Ceylon

1959 Session 14

121. Sir Claude COREA (Ceylon); Apart from the tribute paid by this Assembly a few days ago [810th meeting] on the occasion of the passing away of our late Prime Minister, speakers have individually expressed their sympathy with us. It is, therefore, my mournful duty, on behalf of my delegation, to express our appreciation to them, and to thank them. 122. My delegation also wishes to extend our deepest sympathy to the Government and people of Japan on the dire calamity which has recently befallen that country as a result of a typhoon which has caused serious loss of life and great damage. 123. What we are now seeking to do is, by discussion, to clarify the problems that exist and to consider such measures as are available to us to achieve the principal objective of our Charter, namely, world peace and security, and thus to secure the happiness of all peoples. Such discussion enables us not only to review those events, great and small, that have occurred in other parts of the world since we last met — events which are really symptomatic of the state of health of our world — but also to review our own acts of commission and omission. Thus we may gain strength from what we have achieved in the past and note wherein we have omitted to do the things we should have done, or wherein we have done the things we should not have done. I need hardly state that such a review is not only important but essential, if the United Nations is to carry out its great purposes. Moreover, by our discussions here we focus the attention of the world on our problems and on the measures that must urgently be undertaken to cure them. 124. At the same time, there is an anxious feeling growing among many, including Members of this Organization, regarding a tendency to deal with pressing international problems outside this body, by diplomatic activity amongst a few of the great Powers. In his introduction to the annual report, the Secretary-General discusses this important matter and concludes that such activity is within the Charter. Of course, my delegation agrees with him fully when he says: "... the United Nations is not intended to be a substitute for normal procedures of reconciliation and mediation but rather an added instrument providing, within the limits of its competence, a further or ultimate support for the maintenance of peace and security." [A/4132/Add.1, p. 1], But the position should be carefully considered by us all and, more particularly by the great Powers themselves in order to prevent the weakening of our own Organization. This can happen if we neglect the possibilities which the Organization offers, and fail to discuss our problems here within the United Nations. 125. There is also the possibility that some consider that the Organization is not able to meet the demands which Member States are entitled to put on it, A case in point is the Disarmament Commission as established by resolution of the General Assembly at its thirteenth session [resolution 1252 D (XIII)]. It is undoubtedly true that disarmament is essentially a matter for big-Power agreement. But it is an issue of vital interest to all Member States and one on which they are all, including the smaller States, competent to make some valuable contribution. The Disarmament Commission was not in fact convened for nearly a whole year, and was actually convened only a few days before the General Assembly met at its fourteenth session, after the great Powers had reached a decision. This is an unsatisfactory state of affairs which creates a legitimate concern. We are, however, satisfied that the Secretary-General has interpreted the situation correctly, but our concern makes us express the hope that all its Member States will utilize the possibilities of the Organization to the fullest extent. 126. In this belief, it is the desire of my delegation to place before this Assembly the views of our Government on some of the problems which we consider particularly important. We have listened with interest and dose attention to the weighty and important views expressed by representatives in the course of this debate. Whether they have been made by big or small countries, they have all contributed to the clarification of world public opinion and the thinking of Governments all over the world. There is no doubt that these statements will assist us greatly when we meet in plenary or in committee to discuss and take decisions on specific problems. In expressing our own views, we are fully conscious of the fact that we are a small country and we do not entertain any pretensions to authoritative pronouncements on any of the pressing problems of the day. We are, however, as deeply concerned about the possible consequences of a failure to solve these problems as any other of our colleagues who are Members of the United Nations. We have, therefore, no hesitation in expressing our views in the hope and expectation that, in doing so, we may be able to assist in some small way in the collective effort that is now being made towards the solution of the great issues that face us in our time. 127. I should like, therefore, to assert that, while we recognize and give full weight to the value of opinions expressed and positions taken by the more advanced and developed countries of the world, the contributions made by the smaller countries can be equally important and useful. In fact, smaller countries are in a singularly advantageous position of being free from