35th Session
23rd Plenary Meeting, 3rd October, 1980

Speech by Mr. P. V. Narasimha Rao *

I extend to Mr. von Wechmar the warm felicitations of my delegation on his unanimous
election to the presidency of the thirty-fifth session of the General Assembly. His nomination
to that high office is a tribute to his personal qualities as an experienced and skillful diplomat.
It is also fitting testimony to the dedication of his great country to the ideals of the United
Nations, and his opening address amply demonstrated his personal devotion to the fundamental
principles and purposes of the Charter. I wish him every success in his challenging assignment
and pledge my delegation's full support in his endeavours.

It is a matter of particular satisfaction for me to place on record the sincere appreciation of my
delegation for the outstanding work performed by his predecessor, Mr. Salim of the United
Republic of Tanzania. His presidency of the General Assembly at its thirty-fourth session, as
well as of the three special sessions during the past 12 months, was indeed an eventful one.
The patience, skill, sincerity and unfailing courtesy displayed by him will long be remembered
in the annals of the General Assembly.

It is a pleasure for me to greet once again our distinguished Secretary-General. We admire the
way in which he has been discharging the onerous and delicate responsibilities which the
complexities of the international situation impose upon him. His travels and efforts straddling
the globe, covering points of crisis and explosive situations, have helped defuse tension in our
troubled world.

I already had the opportunity at the eleventh special session to extend my congratulations to the
freedom-loving people of Zimbabwe on the achievement of their hard-won independence and
their membership in the United Nations. I should like once again to welcome Zimbabwe to our
midst and to wish it all success in its exciting and difficult task of nation building.

It also gives me great pleasure to extend our warm and sincere felicitations to Saint Vincent
and the Grenadines, which has now become the one hundred and fifty fourth Member of the
Organization. We rejoice with them in their hour of triumph and joy and trust that their
aspirations to a better and brighter future will be amply fulfilled in the years to come. India
looks forward to establishing mutually beneficial relations with the new nation.

The Indian delegation participates in this General Assembly in the context of a transformed
domestic political perspectives. India has had another general election since the General
Assembly met last year. The people of India appraised the challenges that they had faced,
reassessed the nature and quality of leadership required to meet them and massively
reaffirmed their conviction in the leadership of Prime Minister Mrs. Indira Gandhi.

The new Government in India is engaged in the difficult and enormous task of national
reconstruction and regeneration of a pluralistic multilingual, multireligious and diverse
society, and through democratic means. Intractable though our problems may seem, our
national efforts to resolve them since our independence have borne results to a great extent.
This has imbued our people with a sense of confidence and inspired them to the objective that
India shall emerge as a strong, self-reliant and modern nation.

It is also an abiding conviction of my Government and my people that India's future stability
and development depends on the success of the international community in creating a world
order characterised by durable peace. There is a national consensus, therefore, on the content
and objectives of India's foreign policy. There is unanimity of opinion in India about the
relevance of the principles of non-alignment and the imperative need for friendship towards
all nations based on the Five Principles of Peaceful Co-existence.

[The speaker continued in English.]

Developments during the past year have not been such as to bring credit to the international
community as a whole. The collective behaviour of nation-States in recent months has only
deepened the sense of insecurity and distrust in the world. New and ever more ominous
strategic doctrines are being propounded, bringing the world closer to the cataclysmic
outbreak of an all-out nuclear conflagration. The scientific genius of mankind is being
exploited for the perverted purpose of manufacturing means of destruction, perhaps in the
search for the "ultimate weapon" which, it is believed, I think quite erroneously, would enable
one or the other group of States to impose its will on the others. Increasing recourse is being
made to might in a manner which has threatened the national independence and integrity of
small and medium States. The principle of non-interference in the internal affairs of States has
been observed more in breach in a variety of ways, covert and overt. All means are
considered legitimate in the pursuit of the objective of expanding spheres of influence.
International economic relations continue to be marked by inequity, selfishness and
shortsightedness, particularly by those who possess the means to bring about a change and to
start the process to usher in a New International Economic Order. The wisdom which was
evident last year when certain significant decisions were taken in the sphere of the
North-South dialogue seems to have lost some of its momentum this year.

