180. Mr. President, I should first like to offer you the heartfelt congratulations of my delegation upon your brilliant election to the office of President of this Assembly, at a most critical moment in the life of the United Nations. We are certain that your experience will greatly help us to get through the difficult moments that we are experiencing.
181. Some twenty years ago, the signatories of the Charter of the United Nations assigned a triple objective to our Organization: first, the maintenance of peace; secondly, the liberation of the colonized peoples; and thirdly, the economic and social development of mankind.
182. This was a vast and noble design, which seemed to be an expression both of great wisdom and of great confidence in the destiny of man. The authors of the Charter wished to devote their efforts to the establishment of a new world, to the creation of a new international order.
183. In our remarks, which will be brief, we shall seek to determine how far we have come after twenty years, and in so doing we shall discuss the major problems in the forefront of the international scene today.
184. It is no exaggeration to say that the Charter was no sooner signed than there appeared one crisis after another. Every continent has had its upheavals. The first theatre of the cold war was Europe. The
East and the West on this continent confronted each other dangerously, Next, it was Asia, after the Chinese revolution and finally Africa, when the decolonization movement started in that continent.
185. All the difficulties encountered in one part of the world or another had direct repercussions on the United Nations, In Europe, the cold war between East and West had far-reaching effects on the life of the Organization. The European representation within this Assembly testifies to that fact. In Asia, the Chinese revolution and the Korean war have profoundly influenced our Organization, as is also reflected in its present composition. We need not even mention the Viet-Namese war, which is the real source of the crisis through which the United Nations is passing. In Africa, the decolonization initiated in the early 1960's has also shaken the United Nations, to the extent of Jeopardizing its very existence. We need only recall the crisis in the Congo in which the Organization was directly involved and which had financial, and above all political, consequences that were at the root of last year's crisis.
186. Indeed, if mankind has been stumbling along amid growing difficulties since the post-war period and since the Charter was drawn up, it is because — and we must have the courage to admit it — we have often turned our backs on the lofty and noble principles that prevailed when the United Nations was established.
187. The only remedy for our present difficulties is to return to the source, to revive and strengthen the principles that inspired us at the outset, in order better to ensure that the objectives of the United Nations will be attained.
188. I should like to begin with the first of these objectives: the maintenance of international peace and security. It is obvious that peace cannot be maintained on the basis of injustice. It cannot be maintained by systematically denying the rights of others, by denying people their sovereignty, and particularly by trying to impose any situation on them by force. Now what could be more unjust than the fate that has been imposed on the People's Republic of China for more than ten years? What could be more artificial than the fate imposed on the divided countries, on Germany, Korea, Viet-Nam?
189. I should like to dwell for a moment on the question of the People's Republic of China. Without specifically examining the reasons which led China to revolution, and without passing judgement on the ideology which inspired that revolution, can one reasonably challenge a people's right to be governed by the regime which suits it — which is none other than the exercise of the right to self-determination? Even if these moral arguments are not convincing enough in themselves, a certain realism should prompt us to agree that 750 million men cannot be denied the right to a share in international life. Besides, it seems clear that the crisis now shaking South-East Asia is directly linked to the Chinese problem.
190. In all honesty, we must say that we see no possible solution to the Viet-Namese problem as long as the rights of the People's Republic of China continue to be denied. It is obviously urgent that the
Viet-Namese problem should be solved. We do not wish to assess the high-level official or secret reasons which lead a great Power to decide that it has an interest in the problems of South-East Asia, particularly in the Viet-Namese situation. But we feel that the crisis in Viet-Nam threatens the policy of peaceful coexistence. We need hardly say that we are anxious for this policy to be maintained. The Soviet Union and the United States have a particular responsibility for the preservation of world peace. At the time, we hailed the elaboration and implementation of the policy of peaceful coexistence. But how can this policy survive, unless the situation that has been brought about in South-East Asia, and especially in Viet-Nam, is altered as soon as possible? We are in danger of seeing the great Powers confront one another in this part of the world, at the risk of touching off a third world war. We feel that the time has come to settle the Viet-Namese conflict by recourse to the principles of the Charter. The parties must silence their weapons and return to the conference table. All foreign troops must be asked to withdraw. Indeed, in accordance with the Geneva Agreements, they should never have been there. The entire Viet-Namese people, without excluding any of the present currents of opinion, must be permitted to decide their fate freely and to adopt the political system of their choice.
