India

It is a particular pleasure to see Mr. Gurirab presiding over the last session of the General Assembly of the twentieth century. I consider myself singularly fortunate and greatly honoured to be representing my country, India, on this occasion. I do believe that, in the many years that he spent here pursuing the dream of independence for his people — which, happily, is now a reality — he, more perhaps than others, has seen the United Nations at its best. That is why the perspective that he brings to the office of the President, enriched as it is by living through the very articles of faith of the United Nations, is near unique. I am sure we will all profit from it. I take this opportunity also to warmly welcome three new Members to the United Nations: Kiribati, Nauru and Tonga. I have no doubt their presence shall enrich our deliberations. Even as I address this Assembly, the century draws to a close and the world prepares to meet the year 2000. It is only appropriate and instructive, therefore, to look back and to reflect upon the journey that humanity set out upon 100 years ago. Where did we think we were then headed and where have we actually reached? Could any then foresee what 1999 would bring? Thus, are there, in the passage of the years that have gone by, any landmarks that could indicate a path for our future? For that, we need to assess the twentieth century, and there is but one yardstick by which we can judge: the criteria of the stated objectives of the United Nations. Indisputably, the twentieth has been the bloodiest of all centuries. But, in contradistinction, it has also been a century of the most profound transformations and of the most significant social, political and technological advancements. This, above all, has been the century of the ascendancy of the individual and of democracy. It is that period in which dynasties vanished and revolutions swept empires off the face of ancient lands. Centuries-old colonialism became history against the irresistible heave of the colonized to reclaim their lands, their souls, so that oppressed humanity could regain a voice, a say in its own political and economic destiny. It is the century in which we plumbed the depths of the oceans and soared into the infinities of space; when man first set foot on the moon, reached Mars and even deeper into the recesses of the unknown. In a wired-up world, the computer has today become what the fountain pen was in the early years of the twentieth century. The revolution of the digital has arrived. Humanity today is healthier, better fed and more sheltered than our forefathers were. But want and hunger, disease and deprivation are still widespread, including in developed societies. We have at our command more information than ever before, but are we that much wiser? Literacy has spread, but is mankind better educated? We are more connected globally, but are we as humankind? Have this linkage and interconnection reduced conflict and animosity? And thus, the tabulation of our assets and liabilities of this century flows. As we have improved upon and added to almost everything that we inherited in 1900, so most sadly have we to violence, too. This century has been the most bloodthirsty, perhaps because it is in these last 100 years that humanity has employed science to perfect means of killing as never before. Our passage has seen us move from the Gatling gun to a world menaced today by MIRVs. That early machine gun, the then-great mower down of the early 1900s, seems today almost a toy by comparison. We have split the atom, but employ the released energy less for peace and more for weapons of unimaginable destruction. Chemical defoliants and sophisticated biological weapons are also this century's contribution. The century that passes experienced not two, but three great wars. Each was a cataclysm, fought globally and at enormous cost. When the first ended, the survivors 39 emerged from the trenches, searching for a better world so that war would not recur. In response, we created the League of Nations. But war, regrettably, was not avoided. The League failed because we failed the League. And thus followed the second great war, at the end of which the world emerged armed with weapons that could destroy all that human genius and ingenuity had created and every vestige of life. But, from the ruins and devastation of the second also emerged the United Nations, with mandates of broader powers and responsibilities. The third great conflict was the cold war. This deeply affected, shaped and influenced the development of the United Nations. This war, too, extracted a heavy price, directly and through proxy conflicts, as well as political and social upheavals, but then these became its epilogue. What significance lies in the observation that no global peace conference has taken place to mark the end of this last war? The United Nations could have been cast anew, made contemporary and democratized, drawing upon our collective experience to tackle new challenges with greater responsiveness. Can we, even now, do something at this last session of the General Assembly of this millennium to correct this? Can we pledge afresh to invest this institution with faith, commitment, political will and the resources that it needs to make it the vehicle capable of realizing the aspirations of all humanity, an instrument that will steer planet Earth into the next century? We do not enjoy an abundance of options. The sapping of the vitality or the diminishing of the centrality of the United Nations must not be permitted. We have but one Earth, and there is but one United Nations. Another development of this century, of crucial significance, is the transformation that we have experienced in the role of the State. From an agency that controlled and regulated all spheres of human activity, we move into a phase wherein the State must become more supportive, caring and encouraging of the citizen's individual and collective endeavours; it must release, not contain, the energies and genius of its people. It would be an error, however, to assume that the days of the State are over. The State continues to have a crucial role and relevance; also, therefore, do national sovereignties. The United Nations was not conceived as a super-State. It will not ever become so, principally because there is no viable substitute for the sovereign State. Even globalization can work only through State