India

Though rather late in the proceedings, my delegation yields to none in the congratulations it would like to offer to Mr. Slim on his election to the presidency of the Assembly. Even if his election had stood alone it would have been a matter for congratulation by itself. However, we should like to express our appreciation of the fact that he has been unanimously elected to his office. We hope that this great unanimity shown in his election and the understanding shown by his then prospective rival will be emulated in other fields so that we shall have more unanimous decisions in the Assembly. I would like to take this opportunity of saying also that it is not only a tribute to his personal qualities of which we are all well aware—for although he is a comparative newcomer to the United Nations has become acquainted with the delegations and the work of this Organization—but also a tribute to his country, especially at the present time, 107. We would like, further, to express our appreciation of the services rendered by his predecessor in a rather difficult year which ended tragically. My delegation has already expressed its sentiments with regard to the tragedy that overtook the Secretary- General and his colleagues in the disastrous journey they undertook over Africa. I would, however, like to take this opportunity of saying that my delegation, along with a number of others, has requested him [see A/4896]' through the General Committee or by such other procedures as may be necessary, to act in order that the question of an international investigation into the conditions and circumstances resulting in the tragic death of Mr. Dag Hammarskjold and of members of the party accompanying him may be inscribed on the agenda of this Organization. Since this matter is likely to come up in another place and in other ways it is not my desire to go into it how, but my Government takes a very serious view of this question. Irrespective of what may come out of the inquiry, it would be tragic if those who go out on United Nations missions and come to ends of this kind in circumstances of this character were not to become the concern of the Assembly in a very serious way. Therefore, as I say, we have gone to the length, along with other delegations, of asking to have this inscribed as an additional item on the agenda. It is now several days since attention was drawn to this, and we hope that the item will come up very soon. 108. Owing to the change in the procedure it has not been possible for us to take an earlier opportunity to congratulate the one hundredth Member of this Assembly, Sierra Leone. This country, with an area of some 28,000 square miles and a population of 2.5 million, comes into the picture of modern history With the advent of the Portuguese in the continent of Africa in order to capture slaves to be sold elsewhere in the world. For 200 years slavery went on. Ultimately Sierra Leone came into existence in the shape of Freetown—strangely enough, not as a colony in the beginning, but in order that liberated slaves might find somewhere to go. But, as history would have it, "Freetown" soon came under the commercial organization of an exploiting company and subsequently passed under colonial rule, reminding one of what Abraham Lincoln once said: "The shepherd drives the wolf from the sheep's throat, for which the sheep thanks the shepherd as his liberator, while the wolf denounces him for the same act as the destroyer of liberty, especially as the sheep was a black one. Plainly the sheep and the wolf are not agreed upon a definition of the word 'liberty'; and precisely the same difference prevails today among us human creatures, even in the North, and all professing to love liberty". 109. It was soon after Freetown was founded—and it is also interesting that Freetown came into existence soon after the American revolution and just before the French revolution, that is to say while, in other parts of the world, the liberty of men was being proclaimed and republics were being founded—that another town also came into being in Africa in this way, originally as a sanctuary for the freed. Freetown did not, however, follow the course of the history of Liberia. It became a Crown colony; but over a period of 100 years, by gradual processes, it attained its present situation, its rulers and the colonials, in the same way as in our own history of Imperial rule over us, in its last stages, came to an agreement to part company in friendship as independent States. 110. Soon after the establishment of Freetown, as in other countries, King Nambina ceded twenty square miles of land to Captain Taylor, on behalf of the free community of settlers, "in exchange for rum, muskets and embroidered waistcoats". Soon afterwards the inhabitants rebelled against the Company's misrule; the rebellion was put down, but it had the result, as in the case of India and Warren Hastings and others, of attracting domestic attention in England, as it was then, to misrule and the character of the administration. 111. In 1807 the British Parliament made the slave trade illegal and the new colony was used as a base of operations. From 1924 onwards institutions came into existence and by slow processes, over thirty or forty years, it has at last today become an independent and self-governing dominion of the British Commonwealth with freedom to choose its own form of government today, tomorrow and any day it likes. We are glad to think that its later stages have followed the course of events in our own country rather than that of violence. 112. On 27 April 1961 Sierra Leone became independent, and on the same day the Republic of India recognized it as an independent State and established diplomatic relations with it. 113. I would like, however, to draw attention to what the Prime Minister of Sierra Leone said in the Assembly the other day. Sir Milton Margai said: "When, in future, both within and without the United Nations, we"—that is, the Sierra Leonese— "persistently champion the cause of a speedy and final end to every variety of colonial rule everywhere in the world, we wish the fact to be remembered that we do not speak out of bitterness, but out of conviction that the right of self-determination which we ourselves now enjoy is a right which all men everywhere must enjoy. We wish, further, to make it clear that we reserve the right to express ourselves fully and independently on all issues." [1018th meeting, para. 229.] No one could have put this better, because very often, when those of us who are ex-colonials speak perhaps with more feeling than some others in the cause of colonial independence, it is likely to be regarded as past bitterness expressing itself. We believe it is not possible for this world to remain half free and half slave. It is not possible, either to restore the economic imbalances or to establish peace,, coexistence and co-operation in this world or indeed to restore the dignity of human beings, so long as there are subject peoples. - 114. And that takes us to the problem of colonies as such. We have in the Assembly made considerable advances in this direction in the last year or two. It has now been resolved in the Assembly that the whole regime of colonialism must come to an end, and while no date on the calendar has been fixe4 it is the spirit and the intention of that resolution [1514 (XV)] that it shall come to an end quickly. And while we refer to this matter, it is only fair and right that we take both the welcome factors as well as the others in this way. In a short time, Tanganyika, a Mandated Territory originally, afterwards a Trust Territory, which only a few years ago was expected to take fifty years before it attained its independence, will apply for admission as an independent State to the United Nations. It may well be that before we disperse, we shall have added the one hundred and first State to the United Nations. 115. In the Caribbean there is British Guiana which has passed through some troublesome periods of recent history and which is also about to attain its independence. The Caribbean Islands are likely to take the same position. So in the whole of what was formerly the British Empire, there seems to be a process of—I would not call it disintegration—the resolving of the Empire into its proper component parts taking their places. We hope this process will speed up in East Africa and elsewhere. 116. My Government would also like to welcome without reservation the statement made by the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs for the United Kingdom, when he informed the Assembly [1017th meeting] that, although it had no obligation under the Charter to submit political information in regard to Non-Self-Governing Territories, the United Kingdom intended to do so. It is true that it will be only for a short period because all these territories, in the process of historical progress at the present time, should in less than even twelve months have become independent. 117. We are equally concerned about the fact that this independence should be real and should not be, as in the case of another part of Africa, independence for the few and not for the many. Therefore, when there are large populations, as in the Central African Federation or that part of Africa, if in the name of independence a large number of people are consigned to the rule of a minority which believes in a racial doctrine and a form of government which the Assembly has disapproved so many times and condemned to no uncertain terms, then we cannot welcome that as independence. It is particularly so when these territories, though they are not Members of the United Nations, are members of what may be called the "solar system", that is to say, of the various specialized agencies and so on. 118. We also look forward to the time when the Trust Territory of Rwanda-Urundi will become an independent State. We hope it will not pass through the travail of the Congo, that there will be no rearguard action fought in order to regain a Trust Territory for an empire; that Australian New Guinea will similarly become independent; and that the man, many territories in Africa and elsewhere, about fifty in number, will in a short period of time have gained the status of independence. 