191. In short, we see no way to reduce tension in South-East Asia except by allowing the People's Republic of China to exercise its legitimate rights as a member of the international community, and by loyally accepting the right of the people of Viet-Nam to self-determination.
192. We should like very briefly to examine the Viet-Namese problem as it affects the life of our Organization. One fact stands out: the paralysis and inactivity of the United Nations. Apart from the commendable efforts of the Secretary-General to establish the groundwork for a discussion among the parties concerned — efforts which have unfortunately been fruitless up to now — no United Nations organ has taken any initiative whatsoever to try to settle the conflict. One might be tempted to say that the United Nations has retreated from its responsibilities, but that would be too harsh a judgement and undoubtedly too unjust. It is true that the Geneva Agreements provided for bodies which were to be responsible for seeking to settle any disputes that might arise from the implementation of those Agreements. But does this mean that the United Nations is by that very fact released from its responsibility in the specific case of Viet-Nam, when, as we are all aware, the Viet-Namese problem, because of the new dimensions it has taken on, threatens to endanger world peace? Certainly not.
193. The truth is simply that the United Nations lacks the means necessary to carry out effectively its task of safeguarding the peace. The Security Council, which under the Charter has the primary responsibility for the maintenance of peace, unfortunately cannot act without the unanimous consent of the great Powers. Needless to say, this agreement is rarely possible. In the case of the Korean war, the Security Council was able to act only because one of the great Powers was temporarily absent. When it returned to the Council, everything was again deadlocked. The ceasefire at Suez was ostensibly the result of a United Nations recommendation, but everyone knows that it was actually the result of an ultimatum from two great Powers who chanced to meet on the path of goodwill. The peace-keeping operations in the Congo, decided on by the Security Council, were subsequently challenged in their application, and the nineteenth session of the General Assembly was cut short because of a dispute between the great Powers about the apportionment of the costs of this operation.
194. All the discussions undertaken with regard to peace-keeping operations have thus far failed to produce an agreement and the question of how the United Nations can fulfil its task of preserving international peace and security remains untouched. Let us set aside the circumstantial solutions proposed by some Powers, depending on whether or not these were in their interest, which consisted in shifting responsibility for peace-keeping from the Security Council to the General Assembly, or vice versa. No solution has been found to the problem of how the United Nations, faced with a given conflict, may objectively take the steps necessary to safeguard the peace, without its action being challenged or paralysed by any Member State. We must realize that such a solution has not yet been found. Even the provisions in the Charter for the establishment of a Military Staff Committee and the signing of special agreements allowing armed forces to be made available to the Security Council have not yet been implemented.
195. The Committee of Thirty-Three, set up to study the problem of peace-keeping operations, has limited itself to seeking a provisional solution to the financial deadlock resulting from the United Nations operations in the Congo. It has avoided going to the heart of the problem and seeking a political solution which would henceforth enable the United Nations to accomplish its task of maintaining peace. In these circumstances, it is hardly surprising that the United Nations has been unable to undertake any measures whatsoever that might represent a valid settlement of the Viet-Namese conflict. At this stage, not only does the Organization seem powerless, but the war in Viet-Nam threatens its very existence.
