37th Session
14th Plenary Meeting, 1st October, 1982

Speech by Mr. P. V. Narasimha Rao

Mr. President, allow me to congratulate you on your unanimous election to the presidency of
the thirty-seventh session of the General Assembly. We are gratified that a representative of
Hungary, with which we enjoy close and cordial relations, has been chosen to preside over
our deliberations.

I would like to take this opportunity to express our appreciation of the resolute and efficient
leadership provided to the Assembly during its thirty-sixth session by your predecessor, Mr.
Ismat Kittani.

I would also like to pay a tribute to the Secretary-General, Mr. Perez de Cuellar, who has won
our admiration and acclaim for his efficient stewardship of the United Nations this year and
for his skilful handling of several crisis situations. We wish him greater successes in the
future. India approaches the present session of the General Assembly with renewed
commitment to the principles and purposes of the United Nations. The efforts of the United
Nations to bring these principles into the realm of reality deserve the support of each one of
us, for mankind has a great stake in its success. Our endeavour to contribute to its success,
therefore, is dictated by our own will to survive and to pursue our path towards progress in a
congenial international climate, free from domination and exploitation.

Building up self-reliance internally and maintenance of an independent policy externally have
been the twin objectives of the Government of India since our independence. Traditions
inherited from our ancient past still remain with us, but the leaders of modern India have
succeeded in inculcating a spirit of adventure and inquiry in our people, making them
receptive to evolving contemporary ideas. In this sense our tradition itself has not remained
static; it has enabled change to come about with stability and continuity being retained all the
time. Side by side with the development of a rural economy, which provides sustenance for the
majority of the people of India, we have built a modern industrial infrastructure which enables
us to keep pace with the spectacular scientific and technological advances taking place in the
world. Our mixed economy, in which the public sector occupies the commanding heights but
the private sector provides the majority of the means of production, has proved its resilience
and strength. Foreign collaboration and technical co-operation have provided an impetus to
our development, but both have operated within the framework of our own national priorities,
determined by an integrated planning process.

The stability that we have acquired through our democratic institutions, which give our people
a sense of deep involvement, as proved propitious for our progress. In his thought-provoking
report on the work of the Organization, the Secretary- General has painted a grim picture of the
world that we live in today. Things have come to such a sorry pass that unless they are
checked, we will, he feels, approach "a new international anarchy". These are sombre words,
coming as they do from the Secretary- General. In his very first address to the General
Assembly, Prime Minister Jawaharlal Nehru had warned us that it was becoming increasingly
apparent that if we did not proceed speedily enough towards a world order, we would be left
with no order in the world. If after 37 years of its existence, the Organization is unable to offer
anything more than mere palliatives, the time has indeed come for a reassessment, some
soul-searching and, above all, concrete remedial action. The Secretary-General's hands need
to be strengthened so that he can advise, and if necessary, even prod the Security Council into
action, to prevent outbreaks of fresh conflicts. For it is painfully obvious that the Security
Council, the discharge of whose responsibilities is predicated on the principle of concurrence
among its permanent members, stands paralysed and immobilized because of the inability of
the permanent members to rise above their narrow national objectives to harmonize their
positions in the cause of peace.

Although all of us, being representatives of nation States, believe strongly in the well- known
attributes of national sovereignty, it should not be difficult for us to see that the common good
of mankind ought to have a certain overriding priority in the scheme of things. In any event,
national interest cannot be inimical to the common good of humanity: the two have to go hand
in hand and be combined harmoniously, despite some seemingly disadvantageous positions in
the short run at the national level.

All of us are committed to the goal of general and complete disarmament, particularly nuclear
disarmament. People in every part of the world have become acutely aware that, through no
fault of their own, they would perish if strategies of nuclear deterrence were tested out, since
they would obviously be tested out on them. They also know only too well that after a nuclear
conflict either they would not be living at all, or, if they do live, that life would be so horrible
that death would be preferable to it. It is this awareness that has forced multitudes of people,
irrespective of colour, creed, religion, nationality or political persuasion, to go out on to the
streets to urge sanity in dealing with matters of life and death. Their loud and clear voices
signify that there could be no agenda more urgent than that for devising immediate measures
for nuclear disarmament and the prevention of nuclear war.