119. We ourselves have not put down a date by the calendar, but we go by the spirit of last year's resolution—it was not mere empty words—when we think that the United Nations, having decided on the end of colonialism, will now see to its implementation, that there will be machinery set up. Article 73 now acquires a new meaning, and therefore, when the Republic of Portugal refuses to obey the mandate of the United Nations to submit information, a new situation arises. Article 73 has to be read along with the new decisions of the United Nations, and we are entitled to obtain information with regard to Portuguese Colonies from whatever sources may be available to the United Nations. 120. The three main slices of the colonial empires that still remain are that of France, with its ten and a half million people, mainly in the territory of Algeria, where over a period of eight years sanguinary war has been going on in which a very considerable part of the French Air Force and French Navy is engaged, and where, according to where you get your figures, the casualties have been from 200,000 to 700,000. Equally, there seems to be no reconciliation of the points of view between the Algerian people who demand their birthright of independence, recognized by the United Nations not only in its Charter but by subsequent resolutions, and France, which denies them that right. Attempts at negotiation have so far failed. But my country stands foursquare with the Algerian people in their demand for full and complete independence. 121. Portugal's is the largest empire today—the oldest ally of the United Kingdom—a member of the North Atlantic Treaty Organization. Portugal owns 1.3, million square miles in the world, the greater part of it in Africa, with small enclaves on the Indian continent, in the Pacific Ocean, south and east in Timor and Maco. We are not here to make any special pleading on behalf of a particular part of these territories, but Portuguese colonialism does not even have the characteristic of nineteenth century or twentieth century colonial rule. It is characterized by cruelly and repression which have resulted in- according to authoritative estimates—somewhat over 130,000 refugees fleeing into the Congo. 122. The Assembly knows that conditions in the Congo at present are not such that anybody would like to go there as if it were a sanatorium, but the conditions in Angola are obviously far worse and therefore refugees are driven into these areas, and they are going at the rate of 10,000 a month or so. These are not reports by political parties but by the International Red Cross, which is taking care of these people. They are mainly children driven from Angolan homes where men and women are forced into the modern slavery of forced labour. The view that is taken by the Portuguese Empire in this connexion is something that is inconsistent with the Charter of the United Nations, 123. Since 5 February 1961, there have been enormous casualties arising from the attack on the population by the ruling Power; neither the police nor the army recovered themselves from the troubles given by the Africans in resistance to oppression, and with armed settlers they invaded African quarters, beating up and shooting Africans indiscriminately. 124. An eye-witness who left Luanda on 6 February told of a count of forty-nine African corpses, hundreds wounded and hundreds more in prison. The massacre continues. 125. Picking up the story on 24 February 1961 the magazine Time reported, on page 22, that a Luanda cabdriver had: "told reporters that he saw five trucks loaded with corpses driven out to a mass burial in the bush... "While tanks and armoured cars patrolled the streets at night and Portuguese gunboats and 'planes combed the coastline, a doctor said wearily, 'I don't know how much more of this I can stand. Every night we deal with men dreadfully wounded and cut up.'" Another eyewitness said the following: "On 29 July, on our way back, we passed through this village again. Three hours after we left the village that day, it was completely wiped out. Some other journalists later visited this village and said that they had seen evidence of napalm bombs"— these atrocious methods are shocking enough when used by nations in wars against other nations, but they are even more shocking when used by nations against peoples over whom they rule. 126. We could go on recounting more stories of such atrocities. Africans are pulled out of their homes at night and shot dead for no reason except that they are African Angolans or other Africans living in their own territories. 127. What is the Portuguese theory about this? I think that we must understand this particular aspect of the question when we discuss Article 73. The following is a memorandum^ which was written by the Portuguese Government to the Secretary-General of the League of Nations in 1924: "In new countries, and particularly in the African Colonies, the regulation of labour is, an important consideration .... Forced labour, for instance, is a form of slavery, and therefore measures should be taken to prevent it. Moreover, the European races which bring civilization to the natives need their assistance 'to attain their aims: the work of the colonists must combine with that of the aborigines. It is not reasonable that the colonization and development of uncivilized countries"—the question is: who is uncivilized?— "with the advantages which accrue to the natives there from, should be the result of the colonists' work and organization alone, without any assistance on the part of the native. Why should the Negro be the only person in this world to be exempt from work? If he works of his own free will, he should be aided and protected by the law. If he does not, he must be induced to work by persuasion and by gentle and kindly methods. But if even these means prove ineffective, we have to resort to the methods which civilized communities adopt against those of their members who desire to live on the results of others' labour—that is to say, vagabondage and idleness have to be punished. "In African countries the principal industries now being established are the exploitation of the subsoil and agriculture. Both of these industries require abundant manual labour. But colonists and authorities are interested in the industrial development of the country. If, therefore, manual labour is scarce, if a charter of labour has not been duly established, and if, for this reason, the development of the country is impeded, abuses are bound to occur, and, in spite of all laws and regulations, the natives will be the first to suffer. «... While individual liberty should be respected and the principles of justice and equality for all should be upheld, we have some reason to ask whether certain philanthropic ideas are not sometimes, as applied to the negro races of Africa, likely to produce an effect contrary to that intended. If we are to avoid forcing an evolution which in so- called civilized countries has taken centuries, we must see that tropical Africa does not come to full civilization without passing through a number of intermediate stages. "To desire to convert the native of the bush, with his customs, habits and manner of life, into a man with all the rights and duties of a European is to provoke a situation which may cause bitter disillusionment. The negro has to be civilized by his labour and must be made to co-operate by this labour in the process of civilizing himself and developing tropical Africa. Kindly and humane methods must be used to induce him to co-operate, but that co-operation must also be a means of modifying his mental outlook. Such an undertaking requires great moderation, prudence and forethought. It is not an easy task, and it is a task which should be dealt with not only from the point of view of the treatment of the negro, but also of the manner in which he responds to it." 128. I repeat: that was a memorandum from the Portuguese Government to the League of Nations in 1924. About forty years have passed, but the position is much the same. When a few years ago a commission was appointed by the United Nations—a commission on which a countryman of mine sat—it met with the same reaction, the same attitude, the same philosophy, on the part of the Portuguese Government. 129. Of course, there are some enlightened administrators in Portugal, also. One of them—Captain Henrique Galvas—said the following when, as a senior inspector of colonies, he reported to the Salazar Government in 1947: "In some ways the situation [ in Angola] is worse than simple slavery. Under slavery, after all, the native is bought as an animal: his owner prefers him to remain as fit as a horse or an ox. Yet here the native is not bought—he is hired from the State, although he is called a free man. And his employer cares little if he sickens or dies, once he is working, because when he sickens or dies his employer will simply look for another." 130. Africans have to carry out two kinds of forced labour. First, there is work for the Government. Under this heading, there are the following categories; (a) Work on the "chefe de posto's" garden. This is an official garden, but the vegetables and crops are grown, partly for his personal use and partly sold for profit. Every man, woman and child over fourteen years of age has to work for fourteen days on the "granja". Workers get no pay and have to provide their own tools, (b) Road work. Again, every man, woman and child has to work—even cripples and old people—to get the work done. The Administration has moved villagers in close to the roads to make it convenient to use them for roadwork and also to control them for forced labour. There is no pay for this work and the Government gives no tools or rations. People are called out for this work as required. It is never known when it is finished. (c) The Government uses forced labour on the harbour works at Luanda and on barrages on rivers for irrigation of the lands for Portuguese settlers. It also uses them on government building schemes. An eyewitness has said that he remembers seeing them working on a government housing scheme for Portuguese civil servants. 