196. We ourselves fully understand the disillusionment of our courageous Secretary-General, Despite the unanimous desire of all the delegations, including our own, that he will remain at his post, we must agree that his attitude will have the merit of producing a salutary shock which will make each of us come to grips with his responsibilities. If we wish our distinguished Secretary-General to remain at his post — and we all fervently hope that he will — we must examine the immediate and long-range measures which will enable him to carry out his task effectively, and which will revivify the United Nations, giving it a breath of new life, so that it may cope with the responsibilities entrusted to it twenty years ago.
197. The problem of peace-keeping, however difficult it may be — and precisely because it is difficult — must be the subject of our constant concern. We do not really feel that its solution necessarily lies in a revision of the Charter. Legal formulas have never provided serious solutions to political problems. Such problems find their solution in the conscience of each of us, in the importance we attach to the principles which should guide our actions, in our sense of fairness and in our constant concern to reconcile interests that are often contradictory, particularly in relations between Nations.
198. In the case of Viet-Nam, too many interests are at stake. There is the interest of the Viet-Namese people themselves, who have been at war for twenty years and want peace. There is the interest of Viet-Nam's immediate neighbours, in particular Laos and Cambodia. And —why deny it — there is the interest of world peace. Consequently, it is through our joint efforts and our common understanding that we shall be able to help in the quest for a solution. We are firmly convinced, however, that to make the Viet-Namese conflict an international problem would be prejudicial to the cause of peace. The Viet-Namese problem must be reduced to its proper proportions. It must be regarded as a strictly national problem of primary concern to the Viet-Namese themselves and to be solved by them by virtue of the principle of self-determination. This seems to us to be the wisest course, and the one required for the maintenance of world peace.
199. We have said that while the first purpose of the United Nations, as stated in its Charter, is the maintenance of peace, its second purpose is decolonization.
200. I take this opportunity to express my delegation's congratulations to Guyana on its independence and admission to the United Nations.
201. We have had occasion to indicate at this rostrum all the efforts and achievements of the United Nations with regard to decolonization. In the southern part of our continent, however, much remains to be done. We must not shut our eyes to this fact. The concerted actions of Portugal and South Africa threaten to jeopardize the entire situation. It is as if a recolonization movement were under way, with South Africa and Angola as the point of departure. But I should like to draw your attention very briefly to only two developments, because they are the most recent. The first concerns Southern Rhodesia, the second concerns South West Africa.
202. Twice during the past year I have had occasion to address the Security Council on behalf of the Organization of African Unity, which had authorized me to do so, in order to defend our continent's point of view on the dramatic question of Southern Rhodesia. I need not go over the facts again, for you are well aware of them. I should like, however, to emphasize the direct responsibility of the United Kingdom in this matter. The fact is that the unilateral declaration of independence on 11 November 1965 was simply the logical result of a policy undertaken by the United Kingdom in Southern Rhodesia from the moment when, in 1923, that country was released from the administration of chartered companies — in this case, the British South Africa Company.
203. From that moment Southern Rhodesia was offered the choice of becoming either a colony of the British Crown with internal self-government or a territory attached to South Africa, It was not thanks to the United Kingdom that Southern Rhodesia was not attached to South Africa at that juncture, it was not attached to South Africa because in a referendum held in 1922 the white settlers of Southern Rhodesia voiced their preference for maintaining their privileges and domination over the African majority, rather than merging with South Africa, where the Boer majority dominated.
204. Thus at that time the United Kingdom laid down the policy it intended to follow in South Africa and Central Africa. The Constitution of 1923, which was granted to Southern Rhodesia after the referendum we have just mentioned, theoretically left the United Kingdom the right to oppose any discriminatory measure against the indigenous inhabitants. The United Kingdom, however, never made use of that power, despite the many discriminatory measures introduced in Southern Rhodesia. When the Central African Federation, which included Southern Rhodesia, was created on 3 September 1953, these discriminatory measures survived. More than three fourths of the seats in the Federal Parliament were reserved for Europeans, Moreover, the Africans, who were in the majority, constituted only 7 per cent of the Federal electorate.
