I am a newcomer to this Assembly and not accustomed to its ways and conventions. I seek, therefore, the indulgence of the President, and the indulgence of the members of the Assembly for what I have to say.
105. I have listened attentively and with respect to many of the speeches here, and sometimes I have felt as if I were being buffeted by the icy winds of the cold war. Coming from a warm country, I have shivered occasionally at these cold blasts.
106. Sitting here in this Assembly chamber, an old memory comes back to me. In the fateful summer of 1938 I was a visitor at a meeting of the League of Nations in Geneva. Hitler was advancing then and holding out threats of war. There was mobilization in many parts of Europe and the tramp of armoured men was heard, but even so the League of Nations appeared to be unconcerned with the shadow of war and discussed all manner of topics, but not the most vital subject of the day.
107. War did not start then. It was a year later that it descended upon the world with all its thunder and destructive fury. After many years of carnage that war ended and a new age, the atomic age, was ushered in by the terrible experiences of Hiroshima and Nagasaki. Fresh from these horrors the minds of men turned to thoughts of peace and there was a passionate desire to put an end to war itself.
108. The United Nations took birth on a note of high idealism, embodied in the noble wording of the Charter. There was this aspect of idealism, but there was also a realization of the state of the post-war world as it was then, and so provision was made in the structure of the Organization to balance certain conflicting urges. There were the permanent members of the Security Council and the provision for great-Power unanimity. All this was not very logical, but it represented certain realities of the world as it was. Because of this we accepted it. At that time many large areas in Asia, and even more so in Africa, were not represented in the United Nations, as they were under colonial domination. Since then the colonial part of the world has shrunk greatly and we welcome here many countries from Africa in their new freedom. The United Nations has become progressively more representative, but we must remember that even now it is not fully so.
109. Colonialism still has its strong footholds in some parts and racialism and racial domination are still prevalent, more especially in Africa.
110. During these past fifteen years the United Nations has often been criticized for its structure and for some- of its activities. These criticisms have often had some justification behind them, but looking at the broad picture I think that we can definitely say that the United Nations has amply justified its existence and repeatedly prevented our recurrent crises from developing into war. It has played a great role, and it is little difficult now to think of this troubled world without the United Nations. If it has defects, those defects lie in the world situation itself which, inevitably, it mirrors. If there had been no United Nations today, our first task would have been to create something of that kind. I should like, therefore, to pay my tribute to the work of the United Nations as a whole, even though I might criticize some aspects of it from time to time.
111. The structure of the United Nations when it started was weighted in favour of Europe and the Americas. It did not seem to us to be fair to the countries of Asia and Africa, but we appreciated the difficulties of the situation and did not press for any changes. With the growth of the United Nations and with more countries coming into it, that structure today is still more unbalanced. Even so, we wish to proceed slowly and with agreement and not to press for any change which would involve an immediate amendment of the Charter and the raising of heated controversies. Unfortunately, we live in a split world which is constantly coming up against the basic assumptions of the United Nations. We have to bear with this and try to move ever more forward to that conception of full co-operation between nations. That cooperation does not and must not mean any domination of one country by another, any coercion or compulsion forcing any country to line up with another country. Each country has something to give and something to take from others. The moment coercion is exercised, that country's freedom is not only impaired but also its growth suffers.
112. We have to acknowledge that there is great diversity in the world and this variety is good and is to be encouraged, so that each country may grow and its creative impulse may have full play in accordance with its own genius.
113. Hundreds and thousands of years of past history have conditioned us in our respective countries, and our roots go deep down into the soil. If these roots are pulled out, we wither, but if those roots remain strong and we allow the winds from the four quarters to blow in upon us, then they will yield branch and flower and fruit.
114. Many of the speakers from this forum have surveyed the world scene and spoken on a variety of problems. I should like to concentrate on what I consider to be the basic problem of all. If necessity arises we may, with the permission of the President, intervene later with regard to other problems. My own mind is naturally filled with the problems of my own country and our passionate desire to develop and put an end to the poverty and low standards which have been a curse to our hundreds of millions of people. To that end we labour, as indeed other under-developed countries are also doing.
115. Seated here in this tremendous and impressive city of New York, with all the achievements of modern science, technology and human effort, my mind often goes back to our villages in India and my countrymen who live there. We have no desire to imitate or to compete with any other country, but we are firmly resolved to raise the standards of our people and give them the opportunities to lead a good life. Even though this fills our minds, I do not propose to speak to you on this subject here because there is something else that is of even greater importance, that is, peace.
116. Without peace all our dreams vanish and are reduced to ashes. The Charter of the United Nations declares our determination "to save succeeding generations from the scourge of war", and "to reaffirm faith in fundamental human rights ... and for these ends to practise tolerance and live together in peace and with one another as good neighbours".
117. The main purpose of the United Nations is to build up a world without war, a world based on the co-operation of nations and peoples. It is not merely a world where war is kept in check for a balancing of armed forces. It is much deeper than that. It is a world from which the major causes of war have been removed and social structures built up which further peaceful co-operation within a nation as well as between nations.
118. In the preamble to the Constitution of the United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization it is stated that wars begin in the minds of men. That is essentially true, and ultimately it is necessary to bring about this change in our minds and to remove fears and apprehensions, hatreds and suspicions.
119. Disarmament is a part of this process for it will create an atmosphere helpful to co-operation. But it is only a step towards our objective, a part of the larger effort to rid the world of war and the causes of war. In the present context, however, disarmament becomes of very special importance for us all, overriding all others. But we must always remember that even in pursuing disarmament we have to keep in view our larger purpose.
120. For many years past there has been talk of disarmament, and some progress has undoubtedly been made in so far as plans and proposals are concerned. But still we find that the armaments race continues, and so also the effort to find ever more powerful engines of destruction. Fear and hatred overshadow the world. If even a small part of this effort was directed to the search for peace, probably the problem of disarmament would have been solved by this time. Apart from the moral imperative of peace, every practical consideration leads us to that conclusion, for as everyone knows, the choice today in this nuclear age is one between utter annihilation and the destruction of civilization, or of some way to have peaceful coexistence between nations. There is no middle way.
121. The world consists of a great variety of nations and peoples differing in their ideas and urges and in their economic development. All of them desire peace and progress for their people, and yet many of them are afraid of each other and therefore cannot concentrate on the quest of peace. We must recognize this variety of opinion and objectives in the world and not seek to coerce or compel others to function according to our own particular way. The moment there is an attempt at coercion, there is fear and conflict and the seeds of war are sown. That is the basic philosophy underlying the attempt to avoid military or other violent methods for the solution of problems. That is the main reason which impels those countries who are called "unaligned" to avoid military pacts.
122. If war then is an abomination and the ultimate crime which has to be avoided and combated, then we must fashion our minds and policies accordingly and not hesitate because of our fears to take steps forward. There may be risks but the greatest risk is to allow the present dangerous drift to continue. To achieve peace we have to try to develop a climate of peace and tolerance and to avoid speech and action which tend to increase fear and hatred.
123. It may not be possible to reach full disarmament in one step, though every step should be conditioned to that end. Much has already been done in these discussions of disarmament; but the sands of time run out and we dare not play about with this or delay its consideration. That, indeed, is the main duty of the United Nations today, and if it fails in this, the United Nations fails in its main purpose.
124. We live in an age of great revolutionary changes brought about by the advance of science and technology. Therein lies hope for the world and also the danger of sudden death. Because of these advances the time we have for controlling the forces of destruction is strictly limited. If within the next three or four years effective disarmament is not agreed to and implemented, then it may be too late and all the good will in the world will not be able to stop the drift to certain disaster. We may not therefore delay or postpone the consideration of this vital problem,
125. In the context of things today, two great nations, the United States and the Soviet Union, hold the key to war and peace. Theirs is a great responsibility. But every country, small or big, is concerned in this matter of peace and war and therefore every country must shoulder this responsibility and work to this end.
126. It is easy to criticize the action or inaction of any country; but this criticism does not help us much; it only increases tension and fear, and nations take up rigid attitudes from which it is difficult to dislodge them. The issues before the world are too vital to be left to a few countries only or to be affected by personal likes or dislikes. In order to deal with these big issues effectively we have to take big and impersonal views. It is only the United Nations as a whole that can ultimately solve this problem.
127. Therefore, while all efforts towards disarmament must be welcomed, the United Nations should be closely associated with them. The question of disarmament has been considered at various levels. There is general disarmament and the ending of test explosions of nuclear and thermo-nuclear weapons. So far as test explosions are concerned, considerable progress has been made by the Conference which has been meeting in Geneva. Indeed, it would appear that an agreement has been reached there on many basic issues and only a little more effort is needed to complete this agreement. I suggest that a final agreement on the subject should be reached as early as possible. That is not, strictly speaking, disarmament, but undoubtedly any such agreement will bring a large measure of relief to the world.
128. Disarmament must Include the prohibition of the manufacture, storage and use of weapons of mass destruction, as well as the progressive limitation of conventional weapons. It is well to remember that there is a great deal of common ground already covered, and the various proposals made by different countries indicate this common ground, but certain important questions have not yet been solved. Behind all this lies the fear of a surprise attack and of any one country becoming stronger than the other in the process of disarmament. It is admitted that disarmament should take place in such stages as to maintain broadly the balance of armed power. It is on this basis only that success can be achieved and this pervading sense of fear countered.
129. There is an argument as to whether disarmament should precede controls or whether controls should precede disarmament. This is a strange argument, because it is perfectly clear that disarmament without controls is not a feasible proposition. It is even more clear that controls without disarmament have no meaning. The whole conception of controls comes in only because of disarmament. It is not proposed, I hope, to have controls of existing armaments and thus in a way to perpetuate those armaments. It must therefore be clearly understood that disarmament and a machinery for control must go together, and neither of these can be taken up singly. It seems very extraordinary to me that great nations should argue about priorities in this matter and make that a reason, for not going ahead. Therefore, both questions should be tackled simultaneously and as parts of a single problem.
130. Success may not come immediately, but it is, I think, of the greatest importance that there should be no gap, no discontinuity, in our dealing with this problem. Once there is discontinuity, this will lead to a rapid deterioration of the present situation and it will be much more difficult to start afresh.
131. A proposal [A/C.l/L.251] has been made that this question of disarmament should be referred to a group of experts. One can have no objection to such, a reference, but, in fact, experts have been considering this matter during the past many years and we have the advantage of their views. In any event, any reference to a committee of experts should not lead to any postponement of the major issue. Any such delay would be disastrous. Possibly while the major issues are being considered by the United Nations commissions or other committees, a reference of any particular special aspect might be made to the experts. What is important is that the United Nations at this present juncture should ensure that there is adequate machinery for promoting disarmament and this machinery should function continuously from now onwards.
132. The fear of surprise attacks or accidental happenings leading to dangerous consequences is undoubtedly present. That itself is a reflection of the climate of cold war in which unfortunately we are living. The best way to deal with this fear is to reduce this international tension and create an atmosphere which will make it very difficult for any surprise attack to take place. In that atmosphere, even some accidental happening may not lead to a final crisis.