prejudice or self-interest. They are less interested in power politics or in such questions as the maintenance of a balance of power. They are, therefore, in the specially favoured position of being able to express views and take positions on world problems in an objective way, basing their stand on what is right, irrespective of who is right. Left to themselves, they can consider questions without fear or favour, affection or ill-will. While we know that, at times, this becomes exceedingly difficult because of the existence of two powerful political groups opposed to each other, and because of pressures which may be brought to bear, the opinions of small countries, nevertheless, are not unworthy of careful consideration, especially, for instance, in those issues such as world peace, freedom and independence, in which they are vitally interested. We therefore hope that there will not be any desire to segregate too much the bigger issues for consideration only by a section or a segment of ourselves, even if that happens to constitute the great Powers. What we have already heard from them in the course of this debate makes it clear that the smaller Powers also could make a useful contribution. 128. The agenda before the General Assembly sets out the problems we are faced with at the present time. All these problems are important as they are undoubtedly symptoms or manifestations of an unhealthy state of affairs. Similar problems have arisen before, and will still continue to arise in different parts of the world. We have a good record of satisfactory solutions of many problems and, in other cases, even if we have not been successful, satisfactory steps have been taken to prevent certain developments from spreading and becoming a danger to world peace. The United Nations presence, for one thing, has been most helpful on numerous occasions. 129. It is hardly necessary, in this Assembly, to refer in detail to those actions by the United Nations at different times in its short history. These are well-known and indicate the absolute necessity of the existence of an international body such as this. There are instances where we have not been as successful, but it is our hope that, at this session, we may be able to proceed with confidence and energy to resolve as many of the problems which are before us. 130. I should like here to express our great appreciation of the most valuable constructive work done in his usual quiet but effective manner by our Secretary-General in reducing tensions, creating better understanding and in attempting to attain the basic objectives of the Charter. His task has not been easy, but we admire the patience, determination and confidence he has shown in carrying out his difficult and delicate task, and we wish him continued success in the role he has to play. 131. Among the many problems to which I have already referred and which, as I said before, are all of great importance, there are, in the opinion of my delegation, two problems which stand out as of supreme importance. It is our view that, if these two basic problems can be satisfactorily dealt with and some effective solution found, the settlement of many of the other problems will become easier. I refer, of course, to the problems of disarmament and economic development. I therefore propose to confine my remarks to these two problems at this stage, reserving such comments on the other problems as we may desire to make for the appropriate time either in plenary or in committee. 132. It would be futile for us to deny the fact that the world situation, at the present time, is one which causes grave concern to peoples everywhere. Fourteen years after the signing of the Charter, embodying as if does the highest aspirations of mankind, the world is still as far away from those ideals as, and perhaps further than, at the time the Charter was signed. But we are glad that we still continue here as representatives at peoples determined "to save succeeding generations from the scourge of war, which twice in our lifetime has brought untold sorrow to mankind". 133. He would be a brave man who would deny that the most pressing international problem to which we have to find a solution is that of disarmament. The President of this Assembly, in his remarks at the very commencement of this session [795th meeting], prayed that this Assembly may come to be known in the future as the "Assembly of Peace", implying thereby the hope that before we conclude our deliberations Under his able guidance, we would have taken the first step towards agreement on the reduction and control of armaments. The delegation of Ceylon echoes that hope, and we pray with him that it may indeed be so. 134. The armaments race between great Powers is fraught with peril at any time, but the danger is considerably heightened when such a race takes place in the tense international atmosphere which we have commonly come to call the "cold war". With the terrific destructive capacity which science has enabled man to possess, the results of war can be restricted neither in space nor in time. The scientists of the world say with one voice that it is not only our own generation that will be exposed to death and suffering, but that a generation still to be born is under a similar threat. That more than one million persons will die and one and a quarter million abnormal children will be born as a result of radioactive fallout from nuclear bombs already exploded is the considered opinion of five prominent American, Japanese and French scientists, expressed in a memorandum submitted by them to the French Academy of Science. Comment on this appears to be superfluous. Here is a moral consideration which was absent from the questions of war and peace in the past. For the first time, perhaps, in recorded history, we have a cold war situation in which two Powers are sitting on unparalleled means of destruction. 