intermediaries. To diminish, marginalize or ignore the State would also be bad practice, because the weaker the State is rendered, the less it shall be able to promote the interests of its citizens. The State needs to be strengthened functionally, not weakened. Besides, it is axiomatic that a United Nations of weak nations can only be a weak United Nations. Globalization is an idea that has re-emerged, but also its reverse: fragmentation. The first is politico-economic, the second entirely political. Let us dwell a bit on this. Obviously, the technology that is driving this process can now scarcely be unlearned; the speed of travel and of communications will only increase; the age of the digital, as I said, has dawned. However, though globalization may apparently be driven by impersonal market forces, it is in reality impelled by power seeking political and financial advantage. It is, in essence, a political process, and if history teaches us anything, it is that such processes are not linear. Simply in terms of economic indicators, the world was as globalized at the turn of the century as it is now. A backlash followed: barriers went up, confrontation replaced cooperation and the world jostled into the tensions that led to the first great war. Are we, for the sake of temporary gain, perhaps even unwittingly, repeating yesterday's mistakes? Political hindsight tells us that globalization has to be politically directed for creating equal economic opportunity, both within States and among States. In India, we cherish the creative genius of the people. We believe that Indian excellence lies in the freedom of the individual. We do not subscribe to constricting choice through State impositions. But can free markets offer true freedom of choice to those that are not even a part of the market? That is why the State continues to have the responsibility to protect the needy, to strengthen the weak. That is a part of our democratic creed, too. We note that human rights have been made a cross- cutting theme of the work of the United Nations. That is important. The flowering, however, of human rights requires economic development and growth because many of the deprivations faced by individuals, whether in the developed or in the developing world, are rooted in marginalization created by poverty. We believe, therefore, that development should be the cross-cutting theme of the United Nations and that the multilateral development system, which has been one of its successes, must be strengthened, its focus narrowed to the core challenges of economic growth with social justice, and it must be given the resources it requires to respond to the needs of the developing countries. The international community will find that no investment yields better returns. 40 I have the honour to address the Assembly as a representative of the largest democracy in the world. Even now, as I share these thoughts, an electorate of about 600 million, matching the combined populations of the United States, Canada and Western Europe, is going through the exciting process of democratically electing its next Government in my country. It is an awe-inspiring spectacle, this unstoppable flow of the great Ganga of Indian democracy. It is a democracy whose economy grew by more than 6 per cent last year, even in the aftermath of the major shocks to the international economy brought about by what was described as the East Asian meltdown of the mid- 1990s. We move with the challenges posed by globalization, without either retreating into a “fortress India” or abandoning our social objectives. We have worked out our own answers and devised our own policies to meet these new challenges because we hold that the sheer diversity of mankind dictates differences in approach, in human beings' respective search for relevant alternatives. This is a truth borne out by the fact that the twentieth century has been witness to the detritus of many false certainties. Today, when capital moves without almost any constraint, it is virtually impossible for developing countries to resist either its demands or manage the consequences of its sudden departure. Let us reflect upon the absence of order, system or any global oversight of currency flows, particularly short-term flows, even as we attempt to bring order and equity to trade in goods, services and commodities. But how are we to address the problem when currency, instead of being a vehicle of trade, has in itself become a commodity of trade, when the volume of trade in currency daily has outstripped global trade in goods and services or even global gross national product manifold? If globalization is to benefit all, and as we simply cannot accept that wheels of progress should grind down the common man, then surely some new international regulation, some order, is needed here. Let the United Nations take the initiative to hold an urgent international conference on financing for development. In the political domain, too, managing change demands openness and reasoned discourse, an essential ingredient of which is abjuring violence. That is why terrorism is the very antithesis of all that the United Nations represents and stands for. Terrorism is the great global menace of our age. In this age of democracy, it is a violation of the very basic precepts of it. Because its principal targets become the innocent, it is a crime against humanity, a violation of basic human rights. It is also now a grave threat to international peace and security. That is why I urge that we strengthen the international consensus against terrorism. India has called for a comprehensive international convention against terrorism. We hope to make progress on the issue in this session of the General Assembly. We also know how terrorism uses the international financial system, how it exploits the breakdown of countries and societies, and how it has preyed on the nexus between drugs and the proliferation of small arms. Thus, today, we witness a scimitar of narco-terrorism cutting across the Caucasus to the South Asian subcontinent. Two of the world’s largest sources of illicit drugs flank us. Terrorism financed by drugs has for years been the deadly export of our neighbours. Here the crippling intermixing of cause and effect is cruelly exemplified in Afghanistan. The world has been witness to the decades-old distress of the innocent men, women and children of that country. The disorders of Afghanistan, and