Living as we do in this small and increasingly interdependent world, no one can completely
escape responsibility for the current atmosphere of gloom, fear, frustration and diffidence. But
the primary responsibility must rest with those who literally possess the power of life and
death over all of us and who do not hesitate to wield that power, without caring too much for
the consequences of their action. A few powerful nations are claiming and blatantly exercising
what they consider their right to cause destabilisation in any place and at any time and with
any means of their choosing. It is obvious that the weak and poor nations cannot look upon this
unenviable lot of theirs with equanimity. They have, therefore, to be eternally vigilant if they
are to survive, if they are to preserve and promote the well-being of their peoples and if they
are not to become pawns in the game of great-Power manipulation. They have to speak up on
behalf of their mute millions, assert that they have no intention of acquiescing in the dangerous
activity of big-Power brinkmanship and that they do not wish to face annihilation either by the
deliberate design of callous Powers or by accidental errors of mindless machines.

It is in this context that the policy of non-alignment assumes greater validity. Non-alignment is
the embodiment of the aspirations of the vast majority of nations and peoples to protect their
existence, their freedom, honour and dignity. The non-aligned movement is not directed against
one or the other bloc. Over the decades it has come to represent positive force-a force of life
and not of death-in international relations which is now recognized even by those who had at
one time ridiculed it. At the same time, the non-aligned movement has had to pass through
certain vicissitudes. The general atmosphere of doubt and recrimination seems to have
contaminated the movement to some extent. Internal problems within the movement have
tended to affect its unity. We have to examine these problems closely and devise ways and
means of ensuring the unity and continued effectiveness of the movement. While reserving
these tasks for discussion at the forums of the non-aligned movement itself, I shall only express
my confidence that, both by positive determination and by sheer necessity, non-alignment shall
be restored to its original concept and sweep when it was devised to deal with global issues
of detente, disarmament, decolonization and development.

There is an organic relationship between these four issues. Progress in any one of them would
help create the proper atmosphere for forward movement in the others. By the same token,
setback in one leads to increasing difficulty in the others. The present international situation
vividly illustrates their interrelationship. The collapse of detente has led to stalemate in
disarmament negotiations and absurd increase in defence expenditures which, in turn, have
prevented the developed nations from achieving what was expected of them in international
economic co-operation and development or, at any rate, tended to provide them with an alibi
for falling far short of expectations.

It is matter of considerable anguish to my delegation that the continent of Asia, which has
given the world all its major religions and served as the main cultural pathfinder over several
millenia is at present the scene of most of the conflicts and much of the suffering caused by
these conflicts-West Asia South-West Asia and South-East Asia. The Indian subcontinent, I am
happy to say, has been free from conflict for some years now, and it is my earnest hope and the
constant endeavour of my Government to see genuinely peaceful and co-operative relations
continue to develop in this area.

In West Asia, the threat of a conflagration will continue to persist so long as the Palestinian
problem is treated as a refugee problem and as long as the commitment of the United Nations
to establish an independent State for the Palestinians in their homeland remains unfulfilled. Far
from heeding the call of the United Nations to withdraw from the occupied Arab territories,
Israel has unabashedly colonized Arab lands and illegally annexed the Holy City of Jerusalem
in total disregard of its sacred heritage. I firmly believe as I said a few weeks ago during the
seventh emergency special session,1 that a comprehensive solution to the problem of West
Asia entails the following elements: the exercise by the Palestinian people of their inalienable
national and human rights, including the right to establish an independent State: the total and
unconditional withdrawal by Israel from all Palestinian and Arab territories occupied since
1967, including the Holy City of Jerusalem; and the guarantee of the right of all States in the
region, including Arab Palestine, to live within secure and recognized borders. A peaceful
solution cannot be attained without the full and equal participation of the PLO, the sole and
authentic representative of the Palestinian people, in any negotiations. Experience has shown
that attempts at partial solution without the participation of the PLO have neither succeeded
nor contributed to peace in the region.

The people and Government of India are saddened by the recent and continuing conflict
between Iran and Iraq, two close neighbours of ours. Our cultural and economic ties with the
peoples of the two countries are as old as history itself. Since our independence in 1947 those
ties have become even closer and acquired new dimensions.