135. It is in this context that the fourteenth Session of the General Assembly has met and it would be tragic if we failed to consider sincerely all disarmament proposals and endeavour to indicate a way to put them into practice by the adoption of a reasonable scheme of implementation, generally acceptable. The seriousness of the international situation was brought to the fore early this year when the question of West Berlin again caused the world the gravest concern since 1945. 136. In other areas of the world, also, problems arose which carried with them a threat to peace. The tension of the cold war continued unabated. But almost at the same time that dark clouds were dangerously gathering around us, paradoxical as it may seem, we began to see an important change for the better, 137. Many factors contributed towards this welcome change. Undoubtedly, the threat of total disaster and annihilation, if a nuclear war began, was the most potent deterrent. The fact that the Conference on the Discontinuance of Nuclear Weapons Tests was making good, if slow, progress was another important factor in the Improvement of International relations. Other important developments leading to a better understanding and the creation of good will between the East and West began to fake place. Exchanges of cultural and trade missions and the visits of important citizens from both sides of what is called the Iron Curtain, including highly-placed politicians and officials, brought about a very beneficial change in international relations. A most noteworthy event was the visit of Prime Minister Macmillan, accompanied by the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs of the United Kingdom, Mr. Selwyn Lloyd, to Moscow towards the end of February this year. This was a wise and statesmanlike act and, at the time the decision was made, was most courageous. There can be no doubt that his talks in Moscow helped to ease the tension and to create an atmosphere of better understanding and mutual good will. 138. The decision to hold a conference at the Foreign Minister level to discuss the questions of West Berlin and Germany was taken after this visit and was a realistic and wise decision which again helped to ease world tension. Although there was no successful outcome of these discussions at the time they were adjourned, it is generally agreed that the issues were clarified, the differing points of view were narrowed down and more fully understood, in an atmosphere of greater good will. All the factors to which I have referred brought about a great improvement in the international atmosphere. 139. At the same time, we note with regret the emergence of new problems in South-East Asia and the continuance of tension over long-standing problems in the Middle East. We earnestly hope that, at this session of the General Assembly, we maybe able to find some satisfactory solution to these problems. 140. It is also, of course, a satisfying experience that we have all gone through during the past weeks as a result of the visit of the Chairman of the Council of Ministers of the Soviet Union, Mr. Khrushchev, to the United States at the Invitation of President Eisenhower. May I be permitted to state from this rostrum that, in the opinion of my delegation, the President's decision at this time was a wise, courageous and statesmanlike one, a decision which I am sure, when history comes to be written, will rank as one of those great and decisive events which from time to time have taken place in the past. 141. It is our firm conviction that this invitation, and the reciprocal invitation by Mr. Khrushchev to Mr. Eisenhower to visit the Soviet Union later, are steps in the right direction on a road which will eventually lead to an easing of world tension, to a better understanding of each other by the two great Powers, and towards an eventual settlement by negotiation of the outstanding issues which have hitherto separated these two great nations from each other and prevented their close co-operation, which is surely necessary for the benefit of the rest of the world. We, for our part, are convinced that this exchange of visits and the events that must necessarily follow are efforts, worthy of great men, to foster and improve good will among nations, which is so necessary for the removal of mutual suspicion and mistrust. This exchange of visits is certainly the culmination of the several promising features which have Introduced some hope during the last few months and we hope that the beginning of a new chapter of more cordial and intimate international relations has opened. 