205. In 1961, with the decolonization movement under way in Africa, the problem of Southern Rhodesia was again raised. The Federation broke up but Southern Rhodesia, alone once again, was given a Constitution in which the United Kingdom gave up the rights it had held in 1923, i.e., the right to oppose any legislation of a discriminatory nature. From that time onwards, and until the unilateral declaration of independence in November of last year, a whole code of apartheid was gradually drawn up consisting of measures of political, economic and social discrimination. All that went on under the indifferent eyes of the mother country.
206. We must, moreover, admit what was recently pointed out by the author of a penetrating study of the problem of Southern Rhodesia:
"In 1923 the United Kingdom granted virtual independence to the European settlers. Since then, despite some statements of principle, no real pressure has been brought to bear by the mother country on this privileged group, nor has any effective measure been applied to change the direction taken in 1923."
In the circumstances, how can we be surprised that Mr. Tan Smith saw fit to make a unilateral declaration of independence? It is also important to note that the United Kingdom was already prepared to grant independence to Southern Rhodesia before the political majority was transferred to the Africans. How else can we explain the negotiations undertaken in October 1965 between the Governments of the United Kingdom and Southern Rhodesia? It follows from these discussions that the Government of the United Kingdom was willing to grant a negotiated independence to Southern Rhodesia, subject only to certain principles being safeguarded, in particular that of the continuous progress of the majority of the population towards accession to power. That was nothing but a pious wish. Furthermore, on 29 October at Salisbury, less than a month before the unilateral declaration of independence, the Prime Minister of the United Kingdom advised Mr. Smith that he had just informed the African leaders that there would be no military intervention in the event of a unilateral declaration of independence. What more did Mr. Smith need to recognize that he had just been implicitly given the green light?
207. Today the damage is done and for almost a year we have been led to hope that economic sanctions would have some effect. We thank all the States Members of the United Nations who have respected the recommendations of the General Assembly and the Security Council. The co-operation they have given Africa testifies to their devotion to the Purposes and Principles of the United Nations and their feelings of international solidarity. But we still say that the primary responsibility — and I am speaking on behalf of the entire Organization of African Unity — lies with the United Kingdom. The Organization of African Unity nevertheless hopes that common sense will finally prevail and that the United Kingdom, which on other occasions has given evidence of realism, will realize that the international conscience has progressed and that what was possible when the State of South Africa came into being is no longer possible today.
208. Yet in spite of everything how can we fail to feel somewhat pessimistic in the face of the recent Judgment delivered by the International Court of Justice in the case of Southwest Africa? This problem will certainly be taken up again during the special debate. But we cannot help drawing attention, in passing, to the actual denial of justice that we are witnessing. We all know, of course, that the International Court of Justice is above all a political organ, by virtue of the very manner in which its members are selected. But it might have been thought that certain general principles that have been repeatedly affirmed, particularly that of the right of peoples to self-determination, were so widely accepted by the universal conscience that they were now part of the unwritten law of international society.
209. Yet now all that seems to have been challenged. The most obvious result of the Court's decision is that South Africa is freed from any obligation to account to anyone for its actions in Southwest Africa. South Africa now has only to dispose of that Territory as it sees fit, under the powerless eyes of the United Nations, under the powerless eyes of Africa, under the powerless eyes of all who are struggling to impose the values without which mankind would be a prey to the blind forces of evil and destruction. What? Is it possible that it is not in the interest of anyone, not even of the inhabitants of South West Africa — especially those inhabitants, according to the implacable logic of the Court — to ensure that this Territory is administered in accordance with the principles and rules governing civilized mankind? Is it not in the interest of Africans that the principles of freedom, equality and non-discrimination, to which all peoples of the world aspire, should be applied within our continent?