133. In addition to this, such other steps as maybe considered necessary for the prevention of surprise attacks should be taken. Thus, if there is an agreement on the subject of nuclear tests and the use of vehicles immediately the danger from surprise attacks will he greatly lessened.
134. While disarmament is by far the most important and urgent problem before the United Nations and is a subject which brooks no delay, we have to face today a situation in Africa, in the Congo (Leopoldville), which has led the United Nations to assume heavy and novel responsibilities. Everyone present here, I am sure, warmly welcomes the coming of independence to many parts of Africa and to many peoples there who have suffered untold agony for ages past. We can see very well that the United Nations has shown its readiness to help them in various ways.
135. There are three aspects of these African problems. First, there is the full implementation of the independence and freedom that have been achieved. Secondly, there is the liberation of those countries in Africa which are still under colonial domination. This has become an urgent task. Today, some of these countries are almost cut off from the outside world and even news is not allowed to reach us. From such accounts as we have, the fate of the people there is even worse than we have known in other parts of Africa. Thirdly, there is the question of some countries in Africa which are independent, but where that freedom is confined to a minority and the great majority have no share in it and, indeed, are suppressed politically, socially and racially in defiance of everything that the United Nations and the world community stand for. Racialism and the doctrine of the master race dominating over others can be tolerated no longer and can only lead to vast racial conflicts.
136. Recent developments in Africa have indicated the great danger of delay. It is not possible any longer to maintain colonial domination in any of these countries, and I think it is the duty and the basic responsibility of the United Nations to expedite this freedom. There is a tremendous ferment all over the continent of Africa, and this has to be recognized and appreciated and met with foresight and wisdom.
137. The question of the Republic of the Congo has come before us especially and cast on the United Nations difficult responsibilities. The first thing that strikes one is the utter failure of the colonial system which left the Congo in its present state. Long years of colonial rule resulted in extracting vast wealth from that country for the enrichment of the colonial Power, while the people of the country remained utterly poor and backward.
138. What is the role of the United Nations in the Congo? The situation there is a complicated and frequently changing one, and it is not always easy to know what is happening. Disruptive forces have been let loose and have been encouraged by people who do not wish well to this newly independent State. Some footholds of the old colonialism are still engaged in working to this end. It appears that many thousands of Belgians, including military men, are still in the Congo, more especially in Katanga Province. Because of past colonial history, this is particularly unfortunate and is likely to be considered a continuation of occupation, by whatever name it may be called. Also, it is an encouragement to the disruption of the State. We must realize that it is essential to maintain the integrity of the Congo for, if there is disintegration of the State, this is bound to lead to internal civil war on a large scale. There will be no peace in the Congo except on the basis of the integrity of the State. Foreign countries must particularly avoid any interference in these internal affairs or encouragement to one faction against another.
139. The role of the United Nations is a mediatory one: to reconcile and to help in the proper functioning of the Central Government. Help in the development of the Congo is again a tremendous and long-term problem. Ultimately it is the people of the Congo who will have to produce their own leadership, whether it is good or bad. Leadership cannot be imposed, and any attempt to do so will lead to conflict. The United Nations obviously cannot act all the time as policeman, nor should any outside Power intervene. There is at present an elected Parliament in the Congo, though it does not appear to be functioning. I think that it should be the function of the United Nations to help this Parliament to meet and function so that, out of its deliberations, the problems of the Congo may be dealt with by the people themselves. Decisions must be those of the Parliament as representing the people of the Congo, and not of others. The functioning of Parliament may itself lead to the ironing out of internal differences. I hope that it will be possible soon for the Congo to take its place in the Assembly of the United Nations.
140. The Security Council has repeatedly laid stress on Belgian military personnel's leaving the Congo. These decisions have apparently not been given full effect. This is highly undesirable. It seems to me of great importance, in view both of past history and present conditions, that every type of Belgian military or semi-military personnel should leave the Congo. The General Assembly might well consider sending a delegation to the Congo to find out what foreign troops or other personnel, apart from those sent on behalf of the United Nations, are still there and how far they are interfering in local affairs.
141. Recently an emergency special session of the General Assembly considered the situation in the Congo and made certain suggestions. I think that the resolution [1474 (ES-IV)] adopted by the emergency special session has rightly indicated the broad lines of approach, and the basic principles laid down in it should be implemented.
142. The Congo situation has emphasized the increasing responsibilities of the United Nations. Not only have military forces been sent there, but the problem of the development of a huge country has become partly the responsibility of the United Nations. These responsibilities cannot be shirked, and it may have to be considered how best to shoulder these responsibilities.
143. Two aspects have to be borne in mind. The broad policies in these grave matters must be laid down by the General Assembly or by the Security Council. In so far as executive action is concerned, it would not be desirable for the executive to be weakened when frequent and rapid decisions have to be made. That would mean an abdication of the responsibilities undertaken by the United Nations. If the executive itself is split up and pulls in different directions, it will not be able to function adequately or with speed. For that reason, the executive should be given authority to act within the terms of the directions issued. At the same time the executive has to keep in view all the time the impact of various forces in the world, for we must realize that unfortunately we live in a world where there are many pulls in different directions. The Secretary-General might well consider what organizational steps should be taken to deal adequately with this novel situation. It has been suggested that some structural changes should take place in the United Nations. Probably some changes would be desirable, as I have indicated above, and because of the emergence of many independent countries in Asia and Africa. But any attempt at bringing about these structural changes by an amendment of the Charter at the present juncture is likely to raise many controversial questions and thus add greatly to the difficulties we face.
144. It should be possible for us, even within the terms of the Charter, to adapt the United Nations machinery to meet situations as they arise, in view more especially of the increasing responsibilities of the United Nations.
145. If, as I earnestly hope, disarmament makes progress, then another domain of vast responsibility will come to the United Nations. It will have to be carefully considered how this responsibility is to be discharged. Possibly several special commissions, working together under the umbrella of the United Nations, might be charged with this task.
146. I have referred to the situation in Africa and to the Congo, as it is an immediate issue for us, but I should like to make it clear that neither this immediate issue nor any other should be allowed to delay the consideration of what I consider the most vital issue facing us in the world, that is, the disarmament issue.
147. I do not propose to deal with many other matters here but, in view of the controversy that is at present going on in the General Assembly, I should like to refer briefly to the question of the proper representation of China in the United Nations. For a number of years India has brought this issue before the United Nations because we have felt that it was not only improper for this great and powerful country to remain unrepresented but that this had an urgent bearing on all world problems, and especially those of disarmament.
148. We hold that all countries must be represented in the United Nations. We have welcomed during this session many new countries. It appears most extraordinary that any argument should be advanced to keep out China and to give the seat meant for China to those who certainly do not and cannot represent China.
149. It is well known that we in India have had and are having, a controversy with the Government of the People's Republic of China about our frontiers. In spite of that controversy, we continue to feel that proper representation of the People's Republic of China in the United Nations is essential, and the longer we delay it the more harm we cause to the United Nations and to the consideration of the major problems we have before us. This is not a question of liking or disliking, but of doing the right and proper thing.
150. In this connexion, I should like to mention another country, Mongolia. When we are, rightly, admitting so many countries to the United Nations, why should Mongolia be left out? What wrong has it done, what violation of the Charter? Here is a quiet and peaceful people working hard for its progress, and it seems to me utterly wrong from any point of principle to exclude it from this great Organization.
151. India has a special sentiment in regard to Mongolia, because our relations go back into the distant past of more than 1,500 years. Even now there are many evidences of those old contacts and friendly relations between these two countries. I would earnestly recommend that Mongolia be accepted in this assembly of nations.
152. There is one other matter to which I should like to refer, and that is Algeria. It has been a pain and a torment to many of us in Asia, as in Africa and possibly elsewhere, to witness this continuing tragedy of a brave people fighting for its freedom. Many arguments have been advanced and many difficulties pointed out, but the basic fact is that the people have struggled continuously for many years at tremendous sacrifice and against heavy odds to attain independence. Once or twice it appeared that the struggle might end satisfactorily in freedom by the exercise of self-determination, but the moment slipped by and the tragedy continued. I am convinced that every country in Asia and Africa and, I believe, many countries in other continents also, are deeply concerned over this matter and hope earnestly that this terrible war will end, bringing freedom in its train for the Algerian people. This is an urgent problem to which the United Nations must address itself in order to bring about an early solution.
153. Two or three days ago [880th meeting] I presented, on behalf of Ghana, the United Arab Republic, Indonesia, Yugoslavia and India, a draft resolution [A/4522] to the General Assembly. That draft resolution is a simple one and requires little argument to support it. It does not seek to prejudge any issue. It does not seek to bring pressure to bear on any country or individual. There is no cynicism in it. The main purpose of that draft resolution is to avoid a deadlock in the international situation. Every representative present here knows how unsatisfactory that situation is today and how gradually every door and window for the discussion of vital issues is being closed and bolted.
154. As the draft resolution says, we are deeply concerned with the recent deterioration in international relations, which threatens the world with grave consequences. There can be no doubt that people everywhere in the world look to the Assembly to take some step to help to ease the situation and lessen world tension. If the Assembly is unable to take that step, there will be utter disappointment everywhere, and not only will the deadlock continue but there will be a drift in a direction from which it will become increasingly difficult to turn back.
155. The Assembly cannot allow itself to be paralysed in a matter of such vital importance. The responsibility for this deadlock has to be shared by all of us, but in the circumstances as they exist in the world today a great deal depends upon the two mighty nations, the United States and the Soviet Union, and if even a small step could be taken by them the world would heave a sigh of relief. We do not expect that by the renewal of contacts between these two great countries some solution is likely to emerge. We do not underrate the difficulties of realizing all this, and after giving a great deal of thought to these matters we decided to share our apprehension with the Assembly and to suggest this step which undoubtedly will help to ease tension.
156. The draft resolution has not been placed before this Assembly to add to the controversies already existing, nor to embarrass anyone, but solely with the desire, anxiously felt, that something must be done. We cannot meet here in this Assembly and sit helplessly by, watching the world drift in a direction which can only end in catastrophe.
157. Last night I received a letter [A/4529] from the President of the United States in which he was good enough to deal with this draft resolution. I presume that the other sponsors of this draft resolution have also received a similar reply. This reply has appeared in the Press. I am grateful to the President for writing to me in reply immediately after receiving our communication. Although this reply does not indicate that any contacts such as we have recommended are likely to take place in the near future, I should like to point out to this Assembly that the President has not wholly rejected the idea.
158. The door is still open for consideration, and the president of the United States has expressed his deep anxiety to help in the lessening of international tensions. The President has pointed out that: "... the chief problems in the world today are not due to differences between the Soviet Union and the United States alone, and therefore are not possible of solution on a bilateral basis. "The questions which are disrupting the world at the present time are of immediate and vital concern to other nations as well." [A/4529.]
159. May I respectfully express my complete agreement with what the President has said? We are convinced that these great questions cannot be dealt with on a bilateral basis, or even by a group of countries. They are of intimate and vital concern to the entire world and to all those who have gathered here at this General Assembly session from the four corners of the earth. It was because of this feeling that some of us ventured to put this draft resolution before the General Assembly. If the matter were of concern only to two countries, then perhaps no necessity would have arisen for us to raise it here. Nor did we think that a mere renewal of contacts would lead to some magical solution. Such a solution will come only after long and arduous labour in which many countries participate. But we did think that, in this present situation of dangerous drift, even a small approach on behalf of the two great representatives of two great countries would make a difference and might mark a turn of the tide.