142. AH that had happened before the visit of Mr. Khrushchev pointed to a steadily Improving climate of opinion in which the exchange of visits between Mr. Khrushchev and Mr. Eisenhower was necessary and Indeed Imperative for the maintenance of this thaw in the ice of the cold war. We now have it on the highest authority that international disputes will be settled by negotiation rather than by force. We understand that the critical question of Berlin might be settled by early discussions, and we are now closer than ever to an early meeting of the Heads of Government of the four great Powers. These are all matters which augur well for the relaxation of tensions and for the attainment of world peace. All men of good will must therefore pray that God may continue to guide and inspire the leaders of the world Powers and the leaders of all countries to continue to make every effort in this direction. The ice has been broken. A thaw has begun. But a freeze can, however, set in again. Every effort should be made to prevent this from happening. 143. It is somewhat astonishing that there appear to be people, at this time, who dislike the emergence of a, conciliatory and more friendly feeling between the Soviet Union and the Western Powers, on the theory that it would lead to a weakening of the defensive arrangements made by the Western Powers and that it would make these Powers let down their guard. Obviously, nothing could be more foolish or more dangerous than such specious arguments. It will not be expected that the mere relaxation of tension and the beginning of better understanding could lead to unilateral disarmament or reduction of the strength of defensive armaments on the part of either side. Disarmament, as I said before, must be a matter of multilateral agreement, acceptable to all and certainly acceptable to the great Powers under reasonable conditions of control and effective supervision. Even if a disarmament agreement is not reached, which God forbid, improved international relations will reduce frictions and prevent, at any rate for some time, any major conflict. Therefore, it is the imperative duty of all men of good will and certainly of the States Members of our Organization, to do everything possible to promote and foster the growth of better understanding among nations and especially among the great Powers. This is surely not the time to talk of increasing armaments, as some people seem to be doing at the present time, even if such increase is suggested to increase defensive strength. 144. Mr. Khrushchev, in addressing the Assembly a week ago, used the opportunity to good purpose and made a forceful contribution to the cause of peace by making a forthright and categorical declaration for disarmament on behalf of the Soviet Government. It is true that the Soviet Union had made similar, declarations and offers before. But this was the first occasion on which the Head of the Soviet Government in person stood before the assembled representatives of eighty-two nations and announced solemnly, on behalf of his Government and his people, that: "... General and complete disarmament will remove all the obstacles that have arisen during discussion of the questions involved by partial disarmament, and will clear the way for the institution of universal and complete control. "What does the Soviet Government propose? "The essence of our proposals is that, over a period of four years, all States should carry out complete disarmament and should divest themselves of the means of waging war..." [799th meeting, paras. 69-71.] This was indeed a notable statement which we hope will lead to a successful disarmament agreement. 145. We, for our part, are considerably gratified that this firm declaration received a constructive response from the Foreign Ministers of the United Kingdom and of France, as well as from the Secretary of State of the United States, when each of them stated that their Governments would give to Mr. Khrushchev's declaration the serious and earnest consideration which it so obviously deserved. The representatives of the countries who have spoken here are also agreed that careful consideration should be given to the general principle of complete disarmament so that practiced measures may be taken to implement this principle. 146. It would be easy for those who have been in the habit of decrying any general declarations of this kind to dismiss this as yet another act of propaganda. We will be the first to concede that it does not require much ingenuity to make an open statement in favour of complete and total disarmament in extremely general terms. We fully recognize that the difficulties which face us arise in the implementation of such a declaration. It will require but a moment's thought to realize how great these difficulties can be on details such as the question of control, the force or sanction behind such control, the necessity for inspection, the nature of the control body to be set up, its authority and its composition. Indeed, Mr. Khrushchev himself realized the difficulties inherent in a proposal for total disarmament. He indicated in his address before the Assembly that the whole proposal could be rendered futile by the insistence on making measures of disarmament conditional upon such demands of control as the other States would be unable to satisfy in the existing conditions of a universal arms race. 147. It may be assumed in some quarters that the solution to the question of disarmament under control, as envisaged by the Soviet Government, must be preceded by some degree of control before the process of disarmament itself commences. The delegation of Ceylon has much pleasure in noting that, even on this crucial matter, Mr. Khrushchev gave considerable hope of agreement when, just before he left this country for Moscow, he stated: “...the appropriate inspection and control would function throughout the entire process of disarmament”. 