210. Has the United Nations no interest in trying to achieve the ideal which it has set itself and which justifies its existence and represents its raison d'etre? Well, if no one cares to act, we must let things take their course. The only interest deemed worthy of legal protection, according to the logic of the Court — a logic that was not formulated, but logic just the same — is the interest of South Africa. We shall have to see, during subsequent debates, what solutions can be contemplated. But it seems to us that we should reflect here and now on the composition of the International Court of Justice. We have requested and obtained the expansion of the specialized organs of the United Nations, such as the Security Council and the Economic and Social Council. We should also study the Statute of the International Court of Justice, examine the composition of the Court and call for its enlargement, in order to ensure a more equitable representation of the non-aligned countries and the forces of progress.
211. However that may be, and to conclude this discussion on decolonization, we feel that henceforth we must concentrate our efforts on the southern part of our continent, the last outpost of colonialism, where the concerted action and active complicity of several Powers not yet converted to new ideas — particularly South Africa and Portugal — threaten to undo all the progress achieved thus far.
212. But even if political decolonization were completed, the task of the United Nations would be far from over. Independence should not be analysed merely in terms of political sovereignty. The concept of independence would be strangely distorted if it were ascribed only a political or legal nature. A few years of independence have brought us into contact with problems of an altogether different scope. They are those which concern the economic and social development of mankind. We have learned to look upon independence less and less as a simple act of political emancipation, and more and more as a vehicle for the flowering of all man's faculties, in the context of the smooth and balanced development of all the peoples of the world. Is the world of today really balanced? Rather, it presents the picture of a body in which some organs are hypertrophied, while others have become anaemic or atrophied. The United Nations is trying to determine the nature of this imbalance, so that it may then seek the causes and remedies.
213. Let us first consider the nature of the imbalance. It has often been said that imbalance arises from an unfair distribution of the total income from men's labours throughout the world.
214. Eight per cent of the world's population enjoy a per capita income of over $1,500; 17 per cent have an income of between $1,500 and $500. Considering that the world average per capita income is approximately $500, we must admit that only 25 per cent of the world's people enjoy an income sufficient to maintain a decent life. The proletariat constitute 75 per cent of the world population, with an individual income of below $500, and even as low as $50 in the most backward areas. This proportion may be expressed even more strikingly, as follows: 25 per cent of the world population enjoys 85 per cent of the world output; the remaining 75 per cent shares only 15 per cent of this same output. Out of a population of over 3,000 million inhabitants, more than 2,000 million share only 15 per cent of the earth's riches; fewer than 1,000 million enjoy the lion's share, 85 per cent. This fact is all too well known and perhaps there was no need to dwell upon it. What is most disturbing is the fact that, despite the denunciations and condemnations to which the situation has given rise, it is growing worse and worse. We are aware that in 1938 the ratio between the income of the developed world and that of the under-developed world was fifteen to one. This ratio is now thirty-five to one. If the gulf continues to widen, by the year 2000 one fourth of the earth's population will have an income forty times higher than that of three fourths of this same population.
215. Now for the crux of my argument: must the under-developed countries accept the idea of some sort of fatality which condemns them to remain in this state of poverty forever? If under-development were caused by some kind of determinism, linked either to geography or to race, such resignation would be understandable. But we know that it is nothing of the sort. The 2,500 million human beings who make up the third world live in very varied geographical areas that extend over nearly two thirds of the earth's surface. They live in very different natural conditions and physical environments.
216. Furthermore, everyone knows today that under-development is a mobile phenomenon, which has often shifted from one part of the earth to another, and which has moved about in time and space. Those who have pondered this problem have shown that through the centuries the parts of the world that are most highly developed today have experienced their period of under-development. Mr. Pierre Moussa has observed that "the progress of the West in the area of economic development is a comparatively recent phenomenon" and he adds that it is probable that "in the seventeenth century the Egyptian fellah and the French peasant had much the same level of living". More recently, Mr. Yves Lacoste has published an interesting study on the geography of under-development, in which he said:
"If under-development and its causes were eternal, then the countries which are developed today — supposedly favoured by nature or by some inherited factor, truly God's chosen people — should always have had an indisputable advantage over the rest of the world. But the superiority of Western Europe has been established only since the eighteenth century. For thousands of years the Middle East, India and China enjoyed a technical, scientific and cultural level undeniably superior to that of Western Europe, which was then a kind of backward 'Far West'."