160. Oppressed by the growing anger and bitterness in international relations, we wanted to find some way out, so that further consideration might be given to these problems. We have suggested no remedy, no particular solution, in our draft resolution. But we did feel, and we still feel, that the General Assembly should consider this problem and try its utmost to find a way to re move the new barriers that have arisen.
161. As the President of the United States has rightly stated, the importance of these matters is such as to go beyond personal or official relations between any two individuals. We are dealing with the future of humanity, and no effort which might improve the present situation should be left undone. It was with that intention that we put forward the draft resolution, as a part of the effort s that should be made to open the door for future consultations, not only between the two eminent individuals who are mentioned in the draft resolution, but by the world community.
162. I earnestly appeal to the General Assembly to adopt the draft resolution unanimously at an early date, and I trust that it will do so. In this world, enveloped and bedevilled by the cold war and all its progeny, with problems awaiting urgent solution, I have ventured to add my voice in appeal. I do believe that the vast majority of people in every country want us to labour for peace and to succeed. Whether we are large or small, we have to face large issues, issues vital to the future of humanity. Everything else is of lesser importance than this major question. I am absolutely convinced that we shall never solve this question by war or by the mental approach which envisages war and prepares for it. I am equally convinced that if we aim at the right ends right means must be employed. Good will not emerge out of evil methods. That was a lesson which our great leader, Gandhi, taught us — and, though we in India have failed in many ways in following his advice, something of his message still clings to our minds and hearts.
163. In ages long past, a great son of India, the Buddha, said that the only real victory is one in which all are equally victorious and there is defeat for no one. In the world today, that is the only practical victory. Any other way will lead to disaster. It is therefore this real victory of peace, in which all are winners, that I should like the Assembly to keep before it and to endeavour to achieve.
This, the fifteenth session of the General Assembly of the United Nations, began some four weeks ago, charged with expectation and concern, enlarged not only in its size by the welcome addition of part of the world hitherto almost excluded from political competence but also by the presence of Heads of States and of Governments and many Foreign Ministers who headed nearly half the number of delegations present here. My delegation, in the person of my Prime Minister, intervened (880th meeting) with the set purpose of drawing the pointed attention of representatives to the great urgency of the problems before us and of our approach to them. He reminded the United Nations of the parallel of the League of Nations just before the outbreak of the Second World War. At that time my Prime Minister also informed the Assembly that he desired to address himself to the urgency of the problems facing us and to our responsibility as an Organization, for the lack of progress, for our failures, as well as for the consummation that must be reached. We are therefore, as far as my delegation is concerned, in no doubt as to the responsibility severally and collectively borne by the Member States of the United Nations. At the same time my Prime Minister reserved the right of our delegation to intervene again in regard to these problems themselves and to the detailed and special aspects of them,
41. Three weeks have passed since, three weeks of intensive, sometimes acrimonious, but, so far as my delegation is concerned, nevertheless in the long run, fruitful discussion. My delegation, therefore, does not regard these weeks as either wasted or being productive merely of acrimony, because it is in the cut and thrust of these debates, in our capacity to face each other with points of view that are diverse and perhaps with methods of presentation that are also diverse in different countries, that we make progress. Therefore, we intervene once again at the fag-end of this debate, with the knowledge that the Assembly wants no more speeches for the sake of speeches, but with the realization that perhaps we have a function to perform, which we must do.
42. It would be a truism to say that this Assembly, though it met with great hopes, faces a situation where, while I hope there is still no despair, there is a great deal of heart-searching and mind-searching in this world, and problems far more basic than formulae put forward by one delegation or another must come be the propositions on which we have to decide. It reminds me of the lines by the poet Browning: It's wiser being good than bad; It's safer being week than fierce; It's fitter being sane than mad. My own hope is, a sun will pierce The thickest cloud earth ever stretched.
43. Even in the Assembly, as I had occasion to say in a previous intervention [876th. meeting], there was evidence of some silver linings in the clouds when the two nations of Africa, who cannot claim the kind of modern political experience that others have, came before us, having resolved their differences by peaceful methods, and showed us the way in which even sharp differences — differences between neighbours are always sharper than other differences — were resolved.
44. It is customary for my delegation in these addresses first to refer to the Secretary-General's annual report. Owing to the lateness of the date and also to the particular circumstances that obtain this year in regard to the work of the United Nations itself, it is not necessary for me to go into a detailed analysis of the reports either of the Security Council [A/4494] or of the Secretary-General. Suffice it to say that it is not an accident, it is not any particular bias in any way, that prompts the Secretary-General in his report to pay great attention to Africa and to the problem of the Congo (Leopoldville). Much has already been said about the new entrants into this Assembly from Africa, and in the course of this morning I hope to address myself again to the problems of the dependent peoples. But my first duty is to express the views of my delegation, as of today, on the problem of the Congo.
45. It will be remembered — and no one in this Assembly, whatever his views, can deny the urgency of the problem, by the very fact that, even three or four days before the General Assembly was about to meet the Security Council in its wisdom came to a decision — the Assembly by its own expression of opinion decided this was a matter of emergency. Although we were to meet on 20 September, three days before that date an emergency special session was called, the issue was discussed threadbare, and we came to decisions. We have to ask ourselves, while we know that the necessary work of the kind to which the Secretary-General made reference this morning was being carried on in the Congo: are we any nearer any understanding of the details of this Congo problem or are we nearer a solution? Are we nearer, progress, or are we nearer settlement? Therefore, while we have been sitting three or four weeks here, after convening an emergency special session on a problem which would not wait for the regular Assembly session, we have not acted fast enough to bring this to a fruitful conclusion. Therefore, I am instructed by my Government — and I speak in the name of my Government and people — to say that we must address ourselves to this problem with a greater sense of urgency and imperativeness than has been possible so far. In that connexion, I should like to say this. It is not the desire of my delegation to seek to apportion blame or responsibilities or to dwell on the past. Neither individuals nor nations can look in two directions at once. We either look backward or we look forward, and if we are wise we will look forward and use what is behind us only as inspiration or experience or as a warning.
46. So far as the Congo is concerned, the United Nations stands engaged, that is to say, every member of this Assembly, the whole of the Organization, has been, and stands, engaged with the problem of the Congo. Some countries, like ours, have probably been and are engaged even more by the presence of our personnel in large numbers. But the entire world is engaged because there in the Congo is presented a spectacle where the liquidation of imperialism presents problems of a character never presented before, I would not like today to go into the causes and reasons, which will come up in committee when we are discussing this question but we should like to make these concrete requests to the Assembly and to see that they are carried out. First of all, we have to remind ourselves that no government of a people, no management of the affairs of a people by another nation or even by all of us together, is any substitute for management by themselves. And therefore there is no alternative to the Congolese but to run their affairs in their own way, which means, as was requested by my Prime Minister when he spoke at the time, that the convocation of the Parliament of the Congo, elected by the people and representing them, must take place without further delay. I beg to submit that further delays will cause further deteriorations; it will give room for those political tendencies that are undesirable, where the expressions of opinion, non-conditioned by circumstances which should not enter into it will not become possible. So, the first request is that the Parliament of the Congo must be convened without any further delay. It is one of the urgent and imperative responsibilities of the United Nations.
47. Second, we would like to suggest that, irrespective of any legal argument in this matter, all foreign personnel in the Congo who are not there in pursuance of United Nations purposes and directives or engaged In humanitarian purposes, such as in leper colonies or in hospitals should, of their own volition, withdraw from there, because the presence of those people who have been associated with the history of the Congo is not likely to help in solutions. Therefore, if there are large numbers of non-Congolese personnel in that area not connected with the purposes of the United Nations, then they will be a hindrance to the solutions.
48. Third, we think that the United Nations must place it beyond doubt that its personnel are not there as arbitrators to intervene between rival claimants, because the Charter does not enjoin the Organization to do that. We should also remember that this is the first time that the forces of the United Nations have been used not as between nations, but within a nation. We should also remind ourselves that if there are problems in law and order, the policing of the Congo will have to be done by the Congolese people. The greater part of our attention should be directed to the fact that from now on, the administration, the policing of the country, the economic developments and the personnel are to come from that area.
49. Having laid so much stress on the urgency of this Congo problem, it is not my intention now to go into any specific proposals before us, but these are the principles that should guide us. If it was fit that we should discuss them in emergency special session, in spite of the proximate meeting of the Assembly, there can be no question of the urgency of it. As I said, we are no nearer an understanding of it, no nearer an acquaintance with the details of it than we were four weeks ago. That means that, while I would not like to say that the situation was drifting, we have to apply ourselves in a way that some disengagement of the United Nations takes place so far as the present phase of it is concerned. The engagements should be of the character to which Mr. Hammarskjold referred a while ago, which are all on the constructive side.
50. Finally, I would like to say that while no one can or should prevent assistance, aid or sympathy going into the Congo from any part of the world whatsoever, in the present circumstances it would not be in the interests of the world for very powerful people to fish in these troubled waters; and, therefore, whatever aid, whatever support may be given in this way — I do not say It should necessarily be channelled through the United Nations, that may not always be possible — but it should be with the Organization's cognizance, so that everything will be above board, and the Congolese people will, consistent with the basic ideas of liberty and national government, be able to settle their own affairs themselves. This is the position as we see it.
51. Next, there is another urgent problem of a specific character to which I should like to refer; it goes away from the continent of Africa to the continent of Asia, to South-East Asia, and concerns our close neighbour, the Kingdom of Laos. In the whole of Indo-China, there was a situation also arising as the aftermath of an empire, where, by the efforts of the people, the former imperial Power had decided to agree to relinquishments, including, under the famous Geneva Agreements of 1954, a settlement in regard to Laos. There is the problem of Laos and Indo-China.
52. In the history of the four or five years following the Geneva Agreements, my country and Government have had great responsibilities with regard to this situation. These responsibilities are not Isolated from the principles proclaimed in the Charter or the purposes of the United Nations, but they are responsibilities undertaken under the international agreements, at the request of the other parties concerned, with the permission of those directly affected. The Geneva Agreements, with all their limitations, have kept peace in that part of the world. On 11 August 1954 guns were silenced in the world for the first time in twenty-five years. From the time of the Japanese bombing of Manchuria before the war, until 11 August 1954, there was fighting going on somewhere; and when an armistice was declared, there was for the first time at last a day of peace. Machinery was established for the withdrawal of an empire; and whatever difficulties did arise, in the context of an empire withdrawing, it must be remembered that no agreements are perfect in that way.
53. The International Commission for Supervision and Control in Laos was charged with certain responsibilities concerning which I do not want to go into detail. As I said, however much we may agree or disagree with the position of Viet-Nam, with that country divided Into two, however much we may sympathize or otherwise have opinions about the complaints of Cambodia with regard to the incursions on its territories, I am sure my Cambodian friends will agree that, as a result of the Geneva Agreements, the presence of the Commission, the co-operation and the exercise of its functions in the past have kept that part of the world free from actual war. The Geneva Agreements which were brought about by four of the Western Powers and China (and in the Final Declaration the United States was associated), are based upon the idea of non-interference in the affairs of these people. There is no hope for an Asian country, particularly a small country, there is no hope of peace in Asia, unless the parties to the cold war keep out of our territories. That is our main objection to military pacts. We are not saying that they are evil or that they are good, or that their motives are bad or anything of that kind.