In response to this overwhelming popular sentiment the world over, the Prime Minister of
India, Mrs. Indira Gandhi, presented at the special session on disarmament this year a concrete
programme of action (1) which included the negotiation of a binding convention on the non-use
of nuclear weapons, a freeze on the production of nuclear weapons and fissionable material
used in the manufacture thereof, the suspension of nuclear-weapon tests, and the resumption of
negotiations for concluding a treaty on general and complete disarmament. India submitted a
number of proposals and draft resolutions (2) to facilitate the beginning of a serious nuclear
disarmament programme. Yet the opposition of nuclear-weapon States prevented the
Assembly at the special session from taking any concrete steps in this regard. The so-called
consensus document that finally emerged was so insipid as to be meaningless. In the
circumstances, India had no choice but to disassociate itself from the conclusions in the
document.

The outcome of the special session was perhaps yet another instance of what the
Secretary-General describes as the lack of capacity of the Organization to come to terms with
the present reality. Nevertheless, we shall not despair, despite the attempts of a few but
powerful nations to hold peace hostage to their nuclear arsenals and to their own perceived
security interests. There have been, however, some positive albeit feeble indications of late.
We welcome the evolution in the attitude of some nuclear-weapon Powers. It is our earnest
hope that at this session India's proposals will be considered in all seriousness and that
decisions will be taken that will rid the world of weapons of mass destruction.

It is gratifying to think that in a world teetering on the brink of nuclear disaster the vast
majority of humanity prefers, wisely, to keep out of military alliances devised by great
Powers. The non-aligned nations know perfectly well that military alliances and interlocking
arrangements do not guarantee peace and stability, but on the contrary, serve as a potential
invitation to intervention and involvement in strategic conflicts. The preservation of peace,
therefore, is at the core of the philosophy of non-alignment developed by our founding fathers.
It becomes more and more relevant with every passing day. Its practice has enabled India, as
our Prime Minister pledged at the time of our independence, to look at the rest of the world
with clear and friendly eyes: clear since we are not obliged to look through alien glasses of
any hue, and friendly since we believe that mutually beneficial relations can be forged on the
basis of equality. Non-alignment, which in our lexicon is a synonym for freedom of thought and
action, has invested our independence with meaning and content. It has also sharpened our
determination to oppose the evils of imperialism, colonialism, racism and all manifestations of
foreign domination. The value and relevance of our non-alignment have been demonstrated not
only by the increasing number of adherents it has found, but also by the qualitative change that
it has helped to bring about in international relations.

Despite manifest diversity in political and economic outlook and an understandable
preoccupation with regional problems, the essential unity of purpose of non-aligned countries
remains intact on matters of vital and crucial global interest and concern. The unique bond
among them is the voice of sanity which they have raised with consistency and determination.
In turn, this unity has sustained the prestige and influence of the non-aligned movement through
the constantly shifting patterns in international relationships. India is honoured that in these
difficult times it has been called upon to host the Seventh Conference of Heads of State or
Government of Non-Aligned Countries. While we are naturally grateful for this opportunity,
we are mindful of the tremendous responsibility it entails. With utmost sincerity, I promise that
India will do all in its power to be worthy of the trust which the movement has reposed in it.

Our neighbourhood, the South Asian subcontinent, is currently going through a process of
regional co-operation on the basis of mutual benefit. India is gratified at these very desirable
developments, which are in consonance with its own efforts over the years to build bridges of
understanding among the countries of the region. True, external interference and intervention
continue to sow suspicious and inflame passions. An unprecedented build up of sophisticated
arms, unrelated either to reasonable needs or to perceived threats, still points to the
continuance of strategic consensus situations so detrimental to regional independence and
harmony. Yet one can perhaps hope more than hitherto that the subcontinent will be able to
usher in an era of peace which is more comprehensive than the mere absence of war, and
encompasses relationships of positive friendship and co-operation.

The slender thread which the Secretary-General has found in the search for a political
settlement of the situation in Afghanistan is another development that has been welcomed in
our part of the world. There is universal reaffirmation of the inadmissibility of interference in
the internal affairs of States, as also of the introduction of foreign troops into any country. Here
again, given the prospect of success of the Secretary-General's effort, India feels gratified that
its own approach to finding a political solution has been vindicated.