131. Second, there is work for private enterprises. There is not a great deal of difference between contract and voluntary work. A man may volunteer to avoid a contract that he is afraid of. Sometimes the volunteers are worse off than the "contratados" because they can be more easily cheated by their employers over wages and time of employment, which may be extended after the agreed term is finished or may be renewed for another full period without the workers' consent. 132. For a year's forced labour a man is unlikely to get more than $14 by the time the native tax has been taken off and the other deductions which the "chefe de posto" imposes. When the "chefe de posto" is paying off a gang of forced labourers, the traders are called and they bring wine and goods for sale so that the worker shall not get away with his money. 133. It is almost impossible to think that such things can happen in modern times. 134. We now have a situation in Angola where we have actually moved away from the question of repression of Africans and their rebellion against such repression: we now have a situation which affects the peace and security of the world. The United Nations must now take up the situation not only from the point of view of the atrocities being committed in a colonial empire, but also from the point of view of the effect on Africa as a whole and on the world. In the name of law and order, weapons of war are being used to suppress populations. Some of these weapons of war are made available to the colonial Powers—whether it be France or Portugal—because of their alliances with other nations. That is to say, countries that are against colonial rule, that certainly would not adopt these tactics, find themselves in a vicarious way in the company of countries that are suppressing populations, using not merely the time-honoured methods of war, but modern methods of war. 135. In Africa, again there has been no progress with regard to South West Africa. It is not my intention to deal with this matter here, because it is a separate item on the agenda of the Fourth Committee. South Africa continues to, apply the policy of facial discrimination known as apartheid in spite of repeated appeals and condemnations by this Assembly, appeals and condemnations voiced year after year. 136. In the continent of Asia we have a spot of trouble in Indo-China. A conference on this subject is going on in Geneva. It is not my intention to deal with this subject in detail, although other people have referred to it. One hopes that the meeting of the Princes in Zurich, the desire of the Laotian parties to come together, and the view of the great Powers and others concerned in the Laotian conference—at least as publicly expressed—that Laos should remain a neutral country will lead to the emergence of a government of national unity in such a way as to bring peace to this war-torn country, this country that has not known peace for the last twenty-five years. It fought the Japanese in the great war, then the French colonialists, then the inhabitants have fought amongst themselves, with foreign intervention as the main promoting factor. It goes on in this way. For the last twenty-five years, war has been practically continuous in that country. 137. Every speaker from this rostrum has referred to the problem of Berlin. It is not my intention to go into the details of this question, because the parties mainly concerned are, apparently, according to newspaper reports, engaged in private discussions. It is not our desire to say anything that might in any way come in the way of an agreement of some kind. Perhaps before the end of my observations I may have something more to say. 138. Now we come to one of the most important problems before us, that of the Congo. In the Congo, the war still drags on after eighteen months, but in the last few months there has been progress. The appeal made in the Assembly time after time during the course of the last session, for the convening of Parliament and for the emergence of a Government that would have, after the death of Lumumba, some responsibility from Parliament, seems to have at last produced results. Today there is a government of unity and we are glad that countries of the eastern and western blocs today have decided to establish missions in Leopoldville, so that there is gradually a movement under the new Prime Minister towards unity and settlement. 139. The United Nations policy of integrity, independence, the maintenance of law and order and of economic assistance, which had been reiterated, is solidly supported by my Government which will give whatever assistance is possible in this direction provided it is used for those purposes. There have, however, been very considerable difficulties. The Government of India, at the request of the United Nations, has placed at the disposal of the Organization considerable personnel for the purposes of the maintenance of integrity, independence and law and order, and for the facilitation of economic assistance. The Assembly has, time after time, asked for the withdrawal of those non-Congolese who are not in the country by permission of the Congolese Government, or through the United Nations, but the position of foreign intervention of this kind still continues. In spite of eighteen months of repeated pressure from various quarters, there is still trouble of this sort going on, and the serious troubles of the last few days have largely arisen from the operation of mercenaries who are assisting in the disintegration of the Congo. 140. In this connexion, I would not be doing my duty if I did not say something with regard to the operations of the Indian troops in this area. Unfortunately, there have been misstatements in regard to the performance of United Nations personnel. It is not my obligation to speak about all the others. Similar statements have been made about Irish troops, for no reason whatsoever. I regret that the first of these came out in the United Kingdom newspapers, though I would like to say at once that officially the Government of the United Kingdom not only has not condoned any of those reports but, what is more, has informed my Prime Minister that it does not share the views that have been stated. 141. What has actually happened, however, is that in this territory there have been operations against the United Nations forces by those who ought to know better. On 15 September 1961, Sir Roy Welensky, the Prime Minister of Rhodesia, called upon free countries of the world without delay to demand a ceasefire in Katanga to restore the Tshombe Government. There is no objection to anybody demanding a ceasefire anywhere, because we do not want to see any fighting, but to operate against the United Nations policy there—this, by someone who no doubt in due course aspires to come here—is another matter. And, if one may say so, the United Kingdom is responsible for the defence and external policies of the Rhodesian dominion. Sir Roy also said the fighting was bound to get worse. 142. On 15 September 1961 a French Government spokesman charged that the United Nations had exceeded its mandate and possibly violated the Charter by intervening with force in Katanga. Considering that the operations of the forces for which we have some responsibility were ordered by the United Nations, at the request of the Congolese Government and Parliament, this does not correspond with the facts. I think the best comment on this comes from a New York newspaper which says: "The sudden entry into the picture of Sir Roy Welensky, leader of the white settlers in the neighbouring Rhodesian Federation, is a reminder that even before the Congo became independent, African leaders were warning the United Nations of a Rhodesian plot to annex Katanga. It is inconceivable that Welensky will try by armed force to prevent unification of the Congo. If he does, what has up to now been the crisis of the Congo may well turn into the crisis of Rhodesia." 143. It says at a later date: "The current bloody struggle in Katanga, the first time a United Nations force has been involved in fighting, is not, as reports to the Security Council make clear, a result of a United Nations effort to end Katanga's secession by force... "This is basically a struggle between the United Nations and a group of freebooters and adventurers —including French ultras exiled from their own country because of participation in the thwarted military rebellion in Algeria. "For months now the United Nations has been engaged in patient, persistent, efforts to fulfil repeated General Assembly and Security Council directives that foreign mercenaries be evacuated from Katanga. Despite all its pleadings there were still some 500 left less than a month ago. They were the backbone of Katanga's resistance to national unity." African nationalist leaders have supported the action of the United Nations in the whole of that region. 