54. What we are saying is borne out by experience: taking our own history from, shall we say, the beginning of the seventeenth century to the beginning of the nineteenth century; whenever there was a war in Europe, whenever the British and the French quarrelled there was a war in India for no Indian reason. Therefore, when the machinery of conflict — cold war or otherwise — is projected in our areas, these troubles arise. My Government and my delegation does not want to add to complications by referring to individuals, parties or whatever it is. The future of Laos lies in non-interference by the great Powers or parties to the cold war, whoever they may be, either in open or disguised form, in the affairs of Laos.
55. They may run a good Government, they may run a bad Government. They may run a coalition Government or a non-coalition Government. They may associate with peoples whom others regard as undesirable. They may perhaps act in such ways as are not approved of by some other country, but so long as they do not infringe the Geneva Agreements, so long as they keep to this conception of disengagement, and so long as they belong to the areas of peace, they are to be assisted.
56. I have no desire to go into the details of recent developments in the last few days. But there has been evidence of some interference in these matters, and we deeply regret it. Two years ago — and I would like to say, not by the volition entirely of the Royal Government of Laos with whom the Commission has had very healthy, very cordial and very courteous relations — it was found necessary to withdraw the Commission from the territory of Laos. But at the same time, the Commission for International Control and Supervision is not a piece of “busybodiness” on the part of the three members of the Commission, but is a result of international agreements with the United Nations, which it is its bounden duty to take account of — they still exist. They are machinery established by international consent. There are two chairmen of this Commission: the Foreign. Secretary of the United Kingdom and the Foreign Minister of the Soviet Union who are charged with this supervision in the last analysis, and what is more, they provide part of the resources that are required for the purpose. No country finds money for things in which it is not engaged. Therefore, this machinery, which to a certain extent has been shaken by these circumstances, is creating a situation there.
57. It is not my purpose to bring this as a special item, but the Assembly must be aware that irritation in small places leads to larger irritations. It is very important in this part of the world, where there are circumstances, which I have no desire to mention, where very powerful blocs of humanity may become involved, where there is room for ideological conflicts of various kinds, that they should be left alone. In the long run, whether one belongs either to the Eastern side or the Western side, it will be found that non-committedness by peoples like ourselves is to the advantage of both.
58. It is impossible, in any part of Asia, to commit entire peoples to one side or the other, and if one side tries to commit any country to the other side, then at once it will create a reaction. It is surprising that, while the so-called Eastern and Western blocs are antagonistic to each other, one attracts the other. That is the contradiction in the situation!
59. In the problem of Laos, while it is not organizationally a direct United Nations responsibility, I would like to take advantage of my presence on this rostrum — and I think that it is my duty — to refer to this rather combustible area, where today there is a government, which is a constitutional government seeking to get the best support of the people. They should have assistance; indeed they should be free to have the assistance of their neighbours, first in Indo-China. If they are to draw any assistance, they should be able to draw it from their own near neighbours in Indo-China, excluding anyone else. That is the position.
60. Next, I come to the problem of dependent territories. Much has been said about the subject at this session of the Assembly. It is not my intention to express mere general opposition and to use phrases that may not always be entirely historical and certainly not welcome to certain parties concerned in the matter.
61. The problem of dependence — I do not want to use any other word — the problem of dependent territories is part of human history. All parts of human history are not either happy or complimentary — we would not like them repeated — but it happens that, either by conquest or settlement, newer civilizations have penetrated the areas of older civilizations, as in Asia and Africa, and have brought them into the context of modern life. In the last two years the areas of liberation have become larger and larger. A few years ago there were over 10 million square miles of territory still under colonial rule in Africa. Today there are about 4 1/2 million square miles of territory, with a population of 72 million, still in a state of dependence, or tutelage under the trusteeship system. And here, one must pay one’s tribute to those countries such as the United Kingdom which, in the last generation, have either by experience or perhaps also by the association of liberated countries such as Ceylon, Burma, Pakistan and ourselves with them, found that it pays dividends to liberate peoples. Today empires gain even materially by terminating imperialism. Today there is a higher standard of life in the United Kingdom; there is little or no unemployment; there are better relations between the former dependent countries and themselves. So far as our country is concerned, there are more United Kingdom nationals in India today than there were under imperial occupation. Thus, friendship and co-operation have paid.
62. The position today is, however, that under the British system there are thirty-seven units occupying 1,346,000 square miles with a population of 34million out of which the greater part will become free in the next few months or the next year.
63. Then we come to the French Empire, with a population of about 12 l/2 million and a square mileage of 1 l/4 million. If the problem of Algeria were settled, the greater headaches of France — and I say deliberately "France" — would be over, because there would be a vast ally occupying the greater part of Africa from and including the Sahara to the northern coast, where there are many people of multiracial stock and origin, accustomed to the ways of life of both East and West, of Africa, Asia and Europe, who would make a great contribution to civilization. So what would remain would be only the remnants of the empires of the past; and I have no doubt that if the voice of the United Nations goes forth in unmistakable fashion, and with the impact of the liberty that would be established on the African continent, the example set by their Asian neighbours during the last generation, where liberty has been used for constructive purposes and not for practising racial discrimination in reverse or for continental compartmentalism, the world would begin to realize that the liberation of peoples adds to the social, economic, moral and security power of the world.
64. It is the same as in countries where the women were disenfranchised, and then when they were enfranchised the electorate doubled and the result was an increase in the political and social capacity of those countries, involving at least half as much again of the population.
65. So our own approach to this problem is to deal with the factual situation as it stands and not to apportion blame or responsibility. I would be the last to say that, in the context of history, even these unfortunate events, even the oppressions, even the conquests of countries, have not in some strange way brought them into the ambit of modern life.
66. But today we have to look at the problem of independence — and I speak more from the point of view of people like ourselves, formerly dependent peoples. Independence has no meaning if it is exclusively the removal of foreign rule. In India we often say that on 15 August 1947 India did not attain independence in actuality, but it opened the doors for real Independence by removing its main obstacle, namely, foreign rule; because independence for a people means more food, more education, more sanitation, more opportunity, more leisure. These are the things that constitute the reality of independence. The vast continent of Africa particularly — and we are no exception either — is in a state of backwardness in all these aspects, whether in the form of nutrition, or of education, or of opportunity, Or of political advancement. These are the things that have to be implemented, and it should be the concern of the United Nations and of the populations themselves not to regard the ending of empire as the completion of their task and the metropolitan countries not to regard it as something that is forced upon them, but as a conscious effort of modem policy. Indeed — and I am making no very accurate comparison — even like slavery of old, it is unhistoric to argue that every slave-owner of three hundred or four hundred years ago was essentially a cruel man; he was the victim of a cruel system. Today no one would like to go back to it. The values of the world have changed and, equally as the ownership of man by man now stands condemned and reprehensible, the ownership of a country by another country will be completely detested in the next few years. Therefore, we would support anything that comes here which speeds up the termination of the system, even as, a hundred years ago, if our delegation had had the opportunity, and with the present way of thinking, we would have supported the termination of domination of man by man.
67. It is possible to paraphrase for our time Abraham Lincoln's words. "It is not possible", he said, "for a government to be half slave and half free." We should say that it is not possible for a world to be half slave and half free. There can therefore be no area in this world, in Asia or Africa or anywhere else, where there are territories and peoples who are not entitled to become free members of this great society of ours, the United Nations. That is the test of national independence, and from that test we must go forward with the idea of implementing the reality of independence.
68. Here, may I say, particularly for the understanding or at least for the information of Western delegations, that there is a fundamental difference in the recent developments of dependent territories and the development of Western Europe. In Western Europe industry and economic progress, however slow, came first, and political liberty came after and gradually by the demands of the people who worked at the machines. The economic revolution came first. And then came the franchise — in the United Kingdom, for example, it took over a century before people finally were enfranchised. But in all of Asia and, I am glad to say, in Africa, full-fledged political revolutions have come first, whereby every man and woman irrespective of class, colour, tribe, group or such other factors, has political freedom — which means that it has released an enormous amount of aspiration and expectation and, what is more, realization that it is a function of the community, of States and Governments, to keep the community happy. So this contradiction, this division between Western development and ours creates social problems. That is to say, in the whole of this area of free Africa about 177 million people have been liberated and, if we take Asia, it means that some 800 or 900 million people have been liberated.
69. The present and large quantum of aspiration and determination, the large degree of likely frustration if the position is not met is obvious and, therefore, it is necessary for the United Nations, not merely by the time-honoured ways of seeking aid here, there and everywhere, not in ways likely to include economic domination in the politically independent countries, to think of other methods and approaches. And at the right time and in the right context my delegation proposes to put forward proposals regarding these ways.
70. If this world is to be in peace, these imbalances have to undergo rectification. I said, a while ago, that, politically, half the world cannot be slave and half free — and I do not, of course, mean a mathematical half. That statement is equally true from the economic point of view. Unless there is a rise in standards of living, unless there is industrial advancement and, what is more, a consciousness of political equality, social equality and dignity, the world is not likely to go forward.
71. I deliberately wish to exclude from these observations this morning mention of any particular countries, either dependent or dominating countries, and merely to refer to the problem as such.
72. We must consider whether, while there must be bilateral or multilateral or other specific arrangements and while the United Nations itself can take credit for a great deal in this direction, the time has come for the United Nations to take note of either the expressed or the unexpressed views of the former dependent peoples of Africa and Asia that this development has to be a co-operative effort, in which those people which benefit by it have equal pride; in other words, from each according to his ability — it is a good Christian maxim — and to each according to his needs!
73. It should be made possible for the United Nations to make a levy — a percentage of national income of countries, related to their capacity to pay — which would probably produce, although I would not like to go into figures, a very large quantum of money. The national income of the world is probably somewhere between $1,200 thousand million and $1,500 thousand million. If the United Nations is able to obtain agreement from the nations to submit themselves to a United Nations levy, it would be not merely for what are called under-developed countries. The under-developed countries would be participants in the levy scheme, but naturally not in the same proportions, as the more developed ones, because of their much lower standards. However, they must come into it and, side by side with the others, create international pools of technicians and experts. It should be not a one-way flow of traffic. So far as our country is concerned, there is even now both the receiving and giving of aid. But these are multilateral or bilateral arrangements. We the nations of the world should convert ourselves into a really co-operative organization for this purpose, in which each country, whether giver or taker, would not be exclusively a giver or taker. As the world develops, it will become necessary for the developed countries also to have the advantage of the experience of others. Problems of the availability and procurement of raw materials and of markets, the necessity for the advanced countries to be able to keep up their production apparatus in the face of the competition of newer countries, both in raw materials and in finished goods — all these problems will come up.