We commend the commencement of the Geneva talks and trust that they will pick up
momentum hereafter, to enter substantive areas. We feel it is high time they did, and our
feeling is in line with what the Afghan people urge.

Geographically distant from us but equally close to our hearts are the friendly people of
Kampuchea, who are struggling valiantly to remove the ravages caused by a heartless
dictatorial regime. The advent of an alliance of convenience whose real content is too thinly
veiled to need any unveiling should not distract our attention. Once the fear of the return of the
holocaust is removed and the threat to their territorial integrity and sovereignty is ended, the
people of Kampuchea will be willing - nay, eager-to get foreign troops to leave their soil. The
expedients improvised for seating the forces without legitimacy in these chambers can hardly
help either the process of healing the wounds of Kampuchea or of finding an acceptable
political solution. What is needed is the ending of confrontation in South-East Asia, which
alone could have a welcome impact on the stability and prosperity of the entire region.

The security environment in the Indian Ocean region has further deteriorated because of the
increased build-up of the military presence of great Powers, contrary to the wishes of the
non-aligned littoral and hinterland States. The implementation of the historic General
Assembly resolution 2832 (XXVI) declaring the Indian Ocean a zone of peace, adopted in
1971, has remained a distant dream. Theories of balance and doctrines of deterrence are being
advanced in order to justify the introduction of sophisticated weaponry into the area.

The Conference on the Indian Ocean, originally scheduled to be held in 1981 in Colombo, is
still postponed at the behest of those who are far removed from the area. Simultaneously,
efforts are afoot to subvert the fundamental elements of the Declaration set out in the 1971
resolution and to distort its essential framework. We believe that the time has come for the
commencement of the process of the elimination of foreign military presence from the Indian
Ocean, that the Colombo Conference should be held come what may, in accordance with the
new schedule, and that it should address well to the question in a forthright manner.

The shifting of fortunes in the war between Iraq and the Islamic Republic of Iran and the
colossal loss of lives and property have once again highlighted the futility of war as a means
of settling disputes. I personally have had the experience of participating in the peace-making
effort on the basis of a mandate given to my colleagues from Cuba, Zambia and the Palestine
Liberation Organization [PLO] and to me at the Conference of Ministers for Foreign Affairs of
Non-Aligned Countries at New Delhi in 1981. My colleagues and I are convinced that, while
there can be no victor or vanquished, the damage inflicted on each other by these two
neighbours will only weaken their ability to meet the challenges that face them as developing
countries.

The recent conflagration in West Asia resulting in the virtual destruction of Beirut and the
horrid genocide of the Lebanese and Palestinian population have shaken the conscience of
mankind to the very core. It was nothing short of a holocaust, imposed, strangely and
ironically, by none other than Israel. Ironically, again, the withdrawal of the PLO from Beirut,
to save innocent civilians from further suffering and devastation, itself led to the gruesome
massacre of Palestinians in Shanla and Sabra. Israel's responsibility, indeed complicity, is
self-evident. Those who had undertaken to protect the Palestinian and Lebanese civilians in
Beirut in the wake of the PLO's withdrawal must also share the blame for the criminal
bloodshed.

The dispersal of the heroic Palestinians will neither weaken their will to fight for their
inalienable rights nor bring peace to the area. Occupation of the land of its neighbours will not
guarantee Israel's security; the effect, if anything, will be just the opposite. A comprehensive
solution consisting of Israel's withdrawal from all Arab territories occupied since 1967, the
establishment of a Palestinian State and mutual guarantees of security among the States of the
region must be achieved. There now seems to be greater understanding of the fact that no
comprehensive solution will be achieved without the active involvement of the PLO, the
representative of the Palestinian people. In the gory drama in Lebanon, the PLO and other
Arab nations have since shown great statesmanship in evolving and adopting the "Fez
Charter", the Final Declaration of the Twelfth Arab Summit Conference [see A/37/696],
whose proposals deserve very serious consideration.