148. To think that there will be no great difficulties ahead of us would be indeed a naive supposition. But to think that these difficulties are insuperable would be indeed an extremely grave and unwarranted act of disillusionment and lack of confidence, which my delegation would be unable to share. Given a spirit of good will and mutual confidence, nothing is beyond tile realm of possibility in international agreements on matters in dispute. The pith and substance of any negotiated solution to any problem, great or small, is the mutual confidence of the parties concerned. This is an essential requisite and, unless nations can learn to trust each other, very little progress is possible. 149. This is illustrated clearly in regard to the question of effective control in relation to disarmament, where the two great Powers hold views which seem, at first sight, to be diametrically opposed to each other. We ourselves are inclined to think that a plan for total, or even partial, disarmament cannot succeed — indeed cannot even begin — unless there is established a control organ agreed on by both sides, an organ which will have authority to carry out an agreed plan of practical action. This kind of difficulty, however, should not derogate from the fact that the leader of the Soviet Government has now committed himself publicly and unequivocally to the general principle. The principle has also been accepted by leaders of the other great Powers. We expect, and I am sure every delegation here represented does so too, that they will act to implement it in good faith. 150. Even before the Chairman of the Council of Ministers of the Soviet Union made his declaration regarding total disarmament within a period of four years, Mr. Selwyn Lloyd, the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs of the United Kingdom, had lent eloquent support to the principle of total disarmament. He has also, in addition, given us a detailed scheme for consideration, as was done by Mr. Khrushchev in his statement. The response of the three other big Powers, to which I have already made reference, in effect leads us to believe that these difficulties will eventually be overcome and the declarations in favour of total disarmament will be converted into a practical, workable plan as soon as possible by the joint efforts of all Members of the United Nations. We have the opportunity now of helping the great Powers in this difficult task by a full and constructive discussion of this problem, both when it comes up as a separate item before the First Committee and, I am sure, eventually in the Disarmament Commission itself. On behalf of my delegation, I wish to urge sincerely on all concerned not to dismiss Mr. Khrushchev's call for total disarmament as mere propaganda. The stake at issue is of tremendous importance, for it is nothing less than war or peace in our time. It is our duty, therefore, to assist in the deliberations in this particular field. As far as my small country is concerned, I pledge the support of my Government for any constructive contribution we may be called upon to discharge. It is our earnest hope that, by solving the problem of disarmament — if not completely, at least by opening the way for a future complete solution — the great Powers would enable the rest of the world's problems, of which there are undoubtedly many facing the current session of the General Assembly, to be settled by negotiation, free from the atmosphere of tension resulting from the arms race and the cold war. 151. Apart from disarmament, it is our view that the other vital matter of importance which we should face and put our minds to is that of the economic development of the less developed countries of me world. This is a matter which is of crucial interest to countries such as my own, which have been struggling, since they regained independence during the last fifteen years, to give their people a better and higher standard of living and more of the material advantages of life which are available to their fellow human beings in the more developed areas of the world. Much has already been said on this subject, but we think it imperative to call the attention of the Assembly once again to what we consider to be a vital matter. We believe that the forms of government which we in our countries have voluntarily chosen as the political framework of our governmental system would be jeopardized if the economic and social fabric, on which forms of government are necessarily based, fails to give to that political framework the substantial support it must have. The solution of the economic problems of the less developed areas of the world has been, in our humble opinion, not only a challenge but an opportunity to the richer and materially advanced nations of the world. We look to the United Nations as the appropriate source for a solution of these difficult problems. 152. I have dealt at some length with disarmament because of its importance, but even total disarmament will not guarantee world peace or the happiness of all mankind unless at the same time we seek the eradication of hunger, poverty and want. There is too much of this in many part of the world today. In consequence, there is much suffering and misery. These conditions create discontent and dissatisfaction and ultimately lead to revolution. We may disarm, but that alone will not lead to peace. No doubt, the world will then be safe from destructive wars, but misery and unhappiness will remain and there will be very little security for anyone if we allow revolution to be bred of economic insufficiency. Therefore, I should now like to examine the question of economic development. 