the near anarchy into which that country has been pushed, are a consequence, chiefly, of the play of external forces and of a reversion to medieval fundamentalism of the most obscurantist variety. This disorder now overspills; it is also exported. It is not that human rights, particularly of women and children, are routinely violated there; they simply do not exist. Our relationships with this neighbour are ancient and rooted in a past that we share. That is why we urge this Assembly to be seized of the enormous human suffering of the Afghans, and to encourage and support the early formation of a Government truly representative of all sections of that society and country. Terrorism is a menace to which open societies are vulnerable; it becomes particularly difficult for democracies to counter when terrorists are armed, financed and backed by Governments or their agencies, and benefit from the protection of State power. Cross- border terrorism, sponsored from across our borders, has taken the lives of thousands of our citizens and ruined those of countless others. We will counter it, as we have done over the past decades, using the methods available to a democracy. India will defeat such forces. That is both our duty and our obligation to our citizens. Earlier this year India was subjected, yet again, to an act of premeditated aggression. In February this year, hoping yet again to set aside the sterility of relations of 41 the past half century to set the South Asian subcontinent on the path of development, with a view to addressing the real adversaries of our region — poverty, want and hunger — Prime Minister Vajpayee extended a hand of peace, amity and cooperation to neighbouring Pakistan. The pathbreaking bus journey from Delhi to Lahore followed. In Lahore we concluded a triad of agreements, among which was the Lahore Declaration. It was the route chart of moving towards lasting amity and peace. This act of faith was betrayed. Premeditated aggression by regular forces was committed against India. Not simply was the Lahore Declaration violated, but so was the Simla Agreement, which had prevented conflict for more than a quarter of a century. In self-defence, yet with the utmost restraint, India took all necessary and appropriate steps to evict the aggressor forces from its territory. Most regrettably, this aggression has set back the Lahore process of peace that we had initiated. For whereas aggression over territory can more easily be vacated, that territory of trust which has been transgressed is infinitely more difficult to restore. Permit me, Sir, to draw attention to the fact that this aggression upon India in Kargil was a demonstration of wanting to hold to ransom the world, through an act of aggression. It was also a manifestation of the larger disorders that the world has been witnessing in Afghanistan. There is an aspect that I stress. It was a gross violation of the Geneva Conventions when Indian soldiers taken prisoner were tortured, subjected to inhuman treatment and killed in captivity. These violations took place at a time when the international community has repeatedly been trying to establish the rule of law, stripping away the layers of impunity that have protected those who give the orders that lead to violations of international humanitarian law. And it is thus that I find it necessary to reiterate some essential verities of Indian nationhood. From the earliest days of our struggle against imperialism and colonial rule it has been an unquestionable article of faith with us that India is one nation: a nation of many faiths, a diversity of beliefs, a cultural harmony arranged through the interplay of myriad forms and manifestations, but a unity, strengthened by its pluralism, that is beyond question. And of this is born India’s democratic vitality, too. Also of this oneness and unity, the Indian State of Jammu and Kashmir is an integral part, and shall remain so. Because this is not any territorial dispute; it is the assertion of two antipodal approaches to national identity. India has never represented denominational nationhood; it is civic nationalism to which we subscribe. That is why Jammu and Kashmir is not a so-called core issue. It is at the very core of Indian nationhood. Yet the path of the India-Pakistan composite dialogue process is open. No preconditions attend it. The only essential ingredient that remains is an abjuring of violence and cross-border terrorism, principles that are integral to both the Simla Agreement and the Lahore Declaration — indeed, the very process of peace itself. This process needs to be resumed. We have been greatly disappointed by this compulsive hostility of Pakistan, because it is an aberration in our region today, where all the other South Asian Association for Regional Cooperation (SAARC) countries are at peace with each other, and are trying, bilaterally and through the SAARC mechanisms, to tackle together the great challenge of development. But we remain unshaken in our vision of cooperation and shared prosperity of the South Asian region, as embedded in the Charter of SAARC, as well as in our faith in the ability, talent and will of the people of the region to take their rightful place in the world community. The destiny of all our peoples is linked. It is a region with a collective history reaching back to the beginnings of human history and of the highest civilizational accomplishments. In striving to attain the promise of the future in our region, we also see the recovery of a great past. This is perhaps the right juncture at which to say a few words about pluralism in an age of globalization. Though we find sterile the debate over universal and regional values, extreme positions are still taken on both sides. In a spirit of engagement, we would urge our partners in the West to be a bit more tolerant, and a bit more introspective. While all democratic Governments try to promote good governance, human rights and social responsibility, the perspective they approach them from, and their ability to implement them, vary. Rigidly applying, as a universal paradigm, value systems that reflect the state of western economies and societies in the late twentieth century, produces an inevitable reaction, which does not make either for dialogue or constructive decisions. Globalization has also influenced our thinking on security issues by generating a greater awareness about new security