In recent weeks there have been important proposals made by world leaders. They vary in
approach and content, but fundamental to all of them is the recognition that the uprooted people
of Palestine should secure their legitimate rights. In this case, as with other problems, the
slowing down of the effort to find a solution often results in the creation of vested interests in
the continued non-solution of the problem. This leads to prevarication and circumvention and a
long stalemate. This has happened in West Asia, with the disastrous consequences which we
are now witnessing. Therefore the quest for a comprehensive solution should be pursued
relentlessly. Instead of indulging in a fine-print scrutiny of the various plans mooted so far and
losing valuable time in endless discussions, immediate steps should be taken at the United
Nations to devise a suitable mechanism for finding a permanent solution to the problem of
West Asia. This is the very minimum that needs to be done in expiation of the rivers of
innocent blood that have been allowed to flow in Lebanon.

Racism and colonialism still rage in Southern Africa today, with little progress either in the
elimination of apartheid or in the liberation of Namibia. The people of South Africa remain in
bondage, despite the universal condemnation of the obnoxious discriminatory laws of the
Pretoria regime. We have been awaiting the outcome of the contacts being conducted by the
five Western States for the implementation of the United Nations plan for free elections in
Namibia. The South West Africa People's Organization [SWAPO], the sole and authentic
representative of the Namibian people, which negotiated in good faith for a cease-fire and free
elections, has reason to apprehend that South Africa and its supporters have been creating an
illusion of progress in these talks merely to link up the situation in Namibia with extraneous
issues. The international community will, as it must, intensify its demand for punitive action
against South Africa under the Charter, if the current efforts for a negotiated settlement fail to
achieve results. South Africa's supporters will find it difficult to shield it from the wrath of the
world for very long.

Several old items on the agenda continue to engage our attention. Thus the situation in Cyprus,
unfortunately, still remains frozen. In spite of repeated calls of the movement of non-aligned
countries and the support of the international community in general the relevant resolutions of
the United Nations have not yet been implemented. We trust that the inter-communal talks will
soon bear fruit and the question resolved free from external interference and in accordance
with decisions of the United Nations.

More recently, despite the efforts of our sagacious Secretary-General, conflict and bloodshed
in the South Atlantic could not be averted.

In Central America there are dangerous portents of intervention and destabilisation. The
United Nations cannot remain a mute spectator and must lend support to all efforts for dialogue
and negotiation to create mutual confidence and to resolve outstanding disputes.

It is with great satisfaction that we note the long and at times difficult negotiation successfully
concluded with the adoption of a universal and comprehensive Convention on the Law of the
Sea. The Convention is a symbol of shared expectations of the international community and
represents a major contribution to world peace and the new international economic order.
Later this year, in December, in Jamaica the Final Act will be open for signature. It is our
earnest hope that the Convention on the Law of the Sea will be endorsed by all States with
prompt signatures and ratifications.

International co-operation for development is the topic of our age.We strongly believe that our
approach to development and co-operation will have to be informed by certain objective and
fundamental considerations. First, the arms race is not compatible with the movement towards
a more stable global development and sustainable international order. Secondly, the
international community cannot aspire to durable peace so long as a major component of it
remains underdeveloped. Thirdly, orderly development and continued progress can take place
optimally only in an atmosphere of harmony and co-operation. Fourthly, co-operation demands
that the privileges which the developed countries have been enjoying so far should not be
turned into rights and that the concerns of the developing countries be taken into account.

Some months ago, in a special session, the General Assembly brought out clearly the close
connection between disarmament and development, but failed to draw the requisite
conclusions from it.

A year ago the two co-Chairmen of the International Meeting on Co-operation and
Development, which was held at Cancun, referred to the North-South relationship as one of the
most serious challenges to be faced in the coming decades by mankind, together with the
maintenance of peace. The theme of Cancun was "Co-operation and Development".
Regrettably, there was no agreement as to how the real challenge of the North-South
relationship was to be met, though, as our Prime Minister observed after the Cancun meeting
the door was kept open for dialogue.

One can only hope that world statesmen will take an enlightened and long-term view of
history. We also need to promote world-wide political understanding, with the involvement of
the public, of the connection between the North-South relationship and the maintenance of
peace. This would contribute significantly to generating the requisite political will that is
sorely needed to overcome the present paralysis in the North-South dialogue.