144. Then we come to certain matters to which I just draw attention. There have been charges of Indian troops firing on Red Cross vehicles. I would like to say here, on the basis of completely checked information, that this is entirely false. General McKeown told a Press conference, "Indian troops are well led, well disciplined, and conducted themselves well"- He said that the Indian troops had the hardest job, having to take radio and post office installations, and come under heavy fire and sniping. But they were restrained. He denied that Gurkha troops fired at a Rod Cross van. The General said that the Red Cross van was mounted with a bazooka by Belgian paratroopers. A Red Cross van does not become a Red Cross van because a cross is painted on it. It fired on and killed the Irish crew of a United Nations armoured car. 145. General McKeown referred to the allegations of a British correspondent that Gurkha troops had inflicted heavy casualties on the other side during the capture of the radio station. "I do ,not accept any charge against them", he said. 146. Then we come to more recent matters in this connexion. During the recent fighting in Elisabethville a Red Cross ambulance car carried a bazooka and fired on soldiers in the same incident. Here is another one: on several occasions European civilians travelling in cars carrying Red Cross flags have been seen to carry machine guns. An Italian Red Cross medical team who were working for the United Nations was arrested in Elisabethville by Katangese soldiers under their European mercenary officers. This Italian Red Cross team was giving aid and succour to both the Katangese and United Nations troops. The Italian Red Cross hospital which was supporting the United Nations troops was constantly under fire and had to be evacuated. At Albertville, Indian soldiers captured two Belgians in civilian clothes manning a gun. They were later identified as doctors. A gentleman in priestly garb—I do not like to say a "priest"—was apprehended in the United Nations Italian military hospital in Albertville under suspicious circumstances. When he was searched, a bayonet and hand grenade were found concealed in his robes. 147. By early September half the mercenaries had been removed by the United Nations. Consuls concerned in Elisabethville gave the United Nations assurances that they would help in removing others. The Belgian Consul undertook to repatriate sixty-odd who had taken shelter in his consulate building. When fighting broke out, it was these who led elements of the Katanga "gendarmerie". These Belgian army officers are members of the regular metropolitan army. Rhodesia has permitted the full use of its territory in support of Tshombe. It has helped with technicians, and has permitted passage of arms and ammunition. 1484 I think I would like to stop there, because otherwise it will take too long at this late hour. I want to point out that this is a United Nations operation and, that being so, whoever is ordered by the United Nations to take part in it ceases to be a national of his country for that purpose and is entitled to the protection of the United Nations. The symbol of the Red Cross being used as a cover for other purposes is more than can be accepted as an excuse. There has been no question of Indian troops firing on Red Cross officials—except where the Red Cross has been used by others in this way, a crime has been committed. 149. I now come to a mere important aspect of the items we are to consider. The first of these, which disturbs my Government greatly, is the resumption of nuclear tests. We are a country that is normally known as "uncommitted". We do not take our instructions from either of the war blocs. Nor do we, in spite of differences that may arise in regard to either of them, always fail to express our opinions in a matter of importance. With regard to these nuclear tests, it is necessary, however, not to take this thing at a particular stage but to look at the thing as a whole. 150. It was first brought here by the Government of India in 1954, and from 1954 it incurred the opposition of the United Kingdom. When first India brought the idea that nuclear tests ought to be suspended, it was opposed by the Foreign Secretary of the United Kingdom for three reasons; First of all, Mr. Selwyn Lloyd said it was not disarmament therefore it need not be discussed. Secondly, it was said by the permanent representative at that time that the fall-out was negligible: that there was natural radiation, there was always radiation from luminous wrist-watches, and therefore, it did not matter whether there was more radiation. Therefore, there was no such thing as radiation hazard. That was the second reason for which our appeal was not to be considered. Third, in the second or third year, when these things were wearing down, it was said that tests were not detectable: in other words, you could explode an atom bomb in your pocket'. That was the idea. For those three reasons, our proposal was opposed. 151. Ultimately, after four years, there was a conference -2/ in Geneva, and the United States and the Soviet Union together came to an agreement, which had been discussed here also, that perhaps the technical parts of this problem could be investigated. A conference thus took place, and just before that the USSR stopped explosions—in March of 1958—and the United Kingdom and the United States stopped them in September of the same year. And, until September 1961, so far as we know, there have been no explosions except by France, which proclaimed what is called atomic isolation. In other words, they claim the liberty to explode atomic bombs in the Sahara, which is African territory. 152. In the course of these negotiations in Geneva, there were attempts—of course, we are not a party to them, we can only obtain news of them from such published information as is available—to bring them into the general ban. Our submission was that nuclear explosions, in whatever form they may take place, are bad, and that they ought to be stopped—and completely stopped. The reasons are twofold. One is the effects of radiation, and the other is that nobody explodes these bombs just for amusement: it is only preparation for nuclear war. So, for one reason or the other, these explosions should be stopped. 153. Then, at that time, there came a dent in the idea of the general blanket prohibition of explosions that was being pursued. The Western side proposed that underground explosions might be permitted, and there seems to have been disagreement about it. Since this will come up in the First Committee, I will not go into details about it. It was also said in the West that it was difficult to detect these underground explosions. 154. Ultimately, in the March of 1959, the United Kingdom Prime Minister went to Moscow and proposed to the USSR that they might establish a principle which would permit underground blasts below a prescribed level. 155. My Government thinks that it was a great mistake to have gone away from the idea of a blanket prohibition and to say that there may be good explosions and bad explosions. We are familiar with this argument in the Assembly. I remember that, two or three years ago, it was between the "clean" bomb and the "dirty" bomb. Which was the clean bomb, I do not know—but there it is. Now. it is the nice explosions and the not-so-nice explosions. 156. Anyway, in May of 1959, the United States agreed to study some proposals—in regard to the inspection quotas, and so on. 157. To make a long story short, this year there came the renewal of explosions by the Soviet Union. My Government, without reservation, regrets this and regards it as a set-back to peace. The moment it was confirmed, we made no reservations in this matter— because we think that only purpose of these explosions is to prepare for atomic war. It is not only a question of more radiation or less radiation, whether radiation is harmful or not so harmful, because, according to some United States scientists, even if there was a nuclear waif, in the first year only 2 million people would die, and it would become 160 million in one hundred yea.' there are different calculations. These Government scientists are like the bishops of the eighteenth century: they reflect the opinions of their Governments. And therefore we need not pay exclusive attention to it. 158. Our position with regard to the renewal of explosions by the Soviet Union is that it is highly regrettable. We have heard all the explanations; we are prepared even to consider the fact that they might have known that somebody else was preparing. these do not change our position. Equally we think that, anyone else who explodes a bomb because the Soviet Union did so is also wrong in doing so. Our position is one of 100 per cent opposition: no explosions under any circumstances, because the explosions are merely preparations for nuclear war, irrespective even of the question of radiation alone. 15Si Therefore, we have brought to the Assembly an item, "Continuation of suspension of nuclear and thermo-nuclear tests and obligations of States to refrain from their renewal", which differs from the one put down by the United States, "The urgent need for a treaty to ban nuclear weapons tests under effective international control". The treaty and such things may come afterward, but there should be a stopping of these explosions if we are to move toward disarmament or even toward the lowering of tensions. 160. We have been told in one case that it is because of all the troubles in regard to Berlin and general activity on behalf of NATO, the proposals of the West to give nuclear arms to West Germany, and so on. All this may be true. We are not one of the great Powers, we are not among the great killers of the world—we are among the minor Powers—so we cannot take effective responsibility in this. But irrespective of the fact whether the nuclear power of the United States and its allies has increased or not, our answer is that the resumption of tests is regrettable, is a setback to peace. A little later I shall quote Mr. Khrushchev on this, which is perhaps the right thing to do. 161. It has been said—it was said by the Secretary of State the other day—that the fact that these tests are taking place now means that there must have been preparations for tests in this way beforehand. Obviously there had been preparations for these tests. That appears to apply to both sides, because it so happens that, with the system that prevails in the Western world, all these things are published, and in the Congressional inquiries in regard to underground test explosions, it is pointed out that it takes two or three years to make one of the so big holes in which explosions are made—the question whether these underground tests radiate anything or not is a different one. I do not know the answer. 