Iran and Iraq are both developing countries, as in India. We cannot but express regret that the
conflict will inevitably lead to retarding the process of economic and social development
which is so vital to the needs of the peoples of the two countries. At the same time the conflict
weakens the solidarity of the non-aligned and developing countries. We therefore urge Iran
and Iraq to settle their differences peacefully, in accordance with the principles and
provisions of the Charter of the United Nations.

The developments in Afghanistan have been engaging the serious attention of the Government
of India. India has historical and traditional ties with the people of Afghanistan. We are deeply
concerned and vitally interested in the security, independence, stability and tranquillity of our
friendly neighbour. Over the past months the Government of India has been in touch with the
countries of the subcontinent, as well as other countries, in order to prevent the aggravation of
these dangers and heightening of tension.

We have consistently emphasized the inadmissibility of the use of force in international
relations or intervention or interference in the internal affairs of sovereign States. It is also our
firm belief that only by upholding the independence, sovereignty and territorial integrity of all
States can peace and stability be preserved in the area. Observance of those principles would
not prejudice the legitimate security interests of any State and, in fact, would go a long way
towards safeguarding them. What is required is a dialogue among the parties concerned,
without pre-conditions, so that the contours of a political settlement, acceptable to all, can
emerge. I am satisfied that such a dialogue is possible, since most of the difficulties are
essentially national and at best technical and non-substantive. If the countries of the region are
left in peace to work out their own destiny, without the competitive attention of great Powers,
that will permit them to embark on relationships based on mutuality and a developing trust in
bilateral negotiations as the best means of settling outstanding problems.

India's relations with Kampuchea go back several centuries. Indeed the temples of Angkor Wat
bears estimony to the close interconnections between the cultures of our two countries. The
gentle and peace-loving people of Kampuchea have suffered very greatly through no fault of
their own. The world will not forget nor condone the calculated and heinous crimes
perpetrated in the recent past by a cruel regime against the innocent and defenceless people of
Kampuchea. It is a great irony that, while emphatic references are being made time and again
to human rights, the first and foremost right of the Kampuchean people, namely, the right to
live, has been glossed over conveniently. Politically motivated callousness seems to have
crossed all limits when it is realized that remnants of the very same despotic regime are
representing, as it were, their own victims of Kampuchea in this Assembly.

The countries of Indo-China have been subjected to conflict, destabilisation and war for far
too long and should be allowed now to concentrate on the development of their economies and
societies. The Government of India has decided to establish diplomatic relations with the
Government headed by President Heng Samrin. This is an expression as much of the
overwhelming majority of public opinion within India as of our general policy of recognising
the reality of the political situation inside Kampuchea.

We value highly our relations with countries of ASEAN and believe that the development of
our relations with all our neighbours in South-East Asia will enable us to assist in the solution
of the problems that confront them at the present time.

Every objective analyst of the situations in South-West and South-East Asia must be convinced
by now that extreme positions have not helped ease tensions in either regions; on the other
hand, they have only hardened attitudes and prolonged the sufferings of the concerned people.
India's approach is based on the conviction that the search for solution in both cases lies in
political means and not through military force.

There should be no illusion that India is seeking merely momentary peace. As we have
repeatedly stated, we are against the presence of foreign troops or foreign bases in any
country. But if we desire to move towards finding a positive solution, what is required is an
assiduous and continued effort to devise suitable package solutions which take care of the
concerns of all and succeed in eliminating outside intervention and interference. Willingness
in this regard on the part of the concerned, howsoever partial, should be taken advantage of for
furthering a solution and not being spurned out of hand. If only the efforts of influential
countries had been bent in this direction, these problems would, I am sure, have already been
well on the way to satisfactory solution. That has been India's approach and I am glad to say
that it has over the months begun to receive at least grudging approval by many. In this
connection I should like to make special mention of the beginning of a dialogue between Viet
Nam and Thailand, with the good offices of the Secretary-General. This is the right direction
and I hope it will proceed to ultimate success in that region as well as elsewhere.

The Indian Ocean has become over the past decade and a half the arena of increasing
great-Power confrontation. The stresses and strains of their relationships have often been
reflected in the corresponding arithmetic of their military presence there. That the littoral and
hinterland States have expressed their unified and determined opposition to such military
presence and called for its elimination in the Declaration of the Indian ()cean as a Zone of
Peace in resolution 2832 (XXVI) is a history which is often sought to be conveniently ignored.