Viewed against this background, it is most disheartening that the adverse effects of the
continued deadlock on the negotiating front have been compounded by an actual deterioration
in the North-South relationship. As the report of the Committee on Development Planning in its
eighteenth session (3) has illustrated, there is both qualitative and quantitative deterioration in
multilateral economic co-operation. Examples of this are increasing protectionism, high
interest rates, fast-diminishing concessional assistance, the secular decline in prkes of many
commodities, difficulties in access to the international capital market and the injection of
non-economic factors and political consideration in the functioning of multilateral economic
institutions. For the first time since the Second World War, the developing countries, taken as
a group, have registered a fall in their per capita output.

Two years ago the Assembly adopted the International Development Strategy for the Third
United Nations Development Decade [resolution 35/56, annex]. However, it remains a paper
document. There is all round failure on the part of the developed countries to fulfil their
commitments. Their is no agreement, even on the procedures for the global negotiations that
were expected to contribute to the implementation of the Strategy.

Recent developments show that while the developing countries do have a conciliatory
approach, there is not enough encouraging response from the developed countries. Several of
them are not negative, yet there are some that are not even prepared to think in terms of a
consensus that can bind the North and the South. They are still to be convinced that
comprehensive and global negotiations will in the long run facilitate the emergence of a viable
co-operative relationship among the nations of the world. As for the developing countries, they
are not interested in a zero-sum game, but in a positive-sum approach. They are conscious of
the fact that the progress in regard to the achievement of the new international economic order
is inextricably linked with the world economic recovery programme. Thus, today world
economic problems can be solved only by joint actions. There is no alternative for the
international community but to move beyond the present stalemate to more fruitful, durable and
just international economic relationships.

Let me now turn to the current problems arising from the pursuit of anti- inflammatory policies,
protectionist trends, high interest rates and the drying up of the sources of concessional flows.
The anti-inflammatory policies that have been adopted by some developed countries are not
conducive to growth and employment. Consequently, there has been a decline in the price per
unit of exports by developing countries of their raw materials and primary products. The
exports of industrial products of developing countries have been adversely affected by
growing protectionism. The high interest rates are causing serious problems in regard to debt
burden and access to international capital markets. The International Development Association
[IDA] is in deep trouble. All this makes the task of developing countries extremely difficult.
The situation is particularly grave for oil-importing developing countries in regard to their
balance-of-payments position and the development of their energy resources, which require
large capital outlay.

We should thus lose no time in devising feasible strategies that are complementary to those
predicated on global negotiations for restructuring international economic relations. Urgent
steps need to be taken for a world economic recovery programme and for building upon the
limited gains that have been secured through North-South co- operation. Agreement should be
sought wherever possible. Detailed guidelines for further work should be drawn up so as to
facilitate thorough discussions and eventual agreement on all connected matters at the sixth
session of UNCTAD, where this matter will be high on the agenda.

Numerous international conferences have stressed the need for making efforts concurrent with
global negotiations in order to achieve progress in areas of critical importance to developing
countries such as food, energy, trade and financial flows. The Versailles Economic Summit
had outlined certain practical areas for action. We would urge developed countries not to use
lack of progress on global negotiations as an alibi for inaction. We expect that they would
translate their suggestions into concrete and co- operative programmes of action that would
contribute to the development of the developing countries.

A broad consensus now exists, and indeed, this was one concrete gain in Cancun - on evolving
a strategy to increase food production. We hope that a well-thought out international
programme would emerge in this regard. Efforts must continue to devise a global strategy for
food security and for constant updating of measures and actions. It is important to reach
agreement on an international wheat trade agreement for stability of supplies and prices.

In the field of energy the most important task is to help oil-importing developing countries to
exploit their own energy resources. At the same time, much greater research activities and
financial resources are needed for developing alternative sources of energy. Ongoing studies
should be completed early in regard to the securing of financing for an increasing programme
of energy investment through an energy affiliate of the World Bank or a special fund, or other
agreed arrangements.

A further expansion and liberalisation of the International Monetary Fund [imps compensatory
facility is called for. Indeed, we need to give greater consideration to the establishment of a
completely new commodity-related scheme. Predictability in the earnings, supply and demand
of commodities is an objective which we should seriously pursue. This calls for adequate and
effective price stabilization arrangements.