217. Furthermore, one need only glance at United Nations statistics to be convinced that the so-called poor nations are not as poor as they are said to be. Whether one speaks of mining or agriculture, the production of the under-developed countries is at a very satisfactory level. In 1963 the under-developed countries alone produced exactly half of the world petroleum supply (and the figure has risen since then), nearly half of the copper and manganese ore, 70 per cent of the diamonds, one fourth of the natural phosphate, and so on. It is interesting to note that since that date mining production has increased considerably. The World Economic Survey, 1965 confirms that it rose 7 per cent between 1964 and 1965.
218. With regard to agricultural production, and particularly the major primary commodities, we need only to point out that the under-developed countries provide 65 per cent of the world peanut production, 66 per cent of the cocoa, 68 per cent of the tea, 76 per cent of the rubber; I shall stop here. Thus the so-called poor countries have not been struck by some mysterious curse. If the production of foodstuffs is still insufficient, it is simply because the great industrial Powers have, for their own needs, stimulated production of the major primary commodities only.
219. Under-development is not a predetermined state; it is a purely fortuitous phenomenon, related to the conditions under which international trade is carried on. I shall mention only two of these conditions, which seem to be at the root of the proletarian situation in the third world: the international division of labour, and the deterioration of the terms of trade, to use a hallowed expression.
220. For a long time the under-developed countries have been condemned to the role of producers of raw materials and importers of finished goods. In theory, the old colonial pact was doubtless abolished at the end of the last century, but in practice it has been maintained for a long time.
221. The World Economic Survey, 1962, published only two years after the beginning of the vast decolonization movement in Africa, showed clearly that the situation which prevailed under the colonial pact had not been altered. The Survey pointed out that:
"The trading pattern of the under-developed countries is such that they export in the main primary products and import in return largely manufactured goods. For no other group does the exchange of exports for imports rest on such an uneven keel; a good part of the international trade in other groups represents exchange of manufactured goods for manufactured goods."
222. It would seem that the situation has not improved since 1962. The diversification of production raises such vast problems that it will undoubtedly take several generations to carry it out. The World Economic Survey, 1965, indicates that food production was disappointingly low in 1965, barely above the 1957-1959 level. In contrast, mining output continued its upward trend, rising 7 per cent last year. In addition, while manufacturing industries are beginning to appear here and there in the developing countries, their growth is hardly comparable to the vast quantities of raw materials produced by these nations. In such circumstances, it would appear that the developing countries are likely to remain importers of manufactured goods and exporters of primary commodities for a long time.
223. But the trading pattern is not solely to blame; the terms of trade themselves are also at fault. This fact is so well known that I need not dwell upon it. The prices of manufactured goods are rising; the prices of primary commodities are falling. Between 1950 and 1962, whereas the value per ton of goods imported by the under-developed countries rose 19 per cent, the value per ton of products exported by these same countries fell 4 per cent, representing a 23 per cent deterioration in the terms of trade. Although the situation has improved here and there since then, it still gives cause for great concern. An actual pillage of the developing countries has been organized on a world-wide scale.
224. The development of the proletarian nations has almost been blocked; the gulf between wealthy and poor nations continues to widen. Where, then, does the remedy lie?