concerns. Equally important, with the end of the cold war there is a growing realization that peace cannot be maintained through balance of power or hegemonic order. To maintain global peace and security, 42 to deal with threats of a global nature, the international community has to accept the concept of collective security. The United Nations provides a framework for such a contract among nations. With the cold war behind us, the General Assembly should reactivate this framework. Global nuclear disarmament was the objective set out by the 1946 General Assembly in the first resolution that it adopted. That objective still beckons us. I say this as the representative of a country that has been obliged to acquire nuclear weapons because of the failure of the existing non-proliferation regime to address our primary security concerns. Yet let me also state with full conviction that India’s commitment to global nuclear disarmament stands undiluted. India is the only nuclear- weapon State ready to negotiate a nuclear weapons convention that will prohibit for ever the development, production, stockpiling, use and threat of use of nuclear weapons and provide for the elimination of all existing weapons under international verification. If this can only be a step-by-step process, the first step at a technical level is for all countries possessing nuclear weapons to take measures that will reduce the dangers of, and provide added safeguards against, any unintended or accidental use. Coupled with this is the political step of reorienting nuclear doctrines, towards no-first-use, and then non-use, thus delegitimizing nuclear weapons globally. Independent expert opinion across the globe has spoken strongly in favour of such measures. In fact, every single study that has been published since the end of the cold war on the measures to achieve a nuclear-weapon-free world has highlighted the need for shifting to doctrines based on no-first-use and non-use, and technical measures towards de-alerting, as the inevitable first steps in the process. We have taken initiatives to urge the international community forward on both counts, and hope that in this General Assembly session the Indian initiatives will receive the unanimous support that they merit. Last year my Prime Minister declared in this Assembly that India was engaged in discussions on a range of issues, including the Comprehensive Nuclear-Test-Ban Treaty (CTBT). These discussions are in process and will be resumed by the newly- elected Government of my country. Our position remains consistent. We remain ready to bring these discussions to a successful conclusion. Naturally, this requires the creation of a positive environment as we work towards creating the widest possible consensus domestically. We also expect that other countries will adhere to this Treaty without any conditions. Notwithstanding India’s readiness to engage in constructive negotiations on a treaty to prohibit the future production of fissile materials for nuclear weapons and nuclear explosive devices, the Conference on Disarmament in Geneva has so far, sadly, been unable to register any forward movement. This, too, is something to ponder over, for we all know that a fissile material cut-off treaty (FMCT) can only contribute to our shared objective as part of a step-by-step process. Let us then overcome this reluctance and agree to look beyond the FMCT. So, at the end of this centennial audit, what is it that we would want the United Nations to do in the first few years? It is clear that there are two major problems facing the United Nations as an institution: Security Council reform and the United Nations financial crisis. These need to be addressed. The Security Council must be made more representative, with developing countries inducted as permanent members, to reflect the changes in the United Nations membership and today’s political realities. As we said earlier, on any objective criteria, India’s credentials for permanent membership are persuasive. Sustainable and environmentally sound development is a goal to which India continues to attach the utmost importance. In 2002 we will complete a decade of Agenda 21, adopted at the Rio Earth Summit in 1992. I trust that the current session of the General Assembly will put in place a preparatory process for the “Rio + 10” review. This will enable the Member States to take stock of the implementation of the commitments undertaken by the Member States in Agenda 21 over the past decade. Such a process is vital for attaining our common goal of sustainable and environmentally sound development. This century has shown us that our challenges are common; they are intertwined. Problems flow across boundaries, they batten on each other. Political, security, economic and social challenges are braided around each other; when they form a knot, that has to be cut by all of us together. Here, and nowhere else, can we do this. It is convenient to look at security issues in the First Committee, at economic issues in the Second, at human rights and social issues in the Third, and so on, but we often do not see them together, and so fail to use the United Nations as we should. May I, in conclusion, therefore, propose that in the next decade the United Nations endeavour to address the most urgent problems that face us today. We have to do this as a unity of nations, as also of issues, for it is evident that solutions in one field will depend on, or be 43 facilitated by, progress in another. Without tackling them together we will fail to address them at all. Therefore, may I urge the Assembly to consider the following areas for action in the opening years of the next decade: an international conference on financing for development; binding, irreversible steps to reduce the dangers of use of nuclear weapons; reform and expansion of the Security Council; a comprehensive convention against terrorism; and strengthening of the United Nations development system in this era of globalization. I leave you with a sloka from the Rigveda. Though written 5,000 years ago, it reaches across time to us as at this session of the General Assembly, in the last year of the twentieth century. In translation, it reads, “Be of one heart, one mind and free of hate. Let your aim be common, your assembly common, United your mind and thoughts; May you make your resolutions with one mind, Perform your duties righteously. Let our hearts be together”.