The deterioration in the world trading situation is especially affecting countries with relatively
low per capita income. The international trading regime which has emerged neither adheres to
the principles and rules envisaged by GATT, nor is it responsive to new circumstances. What
is necessary is the most careful consideration of the requirements of an international trading
order that will be efficient, equitable and effectively promote the development of developing
countries. For this there should be a return to a set of agreed principles in international trading
relationships, particularly through practical support for the principles of multilateralism,
non-discrimination, non-reciprocity vis-a-vis developing countries, transparency and
predictability consistent with special and differential treatment to developing countries.
Progressive liberalisation of the trade in textiles, clothing, the leather industry and other
consumer durables is a matter of great importance to the industrial development of developing
countries. The developing countries possess comparative advantages in these areas. We
expect that the GATT ministerial meeting and the sixth session of UNCTAD would agree on
concrete measures in this regard.

The situation created by the second massive oil price rise is qualitatively different and more
acute than that faced by the world community at the time of the first energy crisis less than 10
years ago. The growth momentum of the developing countries was then maintained through
flows of international finance on suitable terms to the countries most adversely affected by the
crisis and through new modalities of concessional developmental assistance. No similar effort
is visible today or even being considered. Instead, private capital and investments are
suggested as a solution to the problems of developing countries. While private capital can be
useful in certain areas, experience clearly shows that it cannot provide resources for long-term
development aiming at social improvement and stability with low or no market profit. It cannot
alleviate the balance-of-payments burdens of developing countries. Above all, multilateral aid
should not be made conditional on corresponding in-flow of private investment. Similarly, the
increasing recourse to exclusive bilateralism continues and must be resisted to the extent such
bilateralism tends to obstruct multilateral co-operation and is pursued at the expense of the
latter.

Thus, the international monetary and financial system is increasingly pushing developing
countries towards adjustment policies that seriously undermine their stability. This is
happening at a time when the oil-importing developing countries are making efforts against
such heavy odds as increasing exports during a time of declining world demand, raising higher
and higher resources domestically in order to finance the same volume of imports; and
bringing about reduction in already low levels of consumption in order to increase investments
and savings. There is a limit to which our countries can be pushed.

Co-operation among developing countries is now viewed both as an essential component of
the new international economic order and as an important instrument for bringing it about.
Three years ago, the Sixth Conference of Heads of State or Government of Non-Aligned
Countries at Havana had agreed on policy guidelines for reinforcing the collective
self-reliance of developing countries.

We note with satisfaction that a process has now been set in motion which is continuously
enriching the concept, practice and content of economic and technical co-operation among
developing countries. Concomitant support measures by international organizations would be
of great help in technical preparations for major South-South undertakings such as, for
instance, the establishment of the global system of trade preferences among developing
countries and the setting up of a South-South bank. We believe that economic co-operation
among developing countries can make a significant contribution to world economic recovery.
We trust that the Assembly will give due and favourable consideration to these matters.

This is not the moment to think in terms of mutually exclusive alternatives. The present sorry
state of affairs can be repaired only by actions on all fronts. We need bilateral as well as
multilateral co-operation, official development assistance as well as private flows of capital,
North-South co-operation as well as South-South co- operation, global negotiations for
restructuring international economic relations as well as concurrent efforts for securing
progress in sectoral areas. Let us, therefore, not engage in futile debates, but work honestly to
secure concrete results. I trust that our deliberations in the Assembly will lead us to this path.

The German philosopher Hegel believed that a notable contribution of man to civilization was
the creation of the nation State, which provides the individual with the opportunity of finding
the full satisfaction of his needs in co-operation with the community. This Organization
composed of 157 nation States, represents the quintessence of the civilization that mankind has
laboured hard over the centuries to build. The Prime Minister of India, Shrimati Indira Gandhi,
recently observed:

"One of the most fascinating riddles of history is what makes a group of people share a
sense of common destiny. Almost always this is the result of being together in hardship
and humiliation; often it comes from being summoned to a heroic effort by a great figure
or group of people who inspire them with a vision of truth or glory".

The community of nations, as practically every distinguished speaker has stressed in the
Assembly, is confronted with an economic, political and moral crisis. Such adversity should,
instead of dividing us, reinforce our resolve to seek and secure our common destiny. With such
a distinguished gathering of leaders from all over the world who have addressed and are going
to address the Assembly, we cannot afford to fail in finding that vision of truth and glory. I
should like to conclude with the conviction that if we pledge to act together we will overcome
the crisis that faces us today.

-=---------------------

Back to Statements in the United Nations