic causes for the widening gap between the
developed and developing nations. The United Nations Conference on Science and
Technology for Development, recently concluded at Vienna, was successful in
focusing attention on this question and in evolving an agreed plan of action at the
international level.10 We hope that the new Inter-governmental Committee on
Science and Technology for Development will be able to promote agreement on
adequate and sustained measures for the transfer of technology to the developing
countries.

The developing countries expect to, and indeed must, participate fully in the world
decision-making processes. Having abandoned, with the earlier decades, the
framework that was formulated for appraising performance and ensuring joint
responsibility of both the North and the South, we have yet to agree on a draft of
the preamble of a new international development strategy. We run the risk of
going to the special session marking the commencement of the third development
decade without an agreed strategy, jeopardising the outcome of the Decade itself.

Similar mechanisms to promote international accountability are required in
specific areas of multilateral economic functioning particularly within UNCTAD and
UNIDO. One of the principal tasks at the forthcoming Third General Conference of
UNIDO to be held in New Delhi in 1980 will be to equip the agency with an effective
mechanism to examine and monitor the implications of the Lima target of 25 per
cent of the world's manufacturing output as the share of developing countries.

Finally, the developing countries must not forget the imperatives of collective
self- reliance as a major component of the new intonational development strategy.
In fact, it could well provide the special session in 1980 its principal theme. When
meshed together, the unutilized complementarities and the surplus resources of
developing countries give the developing countries enhanced bargaining power
with the developed world.

India has, at the recent Sixth Conference of Head of State or Government of Non-
Aligned Countries which met in Havana, taken a number of initiatives fostering
collective self-reliance. We have, with Bangladesh, proposed the establishment of
a food security system for developing countries. Though a developing country
which has had to feed an immense population, we in India today are in a position
to make a modest contribution to any agreed international system of food security
that may be evolved. It is time that the world, and especially the advanced
nations, realized that food security is even more important than military security
in maintaining peace and stability in the world.

Similarly, the Havana Conference-approved the proposal to study the possibility of
establishing a project development facility. We hope that the facility would
become operational by the end of 1980. India, with extensive experience in
technology relevant to developing countries, is willing to collaborate with others
in setting up facilities for research and training in priority areas, geared specially
to their needs. We would be glad to share our experience and welcome their
participation.

The policy guidelines on reinforcing mutual solidarity recently adopted in Havana
are a welcome expression of the political will of the non-aligned and other
developing countries to co-operate among themselves to meet their minimum
needs and emergency requirements. The guidelines, which are not confined to oil,
have wide implications of a long-term nature, since they cover all primary
commodities and raw materials. It is our sincere hope that these policy guidelines
will be expeditiously translated into concrete commitments.

Another problem which has bedevilled the evolution of a just and equitable world
economic order has been the energy problem. Half of India's total import bill, for
instance, is now accounted for by oil imports and the latest round of price
increases has further raised the burden by a crushing $1.4 billion per year. Even
more critical has been the problem of securing minimum requirements of
petroleum from the world market, where we have to compete with the affluent
nations.

I need hardly emphasize the enormous significance of energy in the context of
developing economies, characterised as they are by limited substitution
possibilities for priority uses such as transport, by the high capital intensity of
alternative energy resources and by the problems inherent in reducing a level of
consumption which is already at the bare and essential minimum. Clearly these
countries are particularly vulnerable to the world oil situation. Is it not
unconscionable that out of the total world consumption of 60 million barrels a day
the United States, Europe, Japan and Canada should together consume 45 million?
Or that in the year 2000 the per capita daily consumption of oil will be 62 barrels in
North America, 32 for each European, 10 for those living in the oil-producing
countries and only some 4 barrels for the rest.

All the developing countries should have a right, indeed a special right, to secure a
fair share in the world consumption of energy and other raw materials.

In the ultimate analysis, the question involves the principle of equity. The core of
the present resource crisis is the attempt by developed countries to pre-empt the
bulk of the world's natural resources in order to maintain their current pattern of
consumption and continue their existing life-styles. The disaster that profligate
consumption is leading to calls for a change in life-styles in developed countries.
Such a change is also necessitated by the imbalance between material and
spiritual growth that has prompted many in the West to turn to the philosophy of
the Orient in their quest for inner peace and harmony. Echoing the present
predicament of the mature industrial or post-industrial societies, T.S. Eliot spoke
of "... the torment of desire unsatisfied and the greater torment of desire
satisfied".

The political, economic and social order in our world has to be refashioned not
only with reference to ourselves but for the sake of the future of our children.
Appropriately, the observance of the International Women's Year and the
International Year of the Child has coincided with the efforts at promoting a new
international economic order. With the mother and the child at the core of our
thoughts we obviously cannot concentrate on a political order based on power and
exploitation and a development process which is myopic and inequitable. In fact, if
the process is to begin with the child in the mother's womb, as it ought to, we have
to work for the creation of a total environment which would ensure equality at
birth to every child and provide for his development throughout the formative
period. The symbolic significance of observing a particular year as dedicated to a
particular cause can only find real meaning if the problem is considered in a larger
perspective. Standing on the threshold of the 1980s, we shall have to begin the
desired development process now.

Is it not a pity that we assemble here year after year to do little more than patch
up our petty quarrels and pay lip service to some lofty ideas and principles? It is
time we ceased to concern ourselves merely with the past and the present and
began to look to the future with the spirit of collective creativity which must be
the hallmark of the United Nations system. The United Nations has to be not
merely the engineer of truce but rather the architect of a new era-an era that
could see the rise of the new man of the twenty-first century. To do this, we need
to help the United Nations to extend the frontiers of its perception. The time to do
so is now.

---------------------

Back to Statements in the United Nations