74. The time has therefore come to make a request for an effort on a very large and ambitious scale, particularly to the more advanced countries, the United States and the Soviet Union — the national income of the United States and the Soviet Union together is getting on for $800 thousand million — to submit themselves to a United Nations levy, collected by the United Nations and administered by a special organization established for that particular purpose, so that there can be no question of unconscious trends in the thinking of that administration creating situations which are not acceptable, so that a new system will develop whereby some of the problems we have been talking about, involving the incapacity of the Organization to respond to newer situations, would also disappear.
75. We should therefore like to stress the economic aspect of the problem of dependent peoples, which can no longer be a matter of political acrimony and argument alone. The greater part of the world has become free — the Fourth Committee, I suppose, will soon be out of business, and we will be glad when that is so — and we must address ourselves to these problems of food, of education, of sanitation, of administrative ability, the problem of the employment of leisure, the advancement of the production of raw materials and the solution of the problem of markets in such a way that humanity as a whole will be developed,
76. This is one of the submissions that my delegation would like to make in regard to this problem.
77. I think that a subject people are entitled to use every method to liberate themselves. If others do not like what they may regard as unpleasant methods, it is open to them to avoid the necessity for those who are dependent to employ such methods. Subject people, I say, have the right to use every method to liberate themselves. But a wise world would avoid the necessity of violent conflict, because violence leads to further violence, and hatred and fear, all of which endanger world progress and peace.
78. We also would not like to see in the world a situation in which an empire which has been responsible for the rule of large numbers of people, sometimes not for decades or for generations but perhaps for a century or more, finds that, when it departs, there are no people to take over. There can be no greater criticism of imperial rule than that
79. I hope that in this matter my delegation has put forward suggestions that are not of a destructive but of a constructive character. However free politically certain territories may be, particularly small territories in backward conditions of industrial, technical and economic development, that political freedom cannot be sustained unless they can hold their own, socially, morally, economically and otherwise. That is why we have suggested this system whereby each country can make its own humble contribution, measured by its capacity to pay, with the aid being distributed to all without exception, Even a powerful country, if it requires some assistance to fill a certain lacuna, must be free to draw from that pool. The time is soon coming when no country in the world will be able to say; "We know everything and we do not want to learn from anybody else.” That is how my delegation looks at this colonial problem.
80. I now come to the question of the United Nations. The Secretary-General said this morning that much has been said here, one way or the other. It is not my purpose to follow that line of argument. But we have to remember that the United Nations was founded some fifteen years ago, when the greater part of the world was politically, economically and socially not competent. In other words, the political dimensions of the world, the social dimensions of the world, have become larger, as I said a while ago, with the liberation of countries and peoples and with the advance of human ideas. Today, therefore, though we are dealing with a world which has shrunk because of methods of communication, we are dealing at the same time with an expanded and expanding world. Both the political liberation of peoples and the advance of technology have created a situation in which progress has to be fast, progress can be fast and of considerable dimensions.
81. I mentioned a little while ago the difference between the evolution of the former dependent areas and the evolution of the Western world, and I want to say that, in this matter, time is not with us. We have to take account of the aspirations, the hopes, the demands of people, and, what is more, we must realize that the knowledge that conditions which are not suitable can be changed by human effort, and that humanity has the right to demand the giving of co-operative assistance, has become a conscious part of our thinking.
82. As I have said, the United Nations was founded so many years ago and is the successor to so many previous efforts. But at no time did anyone think, and certainly not at the time when the Charter was formulated, that the last word had been said, that institutions are unchangeable, and that the Charter was to be a steel frame from which there would be no escape when it was necessary to respond to modem needs. Needs have changed through the vast expansion of the economic functions, the security functions, the peace functions and other functions of the United Nations. From being an Organization with about fifty Members, we have become an Organization with about one hundred Members. There are very few parts of the world which are outside this Organization. As we look back to San Francisco, we find that even those who formulated the Charter were conscious of this. The President of the United States, Mr. Truman, who was taking a leading part at that time, said: "This Charter, like our own Constitution, will be expanded and Improved as time goes on. No one claims that it is now a final or a perfect instrument. It has not been poured into a fixed mould. Changing world conditions will require readjustments, but they will be readjustments of peace and not of war."
83. I think that both the first part and the second part are important. The most important document in this context at San Francisco was the report of Commission I presided over by the famous Belgian jurist, Mr. Rolin, which had as its rapporteur a colleague of ours at this session of the Assembly, Mr. Delgado of the Philippines.
84. This Commission, under the presidency of Mr. Rolin, made the following report at a meeting presided over by a former Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs of the United Kingdom, Lord Halifax. This is not an individual's opinion, it is the report of the Commission appointed for this purpose. The report reads: "Taking cognizance of the facts that the Charter being prepared at San Francisco could not be perfect and that the delegates could not foresee all eventual developments in international affairs, Commission! recommends for inclusion in the Charter provisions for a special conference on the revision of the Charter... . "The special conference may be held at a date and place to be fixed by a two-thirds vote of the General Assembly with the concurrence of any seven members of the Security Council, It is also provided that, in case the conference is not held before the tenth annual meeting of the Assembly following the entry into force of the Charter, the proposal to call such a conference is to be placed on the agenda of that meeting of the Assembly and a conference may be called by a simple majority of the Assembly with the concurrence of any seven members of the Security Council."
85. As the Assembly will note, we have taken all these steps. My purpose in reading this extract was to bring out that it was in the minds of those people, who were conscious of their great idealism and competence, that one-half of the world was not there. The defeated Powers at that time were not present as members. The last parts of the colonial empires — countries like our own — were still sitting on the doorstep, participating and not participating. Therefore, it was in the minds of those people that these things should be changed.
86. From those generalities we now come to the present situation. If we take each of the organs of the United Nations and put them into relation with the countries concerned, we find that the original membership from Africa was four, whereas the present membership is twenty-six. The membership from Africa, therefore, has increased between six and seven times.
87. The membership from the Americas has remained stationary: there were twenty-two Members at that time and there are twenty-two Members at present.
88. From Asia there were nine Members. In this case we lost one Member, as far as numerical calculations are concerned, when Egypt and Syria, as a result of a plebiscite held in both countries in 1958, became the United Arab Republic. But other Members were added, and within a few years they became fourteen, and today they number twenty-two.
89. From Western Europe there were ten Members, which afterwards became nine. Today there are nineteen.
90. From Eastern Europe there were six original Members, and the present number is ten.
91. So that we find in all these cases membership has multiplied by three to six or seven times. This must certainly create problems in regard to organization, and we get some rather bizarre conclusions if we take, for instance, the Security Council. Our country then and now, as expressed by the Prime Minister, has always been of the opinion that, logical or otherwise, it is necessary for the United Nations to be based upon unanimity of the great Powers, because they represent the objective facts of the world, and no great nation can, merely by a majority vote, be asked to exercise security functions or accept security decisions. Therefore, we are not in the least quarrelling with the position of the great Powers in the Security Council. That is not the purpose of this.
92. But let us take the position as it is today. Western Europe has two representatives for its nineteen Member States, whereas when it had ten Member States it had also two representatives. Eastern Europe has one representative for its ten Member States, whereas at the time of joining it had one representative for only six Member States. When we come to Asia and Africa, we get even more bizarre conclusions. The whole of Asia was at first provided with no representative. Asia was, as it were, distributed between what is called the Middle East and the Commonwealth — and I am sorry to say, for myself I do not understand this area which is called the "Middle East". It depends on where you are looking from. In my part of the world the Middle East would be somewhere in the Pacific. We must not take the view that all political meridians and longitudes are necessarily measured from Greenwich. However, the Middle East had one seat and the Commonwealth had one seat, and the Commonwealth at that time had one Asian Member, namely, India. So Asia had practically no representation, but the Middle East — meaning, I suppose, mainly the Arab countries — had one representative. Latin America had two, and it has two and it will have two.
93. Africa at that time had no representation on the Security Council, except for Egypt, which is in Africa but which was included, once again by some strange geography, in the Middle East.
94. But our present position is this. Take India, for example. If it were desired to give membership on the Security Council to the Commonwealth group, we would be there, in the present state of membership, once in twenty-four years, and from the end of next year, India would be in the Security Council once in forty or forty-six years. An African country under this system, unless the Asians and Africans came to some arrangement among themselves, would not be there at all; but even if some arrangement were reached, they would be there only once in seventy or eighty years. That is to say, if a two-year term is to be distributed among all. Perhaps this is not a completely fair way of describing the situation, because not every country may want membership; but in any event, it takes a very long time — some ten to thirty years — before a given country can be on the Security Council.
95. Now, joining the Security Council does not mean being invited to social parties. It means distribution of responsibilities; it means that large and small countries in different parts of the world must all feel the sense of "belongingness”. Otherwise the Security Council functions in one compartment, the Assembly functions in a separate compartment, and the Secretary-General and other organs function in other compartments. This to a certain extent is inevitable, but it becomes accentuated.
96. Therefore, looking at these purely geographical and physical facts, the necessity becomes apparent for finding ways and means of dealing with this problem calling for an amendment of the Charter. My country has been a consistent opponent of any amendment of the Charter without getting agreement among the great Powers, because it can lead only to cold-war controversy otherwise. Agreement, unanimity, of the great Powers Is required to expand the organs of the United Nations. But in the same circumstances, I am sure that the great Powers, whether they belong to the East, to the West or to Europe, would recognize that the Security Council lives in a political vacuum that is unconnected with the realities of the modern world and, what is more, will create in the Assembly a caste system of nations that may get into the sanctum sanctorum, and nations that may not. And this applies equally to other organs of the United Nations which we shall be discussing in special committees.
97. Field Marshal Smuts, who was one of the formulators of the Charter and who is quite a good authority for us to quote, said, in his concluding address at San Francisco: "Unless the spirit to operate it is there, the best plan or machine may fail. ... It is for our peace-loving peoples to see that this great peace plan is backed with all their energy, all their hearts, and all their souls."
98. That is, when we try to change this system it is not sufficient for us to be logical, it is not sufficient for us to approach the task with the aim of tearing things down; we must rather respect the principle of unanimity, that union of hearts and minds that is required so to fashion the Organization as to breathe the breath of life into it, so that it can respond to the needs for it, whether they be economic, political, matters of security or otherwise. This is the submission that my delegation would like to make.
99. Next, though it may seem somewhat removed from the United Nations, my delegation feels it necessary for my country, even if it may be regarded as, perhaps, special pleading, to give some exposition, some expression of view, as to our own approach in these matters. We are not a neutral country. We refuse to accept responsibility for the appellation "neutralist", which is purely a newspaper invention, originally produced as an epithet by people who did not like our policy. We are not neutral in regard to war or peace. We are not neutral in regard to domination by imperialist or other countries. We are not neutral with regard to ethical values. We are not neutral with regard to the greatest economic and social problems that may arise. Neutrality is a concept that arises only in war. If we are neutrals, the Soviet Union and the United States are belligerents — and I do not think they want to plead guilty to that! We are not neutral or neutralist, positive or otherwise. We would take part, we would participate, we would express our views. Even that expression "positive neutrality" is a contradiction in terms. There can no more be positive neutrality than there can be a vegetarian tiger.