225. The United Nations launched the concept of the United Nations Development Decade. This entailed requesting all the developed countries to allocate 1 per cent of their national income to the underdeveloped world, so that it would be assured of a minimum annual growth rate of 5 per cent. The disappointment expressed last month at Geneva — thus, very recently — by Mr. Prebisch, the Secretary-General of the United Nations Conference on Trade and Development, gives some idea of the doubt surrounding the effectiveness of this measure. During the first four years of the Decade, the average growth rate of the developing countries hardly rose above 4 per cent. Mr. Prebisch also pointed out that the flow of capital from the developed to the developing countries scarcely changed, whereas the gross national product of the industrial nations increased substantially. He pointed out that in 1961 the industrial countries as a whole had transferred 0.83 per cent of their gross national product to the developing countries; in 1964 this transfer represented 0,66 percent. To what can this be attributed? To political decolonization? Do nations feel an obligation towards an under-developed country only when it is under colonial domination? In any case, those are the facts, and I wished to bring them to your attention.
226. The World Economic Survey, 1965 confirms moreover that the deterioration in the terms of trade was more marked last year. The Survey states that:
"... in relation to the average at the beginning of the Decade, the terms of trade of Africa and southern and south-eastern Asia were about 7 per cent less favourable".
Therefore, unless there is a healthy reaction — for which we must hope but which we dare not expect — the realization of the Decade's objectives already seems to be seriously threatened.
227. In these circumstances, the developing countries must react, in order to create the necessary shock. And this is an opportunity to stress the need to organize a true economic Bandung Conference. Last year I had the opportunity to submit this proposal on behalf of my country, and I am pleased to see that India has responded by inviting us to a great meeting of developing nations, to be held before the next United Nations Conference on Trade and Development.
228. What is our task? We must lay the foundations of a new world society; we must bring about a new revolution; we must tear down all the practices, institutions and rules on which international economic relations are based, in so far as these practices, institutions and rules sanction injustice and exploitation and maintain the unjustified domination of a minority over the majority of men. Not only must we affirm our right to development, but we must also take the steps which will enable this right to become a reality. We must build a new system, based not only on the theoretical affirmation of the sacred rights of peoples and nations but on the actual enjoyment of these rights. The right of peoples to self-determination, the sovereign equality of peoples, international solidarity — all these will remain empty words, and, forgive me for saying so, hypocritical words, until relations between nations are viewed in the light of economic and social facts. From this point of view, the facts contradict the principles. The new world vision which the Charter of the United Nations held out to us is still only a vision. It has not yet become an international reality. The economic Bandung Conference that we are proposing should enable us to formulate a new world economic charter. We shall attend, not in order to present a list of complaints, but to demand and claim what is ours, or, more precisely, what is due to man, whatever his nationality, his race or his religion. We must define a new revolutionary attitude which, starting with the sombre realities of today, will guide us towards realities that are more in keeping with the ethics of the United Nations. This means that the Bandung we are proposing will not be a Bandung of hatred; it will be a Bandung of justice, balance and reason; it will be a Bandung held under the aegis of man.
229. We must reverse the trend before it is too late. The inequality in our modern world is not a fate to which we have been condemned by some strange spell. It is the product of the action of men themselves. It is immoral to spend 120,000 million dollars annually to amass an arsenal of murderous weapons, while denying impoverished mankind the 30,000 million dollars it needs to improve its lot. For that is all that the United Nations Development Decade requires in order to achieve its objectives. Instead of retaining our self-complacent Malthusian outlook, a sign of pessimism, discouragement and powerlessness, let us begin by making a more rational use of the earth's resources and by accepting a more sensible and more balanced distribution of these resources. Let the dialectic of destruction and annihilation be replaced by the dialectic of life, that is, by the harmonious and balanced development of mankind.
230. The truth of the matter is that, despite the Charter, we are not yet sufficiently conscious of our common destiny. We lose ourselves in the subtleties and contradictions of our national policies, while the realities of the present world have an entirely different scope. Today solidarity is so universal that it will be increasingly difficult to live in a compartmentalized world, divided into sections. Evolution is under way and it is an irreversible process. We must hope that the new order now developing before our eyes will be established, not after futile violence, but in peace and solidarity amid the universal brotherhood of man.