162. At a hearing before the Sub-Committee on Disarmament of the Committee on Foreign Relations of the United States Senate held on 4 February 1960, Dr. Panofsky made the following remarks to Senator Hubert Humphrey: "First, the length of time has been estimated to be between two to four years to make a hole for seventy kilotons. "Senator Humphrey: 'Two to four years?' "Dr. Panofsky: 'Right. ' "'Now, let me make one other remark. We keep focusing our attention on salt. "'Now, there is nothing magic about salt. The reason one talks about salt is because that is the medium in which engineers believe it would be the easiest to make such a big hole. "'It is not the properties of salt which make the muffling better, but it is just the fact that salt appears to be the most economical way of producing such a hole.' "Senator Humphrey: 'It would take two to four years, in other words, in the salt area'— "Dr. Panofsky: 'Yes'. "Senator Humphrey: ' And if you happen to run into something a little more difficult than salt, it would take longer? "Dr. Panofsky: 'It would take longer and cost more'. v "Senator Humphrey: 'Where do the salt areas of the world predominate?' "Dr. Panofsky: 'Everywhere. "'We know the Russians have large solution-mining operations and they are, therefore, familiar with the technique ... "'Actually the question of naturally occurring holes is not so critical because the naturally occurring holes we know about are small. They are only useful for concealing explosions of one kiloton or so, which are difficult to identify anyhow. "'No really thorough engineering studies have been made which give reliable cost figures, but just as rough guidance, several hundred thousand dollars per kiloton for the hole is the kind of figure which the engineers discuss. "'This means that for 50 kilotons you might end up with figures in the general order of $10 to $30 million. "'These were figures which were produced by a rather brief study of the Atomic Energy Commission'." 163. Statements have been made in the Soviet Union by way of explanation—and I am not going to read out the explanations given—that-the need arose against their will because of the situation with regard to Germany or because of threats against the Soviet Union. We have been told here time after time- and I shall point out and give the figures when we come to talk about disarmament—that there are enough atomic bombs in the world to blow up the world several times over. Then what is the point of having more of them? We have not been able to understand this even from a purely power point of view. 164. Therefore, my country stands entirely without reservation in condemnation of the renewal of tests, whether they be by one party, by two parties or by three parties. The French always keep out and make it difficult to draw any kind of tight cordoning in this matter. 165. Then there is the proposal made with regard to the abandonment of tests under water and in the air, to which the Russians reply: "Yes, you are quite prepared to do that, but it is the other one we want to see abandoned". Then we come back to the same position, that whether it be underground or over ground, with the amount of material available it is quite obvious that there are all sorts of diabolical weapons with either side whish can be released from one place or the other. There is only one way of dealing with the atomic weapon, and that is to do away with it. There cannot be any kind of half-way house. 166. From 1945 to 1958, the United States has been responsible for 169 explosions, the Soviet Union for 55 explosions, the United Kingdom for 21 explosions and France for 4 explosions, making a total of 249. Of course they are of different sizes. The total yield is estimated to be 170 megatons, which is equal to 170 million tons of TNT. Today, so far as nuclear testing is concerned, with the renewal of tests by the Soviet Union, two or three tests by the United States and the continuation of tests by France, we are in a much worse position than we were in 1959. 167. We hope that the efforts which were made; by the Geneva Conference and which nearly came to a successful conclusion can perhaps be renewed. We may quote what was said recently on the one hand by Mr. Khrushchev and, on the other hand, by Mr. Stevenson. In January 1960, Mr. Khrushchev told the world: "It should not be hard to realize what consequences would follow if, in the present situation, any country were to resume weapons testing. Other nuclear powers would be obliged to follow suit. This would spur resumption of an absolutely unrestricted drive in the testing of nuclear weapons of, any capacity and under any conditions. The Government that would be the first to resume testing would be assuming grave Responsibility to the nations." 168. Mr. Stevenson, some time before that, said the following: "The recent proposal by some of our leaders that the United States resume underground nuclear tests, just when the first break in the deadlock seems possible, shocked me, I can think of few better ways to chill the prospects, deface our peaceful image, and underscore the Communist propaganda that they are the peacemakers and we the warmongers. We should extend our test suspension so long as negotiations continue in good faith and Russia maintains a similar suspension. "I am confident that some at least of the Russian leaders are anxious to halt testing and development of nuclear weapons before the danger becomes even more uncontrollable. "The good faith of the negotiations is decisive, because indefinite suspension amounts to a test ban without inspection. "... the argument goes, disarmament is impossible until political settlements have been reached and confidence restored. "I disagree. I believe the nuclear arms race with weapons of mass destruction is a new element and in itself a cause of tension... fear will not vanish until the arms race is arrested." 169. It is quite true that there are reservations in the statements, but they both show an attitude of mind which, if I may say it with respect, coincides with the views we have expressed, namely that there cannot be a half-way house in this matter. Either there are to be nuclear explosions or there are not to be nuclear explosions. It is not sufficient if somebody says that the radiation is greater in Minnesota than somewhere else. It makes no difference to the World as such, because apart from the radiation there is a stepping up of the nuclear arms race, and that concerns us even more than anything else. 170. With regard to disarmament, our Prime Minister recently expressed his views. The ruling party in India yesterday passed a resolution with reservations expressing appreciation of the agreement or whatever you would like to call it—resulting from the exchanges between the Soviet Union and the United Stages. 171. The Foreign Secretary of the United Kingdom, speaking here the other day [1017th meeting] , referred to the communiqué of the Commonwealth Conference. I wish he had not, because it is my duty to say that while we have subscribed to that communiqué, my Prime Minister has made it clear beyond any doubt that my country stands by the twelve-Power draft resolution that was submitted to the First Committee in I960 and is still under discussion. We are glad to think that the joint statement of agreed principles for disarmament negotiations issued by the United States and the USSR in very large measure adopts the substance of the phraseology of the draft resolution. But there are some very significant omissions and significant additions to which I shall briefly refer today. My delegation will no doubt take this up in the First Committee if it comes there for discussion and if the discussions are not taking place among the great Powers outside that context. We have felt that the only way to get anything worth while done in the United Nations on One world issue or another is for the United States and the Soviet Union to come to agreement on it. We have found this to be the true, factual position and from 1952 onwards we have made the appeal each year that unless the United States and the Soviet Union come to an agreement, we are not likely to move forward. We still stand unreservedly by that position. 172. It is quite true that we are all equal here in "status, but as the late Lord Balfour said, equality of status does not mean equality of function! It is in the hands of the powerful nations that the peace of the world immediately rests. Therefore, we hope that this agreement will come about. However, I am sorry to say that already annotations have come out in the way of two statements," one by the United States [A/4891] and one by the Soviet Union [A/4892], which already show the difficulties involved when we embark on a question like that of full and complete disarmament. 173. This is the policy which has been put forward in the twelve-Power draft resolution. By full and complete disarmament we mean full and complete disarmament. I shall come to that in a moment. We may look at the whole of this discussion on disarmament from 1945 onwards. There is no doubt that there has been a considerable amount of debate. At one time it looked as though we would go further and further. But, as my Prime Minister said at Belgrade the other day, looking at the world we see more and more arms and not disarmament. 174. On 25 July 1961, the President of the United States asked for an additional grant of $3,247 million of appropriations for the armed forces* To fill out present army divisions and to make more men available for prompt deployment, he requested an increase in the Army's total authorized strength from 875,000 to approximately 1 million men. He requested an increase of 29,000 and 63,000 men respectively in the Navy and Air Force. These are all published figures, so there is no harm in repeating them. 175. Then we go on to the other side. We read in The New York Times of 5 September 1961 in a dispatch from Warsaw: "Marian Spychalski, Defence Minister, disclosed today that other Soviet-bloc countries, as well as the Soviet Union and Poland, had taken steps 'conducive to the strengthening of defence readiness'."