100. Therefore, our position is that we are an un-aligned and uncommitted nation in relation to the cold war. That is to say, in relation to the great international issues, we think it is good for sovereign nations. In conformity with international law and with their own historic backgrounds, to protect into international relations their own internal policies in regard to toleration, democracy and neighbourliness. And the Charter provides the guidelines that are required.
101. It is not necessary for us to belong to this school or to that school and to sacrifice our convictions, for it is our convictions that have led us to non-alignment in this way. Secondly, we believe that in the circumstances, where the balance of power in the world unfortunately rests on what Sir Winston Churchill called "the balance of horror", it is good for nations, and not only for the nations of Asia — and while I take up no position of telling other nations what to do, the greater the increase of the area of peace in the world, the greater the non-committedness, the more that the so-called committed nations have to canvass for the moral support of others, the greater are the chances of peace. No country which relies upon power or negotiation from strength should be able to take any other country for granted. That is, we should be able to decide, either in our wisdom or otherwise., as to what is good for ourselves in the world. We should be open to persuasion, because if we are not open to persuasion we should never be able to persuade anybody else.
102. Therefore, our position is that we are uncommitted in regard to sides. We do not belong to one camp or another. That does not mean that where these issues are involved to which I have referred we would simply sit on the fence and not take sides. What is more, this uncommittedness is not an attempt to escape international responsibilities. My own country, in regard to the situation that arose later in Korea — or even during the Korean war — in Indo-China, in the Lebanon, in the Gaza Strip, and now in the Congo (Leopoldville), is heavily committed, committed far beyond our capacity. We committed ourselves because we think it is in the interests of peace at this time. We want it understood that we do not welcome this appellation of neutral, or neutralist, whatever it means. It means that, if we even accept the appellation, first of all we would accept the freezing of the cold war or the power blocs, which we do not want to see in the world. In this world we cannot continue to live in peace and security, or even survive, unless the great countries of Europe and America come together, not necessarily with an identity of thinking, but with tolerance and co-operation and lay down their arms. This is not possible if there are only two sides and they are ranged against each other, each canvassing against the other. If they are successful in their enlistment effort there may well be no areas in the world that are not precommitted to forceful action. This is a tragic state of affairs.
103. We are happy to think that, while at one time being non-aligned was regarded — as I have been told so many times — as sitting on the fence, or pronouncing a curse on both houses, or trying to canvass assistance from both sides, that day has fortunately disappeared. Today in the world, even in the United States of America, the Soviet Union or European countries, there is a greater appreciation of the integrity of purpose involved in this; and even of the political profit and the profit of the world that might arise from, independent countries exercising their policies independently. This is not a counsel of anarchy, or a counsel against co-operation between peoples. We do not regard military alliances between Member States of the United Nations outside the Charter, and as against another group of nations as sanctioned by Article 51 of the Charter.
104. But at the same time, we have not carried on a campaign against it. As the world stands at present, these systems have come into existence and we hope that with the evolution of proposals for disarmament and collective security they will begin to disappear even though little by little. Therefore, our position in this regard is what is dictated by the Charter; the policy of the good neighbour, the policy that we try to practice in our own country by our democratic institutions, tolerance for differences of opinion. Then, while one does not want to speak for other countries who more or less follow the same policy, speaking for ourselves, our peoples are never able to accept the idea of exclusive good and exclusive evil. There are no individuals, no nations, no groups of people who can say that their policies, their actions, their thoughts, their commitments, or whatever they are, are exclusively one thing or the other. In this changing world of ours it is always necessary to have observation and examination of the opponents’ proposals. There is always a chance that the opponent may be right, and if he is right and you reject him out of hand, you lose his contribution. Therefore, we will not contribute our strength, for what it is worth — it is worth very little in economic or military terms — for the promotion of world factions. We shall not be a party at any time to intervening in any way, economically or otherwise, either in the developing continent of Africa and or in other parts of Asia with a view to profiting ourselves or in such a way as to stifle their progress, or anything of that character.
105. There are no troops, there is no soldier, no aeroplane, no horse and no gun belonging to the Republic of India anywhere outside our frontiers except at the behest of the United Nations or international agreements. The last of these were withdrawn on the last day of August 1947. Therefore, we stand, without any reservation whatsoever, as a country that does not want to be involved in the war blocs.
106. This takes me to another, perhaps more controversial question — the classification of uncommitted countries as a bloc. We are against the formation of isolated blocs in the United Nations, because it means that this Assembly has no capacity to decide in freedom; that decisions are reached elsewhere beforehand and that all that happens is degrees of master-minding. This would not lead to the prosperity of this world. Co-operation among like-minded nations, co-operation among people with like-minded experience past or present is both necessary and useful. But to say that we are a third force, or a neutralist bloc, the panacea for everything, is beside the point.
107. At the risk of being misunderstood, my country does not stand for the formation of blocs, because blocs mean isolationism. We stand for a universalist world. In fact, the position the United Nations is facing is what humanity has faced from almost the pre-Christian era, where on the one hand there was the doctrine or approach of universalism, one world and one family, whether on theological, political or other grounds — and on the other hand power for oneself. This has been the contradiction the whole time. In the sixth century B.C., the Chinese tried to bring about some degree of understanding among the rival areas of the Yangtse basin on the basis of peaceful settlements, and they ended up by imposing domination in the Yangtse region.
108. After that, in the Christian world at various times there were moves in this direction, and ultimately there was the Congress of Vienna of 1815. Tsar Alexander preached to the world the universal doctrine of Christendom and the great dreams that he had for the whole world, for the great human family. But he was torn between his dreams and his schemes for power, which ultimately resulted in the Holy Alliance. So here also is the great universal doctrine that has been explored by the fathers of our constitution — the Charter — including the representatives of the United States and of the Soviet Union whose speeches at the United Nations Conference in San Francisco I just read. On the one hand they try to reach universalism, while on the other hand keeping out a good little country like Outer Mongolia; and, on the other hand, not allowing the free play of independent nations through fear of one nation or the other. So unless this Organization remains not only universal in its membership, but universal in the conception pervading it, not divided by factionism, we are not likely to get much further,
109. This was also the feeling of those who framed the Charter at San Francisco, and I have some extracts from some relevant speeches that I will not take time to read now. But the more we move in this direction, the better. I am happy also because of the independence of uncommitted nations, and because their numbers are being largely added to by newer nations and in the thought that, whatever may be the present situation, liberty carries its own consequences. You cannot set a man free and expect him to remain unfree forever. That would be like countries who say, "You can have self-determination provided you determine as we want you to determine". Therefore, once the blaze of freedom comes to a place and it is followed by the material sustenance that is necessary to maintain itself economically and socially free, certain consequences follow. Therefore, the presence of these free nations here is not only — as I said a while ago — something for which they have to congratulate themselves and rejoice in, but it is a great contribution to the world.
110. I come now to the next of the problems, the most Important of all, that is, the problem of disarmament. I hope that the Assembly will forgive me if I take most of the rest of my time for this subject. It is not the intention of my delegation to go into very accurate details on this question before the Item goes to the First Committee. But it is the desire of the Government of India to put forward its approach in these matters. First of all, we think that it is essential for us to remember that the Idea of disarmament has not come to us overnight but has been born in the context of human evolution. There have always been wars in the past, but that is no reason why there should be war again. In our time, in the last generation or two, there have been two great world wars, and at the end of each, efforts have been made, to create first a League of Nations and afterwards a United Nations.
111. As I said some time ago, the attempts to establish disarmament have a very long history. In our own country right through, when you go from north to south you see engraved In stone or metal by the great emperor Asoka, whose emblem we carry on our national flag today, the counsels of peace, though he had been victorious in his campaigns and pacification had been established.
112. I am not referring to our whole history. Then came, as I said, the Chinese instance. There has been the history of Europe, which is a more modern history. From the middle of the fifteenth century onwards attempts were made in this way from time to time, but I will not take the time of the Assembly to repeat history except to point out that we have now reached situations when we should remember that disarmament is part of a family tree almost, that Is to say, since humanity became organized in national groups with national rivalries, there has emerged within the conflicts the concomitant idea of the pacific settlements of disputes. Pacific settlement of disputes In the Western world from the time of Bodin and after world wars makes Its appearance at various times in conferences. Its advocates, whether a Tsar Alexander or a Lord Castlereagh, kept their own reservations. When we have pacific settlement of disputes, it follows inevitably that we must have collective security because if there is pacific settlement of disputes there must be some guarantee that It will be enforced or it will not endure. Therefore collective security, which has now become accepted in the world, has followed — ever since the beginning of the century, anyway. If there is pacific settlement of disputes, then collective security follows in its train. It equally follows that there must be disarmament because it should not be possible for any great Power, or for any Power at the disposal of the United Nations, or any other bloc, to be so powerful as to impose its will by force upon anyone else. The corollary to collective security is disarmament.
113. Having said this much, I want to make the position of my country very clear, as we did on instructions of our Government at San Francisco in 1955 at the commemoration of the tenth anniversary of the United Nations. We regard disarmament only as a means to an end. The end is the avoidance of war. What we seek is not merely disarmament, that is to say, the limitation of arms, the categories of arms that should be avoided and so on, which all have their own purposes, but what we seek is a world without war, where war will be no longer regarded as an instrument of settling disputes, particularly in modem times when large populations are subject to the cruel consequences of war Itself.
114. Fortunately, the time has passed in the world where there are nations which regard war as a kind of muscle development, and here I should like to read an extract which I took from a book I read recently. This is an extract from the editor's prefatory note of a special issue of the publication Daedalus: "Until two generations ago, war was widely regarded as a biological and sociological inevitability — even a necessity." You may remember that there was a gentleman who said this during the war years. The quotation continues: "To most theorists and statesmen, war was not the desperate last resort for settling conflicts; rather it was the mechanism that prevented society from slipping into 'degeneration' and that served as a supreme arbiter for testing the virtue and worth of that society." Then, in the same prefatory note, we come to a quotation from the great American philosopher, the father of modern pragmatism, William James. He said: "'History is a bath of blood' but war is 'the gory nurse that trains society to cohesiveness' and provides 'the moral spur’ to develop the essential manly virtues of 'intrepidity, contempt of softness, surrender of private interest, obedience to command’."
115. That is the formal view of war as an exercise to tune up our muscles. This was the idea of previous times, but now we have reached the situation in which, if the world were to enter into war there would be no muscles to be developed, and apparently this philosopher had the foresight to recognize this even at that time when he said (and this passage is also quoted in that prefatory note): "When whole nations are the armies" — that is the position today — "and the science of destruction vies in intellectual refinement with the science of production" — that Is what is happening to us now — "I see that war becomes absurd and impossible from its own monstrosity. Extravagant ambitions will have to be replaced by reasonable claims, and nations must make common cause against them."