The current uncertainties in the political and security climate in the Indian Ocean as well as its
Diego Garcia base, further underline the urgency of addressing ourselves to this central
preoccupation. Both in the recently enlarged Ad Hoc Committee on the Indian Ocean, where
we have welcomed the participation of the great Powers and major maritime users, and at the
Conference on the Indian Ocean, to be convened during 1981 in Sri Lanka, India will clearly
identify the key concern of the littoral and hinterland States in securing the effective
implementation of the Declaration of the Indian Ocean as a Zone of Peace. We are firmly
committed to the convening of the Conference in 1981 in Sri Lanka and expect that the decision
of the present session of the Assembly will contribute to that goal.

On 1 October 1980 the President of Pakistan in his statement before the General Assembly
[18th meeting ] referred to the State of Jammu and Kashmir, which is an integral part of India.
That reference, attacking as it does the territorial integrity of India, was unfortunate. Three
times in 24 years Pakistan attempted to detach the State of Jammu and Kashmir from India by
the use of force. It received a befitting response on each of the three occasions. In 1972, India
and Pakistan signed the Simla Agreement,2 which provides for the settlement of all issues
between the two countries through bilateral negotiations. But since 1977 Pakistan has
repeatedly raised the issue of Jammu and Kashmir at the United Nations and other international
forums. References are made to relevant United Nations resolutions on the subject, quite
forgetting the fact that those resolutions have become irrelevant because of the action of
Pakistan itself. In the face of such references, I am constrained to wonder whether Pakistan's
adherence to the Simla Agreement has undergone a change. There is a clear contradiction
between the expressed desire of Pakistan to normalize relations with India in accordance with
the Simla Agreement and its pronouncements in various forums which attempt to set the clock
back. India's stand, on the other hand, has remained constant, and we continue to be prepared
to settle all matters with Pakistan through bilateral channels.

There is an old Indian metaphor likening the world to a frog resting in the shadow of a cobra's
hood. Such is the plight of peace in our age. The question of the relationship between ethics
and power in international politics has long engaged the attention of both the philosopher and
the practitioner of foreign policy in the nation State. Our principal concern in this nuclear age
is, however, that the leadership of the most powerful nations of the world should consider not
only the political appositeness of their foreign policy prescriptions but their consequences for
the very survival of the world. We run the risk today of being carried on the wings of a
collective paranoia. The situation calls for restraint and responsible behaviour so as to bring
the world away from the edge of a nuclear catastrophe.

Yet, judging by the current climate of international relations, the shadows of such a catastrophe
have become darker. Not only have the expectations of the first Disarmament Decade, and
especially those of the tenth special session of the General Assembly devoted to disarmament
been belied, but there has been a staggering, almost quantum leap in world military
expenditure, which today totals nearly $US 500 billion. Familiar arguments of "deterrence"
and doctrines of "balance of terror" are adduced to justify the continued escalation in the
build-up of nuclear weaponry. New doctrines of limited nuclear war are being postulated
which, by making nuclear war credible, increase the risk of such a war and even give it a
semblance of respectability.

All too often we are reminded of the dangers of an accidental nuclear holocaust being
triggered off by human or technological error or by computer malfunction. The very existence
of such weapons makes the possibility of system failures resulting in outright catastrophe
frighteningly real. Over the years India has consistently argued that the only effective guarantee
against the use, threat of use or accidental use of nuclear weapons is the total elimination of
such weapons. Their use has been declared a crime against humanity and contrary to the
Charter of the United Nations. Pending, however, the total elimination of nuclear weapons, all
States possessing nuclear weapons should give a binding commitment not to use them under
any circumstances.

India is firmly of the view that, like the Geneva Protocol of 19253 which completely forbids
the use of biological and chemical weapons, a convention on the total prohibition of the use or
threat of use of nuclear weapons would be a most desirable objective which should be
pursued energetically by the international community.

We understand that the United States and the USSR are scheduled to resume shortly their
dialogue on some aspects of the question of curbing the arms race. This is a welcome
development.

We have noted the proposals put forward by the Minister for Foreign Affairs of the Soviet
Union on urgent measures for reducing the danger of war. My delegation will give those
proposals its most serious consideration.