— "Defence readiness" is what it is called politely. The article continues—"General Spychalski, addressing a graduation ceremony of the Czarniecki officers' academy at Poznan, reported in general terms that a military alert had been ordered within the Soviet bloc." 176. In 1955, 1956 and 1958 the Soviet Union claims that its armed forces had been reduced by 2,140,000 men. On 14 January 1960, a decision was taken on a further reduction of the numerical strength of its— the Soviet Union's—armed forces by 1,200,000 men. Then it is stated in a statement of the Central Committee of the Communist Party of the USSR that it will not fulfil this decision if there is an intensification of war preparations in the NATO member States, threatening the security of the socialist countries. 177. We are not concerned with the reasoning in this matter but with the facts. The fact is that in I960, instead Of a cut-back of 1,200,000 men, they remain. The statement continues: "Taking into consideration the necessity of strengthening the defence potential of the Soviet Union in these conditions, the Central Committee of the Communist Party of the Soviet Union and the Council of Ministers of the USSR found it necessary temporarily to retain in the armed forces of the USSR soldiers, sailors, sergeants, sergeant-majors and petty officers of the appropriate arms of the service and qualifications, who have completed their term of military service established by law and are subject to transfer to the reserve, to the amount necessary for securing the combat readiness of the Soviet Army in case of any possible provocations by the aggressive quarters of the Western Powers." 178. Thus, irrespective of the reasons, the facts are that on both sides armaments expenditure in money goes up more and more and more. An estimate of national defence expenditures for arms, armaments and personnel shows that the world is spending $14 million an hour for arms and armies. All this may not concern the great Powers so much, but I think that the peoples of the world, if they know more and more what is going on in these directions, will less and less use the legalisms and all the arguments, all the "pros" and "cons", all the finding fault one way or another. 179. This is $40 a year for every man, woman and child on earth. That is very much more than the per caput income of the African population of the Congo. At least 15 million men are members of the various national armies, and a total of 75million men are engaged in tasks directly or indirectly connected with making war. Not included in these totals are an uncounted number of scientists whose research is more or less directly aimed at producing weapons or at improving existing weapons. 180. Of the total arms expenditure, the United States and the Soviet Union together account for 73 per cent, $88 billion a year. The United States has the largest armaments expenditure of any nation—$46 billion a year. This is 55 per cent of the total Federal budget. However, it has been estimated that the Soviets spend as much as $42 billion a year for military expenses, among which would be expenditures titled "Heavy Construction, "Education" and "Scientific Experiments". The Soviets claim to be spending only $10.2 billion a year for arms and armed forces. 181. Ending the arms race absolutely would make it possible to double the incomes of 1.2 billion people who now make less than $100 a year. Or it would enable adequate housing to be provided for 240 million families which are now inadequately housed. 182. Thus while there has been all this talk of cutting down on arms, if you take the year 1950, as regards expenditures on arms of France, the United Kingdom, the United States and the USSR, you will see that the expenditure on military budgets in France has gone up from 1.55 to 3.2; in this particular case largely because of colonial wars. The United Kingdom has gone up from 2.38 to 4.2. The Felted States has gone up from 14.6 to 46. The USSR has gone up from 20.72 to 24, suppose that is because of different calculations. Anyway, in every country there has been an increase in military expenditures. 183. We explain the military expenditure in our country as irrelevant for this purpose because it does not come into this particular arms race. However, as a matter of interest it has decreased in the last three years from .613 to .510, so in a small way one makes whatever contribution one can. I do not intend reading out all these figures because, even though they are very important, this would not be welcome perhaps at this time of the evening. 184. With regard to the disarmament position, in 1946, directives [resolution 41 (I)] were given by the United Nations and then we came to a period of deadlock. Again in 1952 directives [resolution 808 (IX)] were formulated. Last year, my delegation, in common with eleven others , tried to persuade the Assembly to accept the giving of directives to the people who were engaged in disarmament negotiations. For the first time there was an attempt on both sides not to kill the draft resolution but to have it considered. It has been discussed now for a long time and certainly there is the advantage that there has been an agreement put out between the United States and the Soviet Union with regard to the goals of disarmament. And here may I say this. There are two ways of looking at a goal; one is a goal of something you try to reach; but if you look at a goal from the point of view of a goal-keeper, to prevent the other fellow from getting there, then the word "goal" has a different meaning. That is the difficulty in using this word because "goal" means that if all difficulties are overcome they will get there. 185. So far as the goal of negotiations is concerned, both countries, as in the draft resolution before the Assembly, have agreed to accept general and complete disarmament, which indeed was accepted even two years ago [resolution 1378 (XIV)]. 186. However, as far as our draft resolution, the twelve-Power draft resolution, is concerned, there is a paragraph in it which enjoins and urges countries to refrain from actions likely to aggravate international tensions. This has been taken out and has been substituted by reliable procedures for the settlement of disputes and effective arrangements for the maintenance of peace. 187. Now we go on to the other side with regard to the maintenance of international forces. Until there is international law in the world and until the one- world principle has been agreed upon this is an impossibility. We are not, as Lord Home tried to persuade the Assembly [1017th meeting], ready to accept the doctrine of the balance of power. It is not possible for small countries to accept the idea that the great Powers would have armed forces which would be placed at the disposal of the international authority. The draft resolution as it is put out, and the agreed principles both contemplate such a force, a police force. In the twelve-Power draft resolution national contingents, constituting the international force, should, it is contemplated, exclude the possibility of their being used for purposes inconsistent with the Charter, including their use in the interest of one group of another. There is no such provision in the agreed principles. Here is the trouble. International forces had to be used at various times and unanimity could not be obtained in the Assembly, not necessarily as between one bloc or the other, but even as between countries. 188. Another important difference between these agreed principles and the draft resolution, is in regard to nuclear stockpiles. The draft resolution refers to the elimination of nuclear stockpiles and means of chemical and bacteriological warfare. 189. The agreed principles between the Soviet Union and the United States talk about the elimination of nuclear stockpiles. It is not said that once eliminated you cannot replace them. However, the draft resolution asked for the prohibition of these means of war, and this has been the position of the United Nations since 1952, when we accepted the prohibition resolution [502 (VI)]. In that sense, unless it is merely a verbal change, it is something on which we will have something to say afterwards. 190. Then we come to one of the main controversies on which there was a possibility of reaching an agreement in 1960, and that is with regard to what was called partial disarmament and complete disarmament. We are one of those countries who, on the one hand, think that it is not possible in today's world to reach any agreement on disarmament without controls, without inspections and without everything else agreed to. But, equally, we have always stated that, any form of disarmament, however well-intentioned or desirable, will take time, whether it takes one minute or one year or ten years; it will take time. But in this twelve-Power draft resolution it is clear that the first part of it is not supposed to be a sort of probationary period or trial experiment, to see how it works—that is, if everybody behaves properly, to go on to the next step. It seeks to commit the world as a whole to disarmament. 191. There has been discussion about this, and that part is still left in ambiguity in the statement of agreed principles. 192. I have dealt with the main aspects, with this exception. According to the agreed principles, the international inspecting officers would have unrestricted access, without veto, to all places necessary for the purpose of verification. This is a great advance as compared with the resolution which we submitted, and we welcome it—unrestricted access to all places, without veto. It would work out if there was agreement on general and complete disarmament. 