116. Today these two sentences reflect what every thoughtful person believes. But what I am trying to point out is this: whatever may have been the justification for wars between nations or wars to end wars and what-not, today there can only be wars, in a global sense, only to end the world. We are told (I do not know what the basis of the calculation is) that the destructive thermo-nuclear and nuclear power of the world as at the present time, on a conservative calculation, equals the power of twelve tons of TNT per head of the population of the world. Therefore, the destructive power is so tremendous that any kind of outbreak of war would mean possible destruction of humanity as a whole. That is why we say that the idea of total disarmament, a world without war, is no longer a Utopia, it becomes an imperative necessity, because in a world that is disarmed, where war is still the instrument of policy, it is only common sense to think that if war were to break out the men who made the thermo-nuclear weapons, the machinery that could make them, would still be available to nations. The experience of history shows that neither the generals nor the weapons that were prevalent at the outbreak of war are the people or the instruments which will prosecute or end the war! It has been a commonplace that peacetime generals soon give way to wartime generals just as peacetime weapons also give way to wartime weapons. So today in our world, with the technological developments which are taking place, to which I will address myself in a minute, any limitation of armaments which makes large-scale war possible cannot be an end in itself, in that it goes on to the next phase where speed is of great value, because the effort has to begin somewhere.
117. If you asked a person whether he preferred to be destroyed by such and such a weapon or by another kind of weapon, whether the size of the gun should be this, that or the other, I suppose he would be in the position of the fish that is asked, "would you like to be fried in margarine or in butter?" It makes no difference to the fish whether you fry it in butter or in margarine. It is fried! Therefore, the world is not satisfied with being told that we are using more "humane" weapons. Therefore, my delegation wishes to place this in context, perhaps rather abruptly, because we are likely to lose sight of the importance, the necessity, and today, the possibility of total disarmament in the world within a short. and measurable time. We stand four-square for the complete abandonment of all weapons of mass destruction and for speedy progress towards their abolition. Today therefore, in discussing disarmament in this general debate, and without going into great detail, I should like to refer to the background of disarmament in regard to the Charter itself. At San Francisco Field Marshal Smuts said: "Men and women everywhere, including dependent peoples still unable to look after themselves," — that is, according to him — "are thus drawn into the vast plan to prevent war, to prevent it not only by direct force but also by promoting justice and freedom and social peace among the peoples."
118. Therefore, looking at the disarmament problem, we would say, first of all, that there are large areas of agreement or near agreement. My delegation cannot be regarded as being escapists in saying this and as trying to escape the reality of conflict that exists between the two sides. But in spite of all this, there is no doubt in our minds that there are large areas of agreement and we have not quite exhaustively put down some of the areas in which there is agreement even though it is of a general character.
119. In resolution 1378 (XTV) — which was passed unanimously, not by acclamation — the Assembly agreed on general and complete disarmament. For the first time in a resolution, we laid it down that it was to be a world without war, that disarmament should be general and complete. Second, there was agreement on the fact that disarmament should be carried out in agreed stages and completed as rapidly as possible within specified periods of time. That is to say, the Assembly, in a practical and reasonable way, has accepted the view that we should not throw out the good because we want the best. Phased disarmament is accepted, but not phasing in order to avoid reaching the ends we want to reach. Third, it is common ground between the two sides that disarmament measures should be so balanced that neither side has at any time any significant military advantage. Fourth, it was agreed that the implementation of the disarmament measures should be carried out from beginning to end under effective International control through the establishment of an organization within the United Nations. Finally, it was agreed that as the disarmament steps were implemented there should be an international force within the United Nations for the maintenance of international peace and security.
120. Those are the common grounds, and while the substance of this will be discussed in committee, I want to draw attention to Article 11 of the Charter, which definitely lays down disarmament as part of the purposes of the United Nations. Article 11 provides that one of the functions of the General Assembly is to consider “... the principles governing disarmament and the regulation of armaments and make recommendations with regard to such principles ... to the Security Council… and so on. Having said that, we would like to put forward the position of our Government, especially with regard to this.
121. First of all, we would like to express our opinion that many of the differences about which there is a great deal of noise made, especially where there is the modern medium of publicity and where, of course, disagreements between great peoples are better news than agreements between them, lack substance when looked at In the cold light of reason. Coming from a country like mine or from an individual like me, this may perhaps be regarded as tendentious phraseology. Therefore, I will refer to what may be called sources which will be unimpeachable in a great part of this Assembly. In a publication of the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace which was issued the other day, It was stated: "In effect, disarmament negotiations themselves have become a weapon in the cold war." That is to say, instead of our trying to reach an agreement, we make use of it to show that one party is opposed to, and the other party for, war. "Speeches made in commission, committee and plenary Assembly have more often been designed to influence different segments of opinion than to reach an accommodation with the other nations represented at the conference table. Both East and West have become masters of the art of appealing directly to peoples over the heads of their governments. "Beginning with the proposals for international control of atomic energy, both sides have developed and refined the technique of utilizing the discussions for propaganda purposes. This might be described as the ’gamesmanship’ of disarm ament negotiations. A cardinal feature of this ‘game’ has been to reject the proposals of the other side without appearing to sabotage the discussions. "Every plan offered by either side has contained a set of proposals calculated to have wide popular appeal. Every such step has included at least one feature that the other side could not possibly accept, thus forcing a rejection. Then the proposing side has been able to claim that the rejector is opposed to the idea of disarmament in toto. The objectionable feature may be thought of as the ’joker’ in every series of proposals,"
122, That is to say, disarmament discussions have gone on in such a way that one side has agreed on one thing one year and next year has objected to the same thing, and we have to get away from this position, realizing the consequences for the world. While we are not alarmist, we have to remember that the so-called "brinkmanship" is not a very safe device or strategy. The world stands poised with these great armaments on the edge of a precipice, and with the great armaments of the powerful nations the decision may be of such a character that it is based upon ignorance of circumstances and, what is more, upon fear. Fear makes people hate each other, leads to violence and makes negotiation and settlement of any kind impossible, because we always ask how we can know that the other side will keep the bargain. People little realize that if that is the real conviction, then why negotiate at all, because that applies to all negotiations. In the disarmament negotiations, therefore, in our opinion, in the Assembly there must be a full statement every time, by those who believe in it, that the substantive discussions must deal with the final objective so there can be no question of this going on for umpteen years.
123. Then we have to address ourselves to the increasing dangers of delay, I would like to refer to one of these dangers to which the President’s own country has applied its mind. That is what has been called the problem of the Nth power. There is a report of a committee of American scientists, to which Mr. Khrushchev made reference last year, which points out that there is a large number of countries today, including my own, capable of producing nuclear weapons in a comparatively short time. The advance of nuclear science and technology is such that in two, three or four years they could produce these weapons. The number of those countries, which was about ten last year, has become twenty this year. We have read in the newspapers that one country has now stumbled across or come to discoveries which make the production of these things very economical and very speedy. Three or four years ago, when something of this kind was said in the First Committee by my delegation, one of the great savants of disarmament said that we were indulging in science fiction! But, whatever it is, the production of weapons of mass destruction by a number of countries, and by smaller countries with lesser responsibilities and. perhaps with smaller quarrels, is increasing and in three or four years time it maybe quite impossible to introduce controls or inspection in the ways we want it.
124. Second, we of the former dependent world and the less fortunate countries have another fear in this matter. Supposing one of the possessor or would-be possessor countries — I will not mention anyone — in order to qualify themselves for membership in the nuclear club had become possessed of one of those instruments or intended to do so actively, they would know very well that neither the Soviet Union nor the United States was likely to precipitate a world war in the interests of a particular local quarrel. That is the hard fact of life, and, therefore, they could with impunity and with safety perhaps use this weapon in the same way as at the end of the war the atom bomb was used at Hiroshima and Nagasaki. Suppose that were to happen to a country with a large colonial revolt, it would mean the use of atomic weapons for purposes contrary to those for which the Assembly stands.
125. More than that, the spread of these weapons, along with the technology that goes with it, will make it very dangerous even for the great Powers when they no longer have the control of the destructive processes that would be let loose in a world war. Therefore, the spread of nuclear knowledge by itself creates the compelling conditions for complete disarmament and total prohibition and destruction of all existing stocks so that there will be no halfway house in this matter. There must be complete totality in this direction. That is our position.
126. It is necessary that we consider the ways and means of preventing a break in the disarmament discussions. Since the founding of the United Nations, from 1946 onwards, there have been various things done to make it possible for these discussions to continue. I will not go into the history of it. My delegation, although this may not always appear in resolutions, has taken a considerable part in helping to devise machinery of this character. We had the Committee of Five, and with that Committee, we had the Disarmament Commission of twelve members. Then we had the Ten-Nation Committee on Disarmament and my delegation, quite illogically — perhaps, and many people at that time had reservations on the matter— agreed that these discussions should go on between the two great Powers and their supporters in what was called the Ten-Nation Committee, even outside the United Nations, because it has the same purpose as the United Nations.
127. Now the Ten-Nation Committee has been stymied; it is not negotiating any more. It is the view of my delegation that no efforts can be spared. In fact we cannot accept a situation where there is a gap in disarmament negotiations, because once those negotiations are left with a yawning gap in that way, the beginning of fresh negotiations would be even more difficult. It may well be difficult, for example, for a new President of the United States to begin from a position of total negativity or something like it, whoever the President may be. Therefore, we are most anxious that, whatever may be the procedures, there should be some method by which disarmament negotiations are kept going, whether or not the Ten-Nation Committee meets again.
128. None of these things can happen unless the United States and the Soviet Union and their allies and participants on either side, their colleagues on either side, agree, because they have the possession of arms. Therefore, any kind of resolution that we pass which does not attract their co-operation at some stage would be of no value.
129. If the Ten-Nation Committee could continue its negotiations, my delegation would be pleased, even if past experience was against it, even if there were misgivings on one side or the other. But we would not swear by this committee or that committee; we want negotiations. What we want is that the traffic for disarmament should go on, regardless of whether the proposal is that the Ten-Nation Committee should have other people added on to it or that the Committee should be replaced by a committee of another composition where more than ten nations or less than ten nations join with others, whatever the forum, in order that the present suspicions may seek to be removed. It should be the purpose of this Assembly to use Its influence mainly on uncommitted nations in order that the world may feel that the United Nations has not abandoned the fight for disarmament. We want to say with all the strength we can command that the effect of not allowing some machinery to operate would be to create despair and despondency in the minds of the masses of the peoples of the world. Even though we have thrown away not very fruitful negotiations, if you like, we cannot for that reason now throw away negotiations altogether. That was one of the purposes of the introduction of the draft resolution [A/L.317] by the five Heads of State some time ago, which unfortunately did not get the total majority that it should have had.
130. So there should be some substitute for It. That replacement Is possible either through the continuance of the Ten-Nation Committee in some form or other, with additions to it, through its replacement, or, alternately — and I don't put this forward as a proposition; if the Assembly will permit me, it may be regarded as thinking aloud — it may be considered whether, on account of the tension that now prevails between the two sides, as an immediate and proximate step the Assembly may not be able to find a group of nations who would be able to talk to these two sides separately — I don't mean moderate — pending a more convenient committee being formed. This is a third suggestion which I would like to try out in the First Committee. So whatever the process be, there must be the continuation of disarmament negotiations.
131. We have spoken about two things. Therefore, the request of our delegation is that the First Committee this year, instead of merely being satisfied with draft resolutions submitted by one side or another, amended or not amended, and going through in order to avoid greater harm, should definitely give directives. It is necessary that the Assembly should take greater responsibility. This applies as much to the Secretary-General as to anybody else.