It is pertinent to recall that it was India which first brought the problem of the proliferation of
nuclear weapons to the attention of the United Nations in 1964 by inscribing in the agenda an
item entitled "Non-proliferation of Nuclear Weapons". Our approach was based on the
premise that both horizontal and vertical proliferation were integral parts of a problem which
had to be dealt with as a whole. This concept was endorsed by the General Assembly in
resolution 2028 (XX), which declared inter alia, that any treaty "should embody an
acceptable balance of mutual responsibilities and obligations of the nuclear and non-nuclear
Powers."

Unfortunately this concept was deliberately altered in the Treaty on the Non- proliferation of
Nuclear Weapons, concluded in 1968. If the Treaty has become an unworkable document, it is
only because it has adopted the narrow and illogical approach of addressing itself only to the
question of horizontal proliferation. The conclusion of cartel-type arrangements, the attempts
to impose full-scope safeguards and discriminatory constraints on the peaceful nuclear
activities of non-nuclear weapon States are all armed at perpetuating a kind of nuclear
feudalism which is unrealistic, illogical and unacceptable.

India is opposed to nuclear weapons. On the other hand, the Government of India is firmly
committed to the peaceful utilisation of nuclear energy. We would oppose any moves or
measures which are discriminatory in nature and which come in the way of our programmes to
use nuclear energy for peaceful purposes. The question of non- proliferation of nuclear
weapons should not be confused with the right of all States to develop, acquire and use
nuclear programmes, in accordance with their national priorities, needs and interests.

As we prepare to celebrate the twentieth anniversary of the adoption of the historic
Declaration on the Granting of Independence to Colonial Countries and Peoples [resolution
1514 (XV) ], the United Nations can legitimately be proud of its record of achievements in the
field of decolonisation. Except for a few pockets where colonialism and racism are
desperately fighting the forces of nationalism the world today is free from colonial domination
and exploitation.While the independence of Zimbabwe and Vanuatu was first and foremost the
result of the freedom struggle of their peoples, the contribution made by the United Nations has
been significant.

We were hopeful that the independence of neighbouring Zimbabwe would set an example for a
peaceful settlement of the question of Namibia. The United Nations plan for Namibia
contained in Security Council resolution 435 (1978) had established a framework for the early
independence of Namibia. Its acceptance by the parties concerned had marked a step in the
right direction. But the racist South African regime has continued its dilatory tactics by raising
extraneous issues and by questioning the very impartiality of the Secretary-General of the
United Nations. We should certainly support every efforts for a peaceful settlement of the
question of Namibia which would be to the satisfaction of the people of Namibia. However,
we regret to note that even the most recent communication, dated 22 September 1980, received
by the Secretary- General from the South Africa Government4 does not indicate that South
Africa has any intention to implement the United Nations plan. The only means left to the
United Nations in the present situation is for the Security Council to impose mandatory
sanctions against South Africa under Chapter Vll of the United Nations Charter, so as to
compel South Africa to abide by the wish of the international community. Meanwhile the
Member States should continue to provide moral and material support to SWAPO, the sole
and authentic representative of the people of Namibia, in its struggle for national liberation.

Permit me to refer briefly to the Third United Nations Conference on the Law of the Sea,
which concluded its ninth session at Geneva recently. The Conference has been in session
since 1973 and before that the Committee on the Peaceful Uses of the Sea-Bed and the Ocean
Floor beyond the Limits of National Jurisdiction had reviewed the law of the sea and done
preparatory work for about six years. During that long period, understanding was reached on a
number of significant issues, including a mile territorial sea, a 200-mile exclusive economic
zone limits of the continental shelf, a regime for marine environment and marine scientific
research, and a regime and international machinery for the exploration and exploitation of the
international sea-bed area and its resources, which have been recognized and acknowledged
by all States as the common heritage of mankind.

We note with satisfaction that the Conference was able at its last session to make progress on
some more critical questions and we hope it will successfully conclude its work of finalizing a
comprehensive convention on the law of the sea in the near future.