193. On the other hand, the agreed principles omit altogether the provisions contained in the sixteen- Power draft resolution which relate to the use of outer space for exclusively peaceful purposes. No doubt that may well be a simpler matter, because there are only two countries concerned. 194. There was also a provision in the draft resolution with regard to surprise attacks. It was stated that all countries should refrain from all forms of surprise attack and preparation for the same. This has also been eliminated in the agreed principles. 195. I have now dealt with most of these matters. All that now remains is an aspect or two with regard to the drift towards war. Now, we are not ourselves directly concerned in the Berlin dispute, in the narrower sense. It is not before the United Nations either. We have not sought to bring it before the United Nations because we think that if the great Powers concerned could bring about a settlement—and we hope they will—from all that has been heard that would be the best thing one could think of. 196. However, having regard to what has become part of present thinking, the imminence of a nuclear war and the preparations for the same—such as the resumption of test explosions—while we may not be contributors to such war, we all have the common concern of being the common victims of it, and therefore from the victims' point of view we think we have some reason to say something about these matters. 197. I do not propose to read from the pages and pages I have here that relate to various types of weapons. For the first time we have been able to get the particulars on Russian weapons, which were recently published j and on American weapons. There are these surface to surface, air to air, ground to air, water to air missiles—missiles all over the place, beautiful names with a great destructive capacity. And on top of it there is also the prohibition of the use of the moon for this purpose. This is purely a lunatic effort. 198. There was a society in the eighteenth century which met on a day wherein there was a full moon. The reason was that various people wanted to get back to their homes which were thirty and forty miles away. They were called the "lunar society". They were the. beginning of the scientists of the world. 199. Now I have here an extract from testimony which was submitted to the House Armed Services Committee, which says that the United States Air Force intends to establish a missile base on the moon. There is nothing exclusively lunar about this. It is considered that the warhead would be fired from the moon to the'? earth without an enormous expenditure of energy, since the moon has no atmosphere and little gravity. 200. The extract goes on to say that General Putt testified that the moon would provide abase of retaliation of considerable advantage over earthbound nations. Sounds rather mystic, does it not? He pointed out that an attack upon the moon by the USSR would have to be la inched a day or two before an attack upon the terrestrial United States if the United States was to be unable to retaliate from the moon. Such a preliminary attack upon the moon, he considered, would warn Americans of their danger. If, on the other hand, the Russians did not demolish the United States lunar installations, it would be possible from these installations to destroy Russia, although the terrestrial United States had been obliterated—a grim prospect. 201. General Putt's testimony was reinforced by Richard E. Horner—the extract goes on—Assistant Secretary of the Air Force for Research and Development, who saw in the establishment of lunar bases an opportunity of breaking through the nuclear stalemate. 202. It is further stated here that it is curious, and typical of militarist mentality everywhere, that both these two eminent gentlemen seemed at first loath to admit the possibility of Russia also installing missile stations on the moon. It is obvious that what one side can do the other also can do, and the only result of such plans, if they are carried out, must be warfare from the moon. General Putt, it is true, did in the end acknowledge that what the United States can do on or from the moon Russia can also do, but the moral which he drew was that the United States must also occupy Mars and Venus which, apparently, he considered to be beyond the reach of the Soviets. We are not told why. 203. The extract further states that all this curious speculation received much less publicity than might have been expected and that the writer would not have known of it but for the fact that it has been reported. 204. I have not yet seen an account of similar plans of the Soviet Union, but I must look out for it! 205. I shall now dwell on a matter which has engaged the attention of the Assembly very recently, and that is the situation which has been created by the sudden death of the Secretary-General. I have been asked by my Government to make our position entirely clear. We desire a United Nations that will function strongly. Last year when Mr, Khrushchev put forward the proposal of a tripartite Secretariat, my Prime Minister spoke in opposition at that time to it, and our position with regard to the troika is the same today. I used the word "troika", because it has been generally used, here and elsewhere in this connexion. 206. In other words, we do not believe in an executive which provides for the functioning of three heads that would cancel out each other. Therefore, we are against a Secretariat which possesses these three heads. 207. We are also against what the Americans call an arrangement which contains a built-in veto. We are against any kind of arrangement whereby forward movement would become impossible. At the same time, however, we believe there is some element of merit in the collective idea, because mistakes of various kinds have been made in the past. There is no reason at all why, through the ingenuity of the statesmen who are gathered here, a solution of this character could not be brought about. 208 We think that it is possible to find a solution. In the statement put out by the Soviet Union, it would appear, so far as we understand it, that it has come away from the idea of the veto. It has also moved towards the idea of having one person—of course, with certain modifications. 209. We are not at present putting forward any proposals—because we do not want it to be thought that we are in any way hindering any bilateral agreement in regard to these proposals—but I should like representatives, particularly those with strong views, to look at the history of this matter. This idea of more than one Secretary-General is nothing new. In 1946 the Preparatory Commission of the United Nations submitted a report to the United Nations; and what is more, it was accepted—its proposals have never been carried out. At that time it was said: "the Secretary-General should be authorized to appoint Assistant Secretaries-General and such other officials and employees as are required... The Assistant Secretaries-General should have responsibility, etc." Before that it was proposed that: "there should always be one Assistant Secretary- General amongst those referred to in recommendation 11 below, designated by the Secretary-General to deputize for him when he is absent or unable to perform his functions." 210. Looking back, after the event, it would seem that if this recommendation had been followed, we could have avoided our present difficulty. What I am trying to point out is that this idea of having more than one person carrying responsibilities, in whatever form, is nothing new. 211. In 1952 Mr. Trygve Lie submitted to the General Assembly his report on reorganization. In that report we find the following: "The Secretary-General believes that many advantages would result from the introduction of a simplified scheme in which three Deputy Secretaries-General would replace the present Assistant Secretaries-General and more responsibility for day-to-day administration would be delegated to the Principal Directors. The main features of the plan would be: "(a) To enable the Secretary-General to devote his entire energies to the most important problems of policy and programme formulation by freeing him from questions of day-to-day operation, administration and co-ordination. "(b) To provide the Secretary-General with a small group of deputies of the highest competence and prestige to collaborate with him. Although these persons should each be responsible for the functioning of a part of the Secretariat so as to ensure that their policy considerations would be rooted in realities, their main duty would be the development and over-all co-ordination of policies and programmes. ' "(c) To delegate through the Deputy Secretaries- General to the next supervisory level... the maximum responsibility for the day-to-day administration of the several areas of the Secretariat." 212. I have no desire to go into a great many details nor into Mr. Hammarskjold's report because it was intended for him to argue it, and since he is not here, it is not necessary. The same idea is carried through with different modifications. 213. So the idea of having a collective factor is nothing new. While we are against any kind of arrangement which divides the world in three, while we are against any arrangement which provides for a built-in veto, we think that it is impossible for this Organization to function except by agreement between the great Powers. That is the basis on which the United Nations was founded. The United States was the main delegation responsible for the veto at San Francisco; no more powerful speeches could have been made than those by Senator Connolly at that time—for some time the Russians did not seem anxious about it in those days. Therefore, we think that the private talks being carried on by these great countries with minor and smaller people as well as between themselves have probably moved them nearer. 