132. If I might digress for a moment: if the Security Council passes a resolution, the Security Council must bear with courage and actively the responsibility for giving directions in regard to implementing it, and not turn round afterwards and say it was not implemented. It is open to the Security Council to devise the machinery as to how such a resolution should be carried out.
133. As by way of example, the General Assembly this time must give directions to whatever body there is, or make a request to the great Powers and say, first, the first directive should be the object before us, the total abolition of all arms so that we can live in a world without war; second, that disarmament should be accomplished within measurable time. I purposely said "measurable", because it must be done with speed and a time should he largely mentioned. As I mentioned a while ago, if there is too much delay, then It becomes Impossible. It may mean three or four years. It must also give a directive, since the areas of agreement are so large, that progress should be made within those areas of agreement instead of putting those on one side and seeking for the differences. The present approach seems to be to agree on something, put it on one side and see if we can find a difference.
134. Then it would be necessary, in the event of a crisis of confidence or anything else, in order to create that confidence, that the Assembly should formulate some kind of code which afterwards would become part of our International law and behaviour whereby the attack on one country by another country — not only the great Powers — the surprise attack by two neighbours, if you like, without adherence even to the older laws of war, would be regarded as a violent breach of international obligations. I am not saying that in the event of atomic war it means anything at all; but if we introduce into our international life the outlawing of the idea of surprise attack — as we did In the case of various weapons by the Geneva Convention, and so on and so on — that may create the climate. This Is not a reference to a technique for preventing a surprise attack. I think we are getting rather involved in techniques and forgetting the purposes.
135. I think technical examinations are necessary, but technical examinations must be directed towards a particular purpose, and this directive must include the Idea that preparation for surprise attack or holding out surprise attack as a weapon for domination is against the code of nations. That must become part of the accepted doctrine of international order. It may appear Utopian for the time, but unless we create this climate, we are not likely to succeed.
136. Second, the directive must include speedy agreement in regard to the termination of test explosions. Unless this is done, the danger to which I referred a while ago, the spread of these nuclear weapons and, what is more, the effects of ionizing radiation, will so vastly Increase as to endanger humanity. Therefore, it is our request that at the end of these disarmament discussions there should be directives from the Assembly. The Assembly must find some medium, some machinery, some device whereby there will be no total gap. It is possible to create greater difficulties by allowing such a gap to grow. If those directives were given, then the Assembly would devise the method, even before the session closes, and could see to it that those directives, by negotiations, could be implemented.
137. It appears to us that all this is probable, if we are conscious of the fact that what is required is, as President Roosevelt said in 1945, when war was still raging: "More than an end to war, we want an end to the beginning of all wars." That is what we have been trying to do.
138. Therefore, we must in these -negotiations approach the matter with a new mind and, realizing that we have come to a situation when this session of the Assembly, where great Heads of State and Heads of Governments and Foreign Ministers were gathered, had no easy approach to these problems, but, at the same time, that in all conscience the troubles of the world were great and to disguise them might lead to catastrophe. We must set ourselves against the idea of men’s natures wrangling for the inferior things though great ones are their object. This is the position that we must accept, and accept the responsibility this time for giving directives.
139. Until now the Disarmament Commission has been a post office. Its Sub-Committee has met and wrangled, as I said here when I read out from the Carnegie Endowment publication, and then met either the day previous or two days previous to the opening of the Assembly session, merely to pass on its report. I submit that the Disarmament Commission has defaulted in its activity. Whether it be the Disarmament Commission of eighty-four or the Disarmament Commission of twelve, we should give a directive to this negotiating body or the committee, whatever the machinery, and it must make a report to the whole Disarmament Commission within three or four months so that the Disarmament Commission can decide whether to convene a session of the General Assembly to carry on with the work. We are not supporting one proposition or another in this matter, but we believe that greater association of all Members of the United Nations, the repeated expression of their concern, greater knowledge in the world of what is involved and the progress that we are making, and, what is more, the publicity that will come upon what some of the public may regard as activities of obstruction, that would speed the way to disarmament. That is all I wish to say at this moment in regard to disarmament, because I propose to take this up in detail in committee.
140. Now I come to the last part of my observations this morning, which has fallen to my lot because representatives will see before them a draft resolution [A/L.320 and Add.1-6] sponsored by some fifteen or sixteen countries, including my own, whose names it bears. Just before I came to speak here Cambodia, Ceylon, Ethiopia, Guinea, Nepal, Nigeria and Sudan asked me to say that they wanted to be added to the list, and I believe other countries also have put down their names. The Assembly will see that this is not an expression of aspirations or an expression of opinion that comes from one part of the world. Here are countries not only of Asia, where I come from, and Africa, with which my delegation is closely associated — and where I feel sure, with one or two small exceptions, everyone would have been willing to sponsor the document — but also countries from Latin America, whose part in disarmament discussions has been notable. There are also the countries of Europe which are not involved in the present arrangements or Power groupings. There are Austria, Finland and Yugoslavia, on the one hand, and, on the other, Bolivia, Ecuador Mexico, Panama, Venezuela — I hope that I have not forgotten any. All these countries are also in it. There are the Arab countries, the African countries and the Asian countries.
141. This draft resolution has come before the Assembly not only with their good wishes but also with the appeal they make to the Assembly for its adoption. I do not think it is necessary for me to argue this at great length, but I would like to say that my delegation does not regard this as a kind of form of words with little meaning. It is not what is called a general draft resolution, giving everybody a feeling of escape into unreality. It has been put forward because we all know that tensions have increased in this world. The proceedings of the Assembly up till now have not been of a character which has left its mark by creating a different climate with regard to this, and some of us felt that it was necessary, both for ourselves and for world opinion outside, so that confidence in the United Nations might remain, so that the peoples of the world should not feel frustration and so that their expectations and aspirations should Inspire even those who do not see eye to eye with each other to realize that there is a compulsive force outside which will not take account of their individual peculiarities, or even of their individual fears, and that this is a world problem, where the world stands before a catastrophe, where its economic and social progress also is being delayed by the continual threat of war and where relations between nation and nation. Instead of becoming more tolerant and friendly, are becoming more grouped on one side or the other, and where the new nations which come into this Assembly, who should have a chapter of co-operation, are faced rather with a conflict of faith. Therefore, we have put forward this draft resolution without any desire to apportion blame or responsibility, but to enunciate positions which are in total conformity with the Charter and which take into account the factual situation. For example, the draft resolution says: "The General Assembly, "Deeply concerned by the increase in world tensions," and "Considering that the deterioration in international relations constitutes a grave risk to world peace and cooperation,".
142. In the course of Informal discussions on this matter — naturally, one looks at every side — the problem we posed ourselves was, "Does it constitute an alarmist statement on affairs?" It is not an alarmist statement, but the world does give cause for alarm. That is to say, it is. right for a responsible body such as ours to say that the increase in world tension — whether we take it among the countries represented here or elsewhere — is so serious that in the present state of technical advance, and with, as I have said, the crisis of lack of confidence, there is grave risk to international peace. Even though it may not arise in the form of a declaration of war or anything of that kind, there is a grave risk to international peace. So we say that in fact it would be wrong not to face the situation. The right thing to do by the world is to take the world into confidence, if you can do so. Therefore, we do not stand for any reservations with regard to this.
143. We have said also that greater harmony among nations, irrespective of their economic and social systems, to which there are references in the Charter, would contribute towards greater harmony and tolerance between nations, and also that the United Nations should act as a centre for harmonizing the conflicting interests. These are among the fundamental purposes of the Charter, and therefore the third paragraph of the preamble fully sets out our position. Then we have urged that all countries, in accordance with the Charter of the United Nations, refrain from actions likely to aggravate these tensions. If we want to lessen tensions, it is obvious that we should not aggravate them, and aggravation may be by psychological warfare, it may be by preparations, it may be by forms of intrusion and threats to safety in one way or another — any of these actions — and it is not for the United Nations to prescribe who shall do what, but simply to appeal to the good sense of nations and their loyalties to, and obligations under, the Charter.
144. There we have gone on to operative paragraph 2, which we think is essential in the circumstances because, while we all recognize that the United States and the Soviet Union are the two major great Powers of the world — though the other Powers which have been involved in these discussions are equally concerned — the Organization itself cannot escape its responsibility, and its responsibility and its power come not from anywhere else but from its Member States. Co-operation must be forthcoming in full measure so that it may become an effective instrument for safeguarding the peace, and for the promotion of the economic and social advancement of all peoples. At the present time one of the great achievements of the United Nations has been that — in spite of all that has gone on in the world, in spite of all the great conflicts, in spite of the technological capacity for mass destruction and in spite of the crisis of confidence — the Assembly and the Organization have survived. Its survival is a great achievement, and we may therefore do nothing which does not assist towards its greater strength.
145. The Secretary-General referred this morning, and also in the introduction to his annual report [A/4390/Add.1], to various aspects — to the more silent and less advertised work in the social and economic spheres. For all those purposes it is necessary that there should be a reaffirmation of these things, which should go out to the world, to the effect that, whatever may be the difficulties, we, the representatives here in the Assembly, and the Member States, have not only not lost confidence, but place our reliance in the United Nations to carry on, and will make our best efforts.
146. Now we come to the appeal. I hope that this draft resolution will be taken cognizance of and accepted, and that the Assembly will become seized of it, and therefore I move it, I hope that the Assembly will give not merely a vote that is without opposition, but a positively unanimous vote, so that the world will know that, irrespective of all the differences, the aims are harmony and toleration, the creation of the necessary machinery for strengthening the United Nations and the necessary support, and also that we shall, in the coming weeks, address ourselves to particular problems, some of which I have referred to.
147. That is all I wished to say. I referred to the other nations which wish to sponsor the draft resolution, and it must be left to the President's discretion and wisdom how to proceed with this matter. But we would request that, before the general debate is technically concluded, the Assembly should be invited to express its opinion on this, so that it goes out to the world with some positive contribution by way of its support, and, as representative of one of the sponsors of the draft resolution, I would take the liberty of requesting that every vote in this Assembly should be positively cast in its favour.
148. At the beginning of my observations I referred to this fifteenth session of the Assembly meeting in conditions of concern and expectation. I think it would be only right and appropriate — in fact, If I did not do it it would be inappropriate — that I should refer also to the fact that, while there is concern, while there is expectation and while there are, perhaps, doubts, suspicions and so on, there is also in this Assembly the determination for us to keep together, the determination to pursue the ends of the Charter and the determination that the ills of the world arising from exploitations and imbalance, the ills of the world arising from threats of war, should be removed. We should proclaim that in this way, so that we may conclude the general debate and go onto our work with the feeling that, despite all our difficulties and despite the heat sometimes generated, there is also the determination in the minds of people that while people may strike they shall not wound, that here is a medium created by men after many failures, and that even if, unfortunately, failures should occur here or there, we shall not be daunted by them in the sense of throwing in the sponge, but shall go on from endeavour to endeavour and, in the words of the poet, say Ye rigid ploughmen bear in mind Your labour is for future hours. Advance! spare not! nor look behind! Plough deep and straight with all your powers.
149. I say this in all humility — the humility of a nation that does not seek power and does not seek to prescribe a remedy, but seeks to express its own positions and to make its humble contribution to the world, irrespective of the risks that we may have to take for peace.