The year 1980 marked the mid-point of the United Nations Decade for Women. Considerable
progress has been made during the first half of the Decade in focusing the attention of
Governments and peoples on the need for improving the status of women. Women in India
have traditionally enjoyed pride of place in our society. Long before the international
Womens' Year and the Decade for Women, the Indian people had enacted into law equality of
women in all respects. That was no accident for it flows from the best traditions of our history
and culture, and in particular of our struggle for independence, when men and women together
accepted sacrifices and rejoiced in the dawn of freedom. I hope that the Programme of Action
adopted at Copenhagen5 will provide the guidance and framework for action-oriented
programmes to work towards the implementation of the objectives of the Decade through the
United Nations and other international forums.

The year 1981 will be the International Year of Disabled Persons. There is a vast segment of
mankind, estimated to be around 400 million, which being handicapped in one way or another,
is unable to live with the dignity which is the right of all human beings. The bulk of those
unfortunate beings is in the developing countries. We in India intend to reinforce our efforts in
the rehabilitation of the disabled and more important in the prevention of disability. We have
already taken several steps including the establishment of a National Committee in preparation
for the International Year of Disabled Persons.

We have just emerged from the frustrating process of the eleventh special session and the
agonizing memory of its disappointing ending is still fresh in our minds. However
constructively one may try to look at the outcome of the special session, one is unable to
escape the conclusion that the failure was not so much because of the complexity of the task
but because of the absence of political will and the incomprehensible stubbornness of a few-to
be precise, just three States Members of this Organization. In their incessant quest for an
orderly and co-operative approach towards a new international economic order the
developing countries were persuaded to accept a compromise text on procedures for the
global negotiations. That was the irreducible minimum for securing a process that would have
provided hope of finding solutions to the critical problems facing the world economy as a
whole and the economies of the developing countries in particular. A vast majority of the
affluent nations, whose fortunes are interlinked with the destiny of the developing world, also
accepted the procedures worked out through extremely difficult negotiations during the special
session. Not all of them could have found those procedures entirely satisfactory, but they
responded to the imperative of interdependence and to the obligations implicit in it. And yet,
in the final analysis, all those endeavours ended in total collapse and the international
community was at the end left chasing the wisp of international co-operation and
interdependence. It would be less than candid on my part not to affirm that those who
prevented a consensus being reached must bear the entire responsibility for the failure of the
special session.

It would be appropriate to ask why the concept of interdependence does not seem to have
received acceptance in practice, particularly in all developed countries. There is a view that
the fact of interdependence either is not quite apparent or is not urgent enough to be taken into
account in formulating current economic policies and decisions of developed countries. The
dialogue as well as the argument based on interdependence, therefore takes on a rather
academic and unreal character and does not seem to carry conviction with the people of
developed countries. That is the distinct impression one gets from their media, whatever the
pronouncements of their political leadership. It is time that this hiatus in understanding was
seriously taken note of.

Of course the position is not the same in all developed countries or on all occasions in the
same country. It would therefore not be correct to lump all developed countries together in that
respect. There are distinct variations in the perceptions of the Governments and peoples of
those countries and it would be both relevant and prudent to analyse them closely. The extent
of the genuine realization of interdependence on the part of the Governments and peoples of
the developed countries is the real measure which the North-South dialogue will achieve.

Until three days back India was the Chairman of the Group of 77 in New York and, as such,
articulated the aspirations of the developing countries. India will continue to endorse the stand
taken by the Group of 77 as before and contribute its mite for the success of the global
negotiations. The Group of 77 has taken a reasonable and balanced stand. We hope that in due
course it will find a favourable response from developed countries, mainly through a process
of appraisal of their own long-term interests, which can be achieved only through co-operation
with developing countries. That process obivisouly needs a persuasive and positive efforts on
the part of all right- thinking and sober elements in both the developed and developing camps.
The attitudes of charity would be just as unreal and fallacious as the approach of obligatory
expiation would be impracticable and counterproductive.

The nature of the phenomenon that we witness at the eleventh special session is disturbing and
its consequences ominous for the future of economic co-operation among nations. My
delegation is concerned to hear arguments of domestic pressure inherent in a democratic set-up
preventing adherence to or fulfillment of international covenants and agreements. Whether it is
the law of the sea, where difficult negotiations over long years are promising to come to
fruition soon, or multilateral trade negotiations on which agreement was reached last year at
Tokyo, or other internationally binding agreements, their sanctity is being breached in the name
of national compulsions and with increasing impunity. Is it very difficult, I ask the members of
this Assembly, to infer from all this that a wilful departure is being made by those countries
from the concept of interdependence and from the process of international co-operation?