214. There is no reason why, in our submission, with a degree of the understanding of the position of the large number of nations in the Assembly, many of which would not want to be driven into the position of subscribing to a railroaded draft resolution—because we have seen resolutions in this Assembly adopted by fifty-five votes to five and nothing happened after—a solution could not be reached. Especially when the chief executive of one of the Charter organs may have to be appointed, such appointment must carry with it both moral and other consent of practically the entire body of people, and not become an issue wherein we merely count votes and get nowhere. 215. Therefore, we would be willing to support any agreement that is reached between the main contending parties, irrespective of our own views or desires on any aspect of this matter. We think that it should be possible for them to come to an agreement on some individual, and for that individual to appoint five or six deputies, according to geographical or other considerations. If it is felt to be more closely in conformity with the Charter if the appointments are made by the Secretary-General himself, these things can be easily provided for. We believe, therefore, that if a common individual can be agreed upon and that individual can go on immediately to accept the position and, in general, pour oil on the troubled waters, then we shall be able to proceed. 216. The Indian Government is a little concerned about the fact that an arrangement of this character must come through the Security Council—and for this reason. The Government of India has today 7,000 personnel in the Congo. For the first time, the armed forces of India have gone beyond their shores with lethal weapons. It is true that they went to Korea, to Gaza, to Lebanon and elsewhere, but today they are in the Congo as a fighting force on the demand of the. United Nations. Increasing demands are made upon us each day and, what is more, we have responsibilities to our? people and our parliament in regard to their performance and conditions. The whole of the Congo action emanates from the Security Council's functions and decisions. It would be a bad day if things of this kind were to be decided by a majority vote in the Assembly and not by the Security Council. We are not a member of the Security Council, but we are a Member of this Organization and, therefore, if the Secretary-General is merely a creature of the General Assembly appointed by a majority vote or even a unanimous vote and not related to another Charter organ, the Security Council, it would put the Security Council outside the competence of the appointee and vice versa. This is a serious matter. I have tried speaking privately about it, but so far with no "results. 217. I think that it is necessary for me to say, on behalf of the Government of India, that we would support any arrangement on which there is comparative agreement between the great Powers, an agreement which would enable things to function. We think that it is possible to reach such an agreement because the Soviet Union has moved away from the "troika" position and a built-in veto: it said in its statement of 1 October 1961 that it was not asking for a veto. It has agreed to an acting appointment of one man as Secretary-General. Therefore, I hope that, in the next few days, it will be possible to come to some agreement. It will depend on the two sides being able to have confidence not only in each other, but in the kind of person who would come in, a person who would riot be pushed one way or the other. My person who is likely to be not totally objective and not have the courage to mention correct positions, would find himself in difficulty. 218. Given this background, we do not see any difficulty about these other functionary and collective factors being brought in on the basis of geographical considerations—five or six as the case may be by agreement—if the countries behind them do not try to condition those officials. , 219. For its part, whether it be in the Congo or in the Secretariat, the Government of India has never given an instruction to any Indian personnel, either here or in the field of operations. Once they are handed over they are international civil servants, and we have scrupulously respected that position. Even with regard to the Congo operations my Government collected all its information from other sources and not from anybody within the United Nations, because there were Indian officials in charge and we did not want to embarrass them. 220. That would be our position. Therefore, I make this suggestion that it may be possible for the representatives of the great Powers to come together on this basis and to be able to earn the gratitude of large numbers of people, especially people like ourselves who do not want to be divided in this manner and who would like to see a unanimous decision somehow or other taking place. 221. Whatever decision we take , it will not be in conformity with the Charter because the authors of the Charter—in their great anxiety to say something in a few pages, or whatever it may have been—did not make any provision for this contingency. Perhaps they thought that Secretaries-General would not die? That is also possible. But, anyway, there is no precedent which can help us in the present context. It has been said that there are precedents. I do not want to argue that. If the time comes when it is necessary, we will argue it but there are no precedents—so that whatever arrangements were made would not be on all fours in terms of the letter of the Charter or precedent. Certainly they could be in the spirit of the Charter, in the sense that the Security Council and the Assembly may be able to subscribe to them. 222. The man must be able to work instead of having one party or the other being suspicious of him so that he will be unable to go forward in other ways. We hope that any further progress between the great Powers with regard to the issue of war and peace agitating the world—which is really disturbing people far more than anything else—will be helped by some movement towards that end. 223. We are a country with little capacity to influence these decisions between the giants either by force of arms, by economic power or even by the power of persuasion. Even when a proposition is submitted on merits and without partisanship's it usually takes six or seven years for it to become even acquiesced in. We find that very often the approach is the same in this matter. We have made this appeal in this way in the hope that, in the next few days, haying come so far—that is, the idea of a veto having been eliminated and the idea( of one man not being agreeable at all being now not the case, the idea of one man plus having come into being—we shall, with a degree of give and take, find that action will be possible, especially if in the intervening period we can have five or six, or whatever number is required for the purpose, to go on with the duties as they are at present. 224. The world is exercised about the situation in Berlin, but not because people do not understand why a city should be divided like this or otherwise. So far as we are concerned, when any country makes peace with anybody we shall not say "no". If the Americans want to make peace with East Germany we shall not object to it, and if the Russians want to make peace with West or East Germany we shall not object to that. 1-2 spite of such instructions as I have, I have refrained from going into any detail in this matter because the situation changes from day to day, and for us to make observations on details would not be of any assistance. But it would be a bad thing for people to be told, as they are constantly told in the lobbies of the Assembly, that the world is getting accustomed to the idea of a nuclear war, so let the other side take care. Each side says, "Let the other side take care"—not that it itself should take care. 225. I conclude with two quotations. Normally one goes back to history, to somewhere else and to remote periods. Living people may perhaps not be effectively quoted since they may change their opinions next day. I remember a gentlemen with whom I was discussing a particular article in the Encyclopaedia Britannica. I quoted the article against his position. At the end of it he said, "I have changed my opinion, since I wrote that". So there is always that danger. 226. However, Mr. Khrushchev said, when he visited us here at the fourteenth session of the General Assembly: "The peoples are thirsting for peace; they want to live without fear for their future, without fear of losing those who are dear to them in the conflagration of a new year." [799th meeting, para 45.] "For centuries, the peoples have dreamed of putting an end to the destructive methods of waging war". [Ibid, para. 46.] "We say sincerely to all countries: As against the slogan 'Let us arm!', which still enjoys currency in some places, we advance the slogan 'Let us disarm completely!' Let us compete as to who builds more homes, schools, and hospitals for his people and produces more bread, milk, meat, clothing and other consumer goods; let us not compete as to who has more hydrogen bombs and rockets." 227. President Kennedy, speaking to us only the other day, said: "Mankind must put an end to war, or war will put an end to mankind*" [1013th meeting, para. 40.] "Let us call a truce to terror. Let us invoke the blessings of peace. And, as we build an international capacity to keep peace, let us join in dismantling the national capacity to wage war." [Ibid., para. 41.] The President went on to say: "Today, every inhabitant of this planet must contemplate the day when this planet may no longer be habitable. Every man, woman and child lives under a nuclear sword of Damocles, hanging by the slenderest of threads, capable of being cut at any moment by accident or miscalculation, or by madness. The weapons of war must be abolished before they abolish us." [Ibid., para. 50.] 228. I do not think that I could conclude my observations in this general debate on a better note than my placing before the Assembly the sentiments in the two quotations I have just cited. I submit these observations to the Assembly for its consideration.