Thirty-three years ago, when we achieved our political independence, we deliberately chose
the democratic path of permeating the intricate political process as well as the methodology of
development. Like most other nations, we too faced the conflict between national sovereignty
and international obligations implicit in our existence as a member of the world community.
To the best of our ability and belief, we have never turned away from our international
obligations, nor can we be accused of violating the sanctity of international agreements freely
entered into by my country. Such a course often involved domestic sacrifices, but our
democratic structure gave us sustenance and strength in remaining true to our international or
multilateral obligations. It would be particularly unfortunate if the leadership of a democratic
country were to plead helplessness in fulfilling valid international obligations on the ground of
opposition in its legislature. This helplessness would, in fact detract from the credibility of the
democratic system itself in international relations. So those who are having recourse to this
arguments, for whatever reason or short-term exigency are in reality undermining the validity
of their own cherished system. My earnest appeal would be that this tendency be eschewed.

So far as India is concerned, we are determined to continue our efforts to bring about an early
resumption of the North-South dialogue. For our part, we would expect the few developed
countries which have still not fully accepted the logic of global negotiations to join in the
process that would make the resumption of the North South dialogue possible. It is also my
expectation that we should be able to see this movement in the course of the current session of
the General Assembly so that the preparatory work for the launching of the global negotiations
could be completed before the end of this year.

The eleventh special session of the General Assembly did manage to reach a consensus on the
text of the International Development Strategy for the Third United Nations Development
Decade, embodying the goals and objectives of an integrated process of economic and social
development during the 1 980s and the policy measures required to achieve those goals and
objectives. It remains to be seen to what extent the commitment undertaken in the Strategy
when it is adopted during this session, will represent unambiguous and unanimous agreements.
This is true particularly in regard to official development assistance industrial redeployment,
international trade and monetary issues. Having said this, I would like to underline our
satisfaction at the consensus that exists in regard to measures to meet the critical situation in
the least developed countries.

At this session the General Assembly is expected to consider and take appropriate action in
regard to the suggestions made by the Secretary-General6 last July for overcoming the critical
economic situation of many developing countries. We await the elaboration by the Secretary
General of his suggestions and trust that it will be possible for him to go into all relevant
details, such as the feasibility of raising the amount required for additional assistance and
operational arrangements for its disbursement among low-income countries most seriously
affected by the current economic crisis.

I should also like to refer to the policy measures for the most seriously affected countries that
have been agreed to in the context of the International Development Strategy. The General
Assembly resolution on the subject last year [resolution 34/210 ] called upon the
Secretary-General to submit an analytical report at the special session in 1980 and called upon
all donor countries to consider in the meantime extending relief and assistance to the most
seriously affected countries. While the special session was unable to consider the report of the
Secretary-General in detail, the International Development Strategy does refer to agreed
measures that will need to be urgently considered by the international community and this
Assembly.

Many years ago Jawaharlal Nehru reflecting on the dilemma of his time over the futile attempts
at disarmament wrote:

"The real difficulty .. has been that there are two classes of countries-the satisfied Powers and
the unsatisfied Powers, the dominant Power and those that are suppressed, the Powers that
want the present state of affairs to continue and those that want a change. Between the two
there can be no stable equilibrium, just as there can be no real stability between a dominant
class and a suppressed class ... Nothing proves the unreality and mockery of international
politics today so much as the failure of all attempts at disarmament. Everybody talks of peace,
and prepares for war."

These words, written more than 40 years ago, have a ring of tragic prophecy. They are
symptomatic not only of disarmament negotiations but of the entire gamut of international
relations today. Sometimes looking at great stretches of history, it is difficult to believe that the
ideal of co-operation and working together for the common good has made much progress.
And yet, if we are to avert a catastrophe, we should resolutely continue on the path of dialogue
and co-operation and turn away from sterile polemics and confrontation. All of us perhaps
perceive the danger and recognize the challenge, but the will to act has so far been sadly
lacking. Let us, therefore, so readjust our sights and conduct our affairs that future generations
may not condemn our times as yet another barren stretch in the history of man.

--------------------------
Back to Statements in the United Nations