153. It is alarming that more than half of the world's population belongs to what are called under-developed areas. This is a danger to themselves and to the rest of the world, even to those who are highly developed and who enjoy a high standard of living. With the alarming increase of population, particularly in the under-developed areas, the people in these areas are getting poorer and the standards of living are declining at a time when in some other areas standards are improving. There is an unhealthy imbalance. We have read with considerable satisfaction the statement Mr. Ludwig Erhard, West Germany's Minister of Economy, is reported to have made only a few days ago. Addressing himself to his countrymen, he advised that they should ask themselves whether "we have the right to enjoy all to ourselves the steady annual increase of 6 per cent in our national product". He thought that a part of this increase could well be diverted to aid to under-developed nations. In the course of the same statement, Mr. Erhard described such aid as "the greatest task of the twentieth century". These are weighty words, coming as they do from so great an authority. 154. Reference to this dangerous situation has been made by many other eminent and responsible persons over the years, on different occasions, notably by our own Secretary-General. In the introduction to his annual report to the thirteenth session of the General Assembly, the Secretary-General stated, in the course of his observations on economic stability and growth: “Though we live in an era of unprecedented gains in material well-being, most of mankind is yet condemned to a life of extreme poverty. The task of ameliorating the conditions of life in under-developed countries demands a sense of urgency which, I believe, the nations of the world have not yet sufficiently realized.” What the Secretary-General said in his report to the thirteenth session is equally true at the present time. 155. The reports of the Economic and Social Council and the discussion in this Assembly have highlighted the importance of this matter and drawn attention to the urgent need to deal effectively with it. Some international action has been taken, in diverse ways and in different fields. Individual Governments of many countries have increasingly grappled with it, but very little good can result without action on a wide front, with very large financial resources. Economic development affects the life of a people at many points and, unless we attack it at all these points, very little good will accrue. 156. I must make it very clear here that my delegation is fully aware of the valuable help gives by many countries to the lesser developed countries to help them improve their economic life. We are deeply appreciative of and grateful for this assistance. The Colombo Plan, towards which the more developed members of the Commonwealth and the United States of America have contributed lavishly, bias helped greatly. This unique co-operative international endeavour has been of great use in providing technological and scientific skill and know-how. The bilateral arrangements made by the United States, the Soviet Union, the United Kingdom and other countries with the lesser developed countries of the world have led to considerable economic aid. Private investment of capital, though not large, has helped, although, unfortunately, such investment has helped only a limited area, and more in respect of limited operations, such as the extractive industries. And, more recently, there is the proposed bank to be set up for the benefit of the Latin American countries. These are all worthy of increasing international interest and support, and constitute big advances. 157. The problem of financing economic development in the under-developed countries is also receiving the attention of several international financial organs, existing and contemplated. First, there is IBRD, whose capital was doubled recently. This institution finances only the direct foreign exchange cost of development projects and makes loans directly to Governments, and where Governments offers a guarantee, to private industry as well. Projects must be strictly bankable, however, in order to qualify for loan assistance. This is as it should be. Second, there is the more recently established International Finance Corporation which, however, finances only projects run by private enterprises and again, rightly, on a strictly bankable basis. The Corporation, unlike IBRD, finances both the foreign exchange and the domestic cost of a private project. Third, the United Nations, only last year, established the Special Fund, the object of which is to finance, as an official introductory pamphlet aptly describes, the cost of bringing interesting ideas to bankable shape. Finally, there remains the projected international development association, approved at the annual session of IBRD which has just concluded. The principal aim of this institution is to promote, by financing sound projects of high priority, the economic development of less developed member countries whose needs cannot be adequately met under IBRD's lending programmes. 158. While all of these institutions do share in the task of financing economic development within the rather limited field of their respective spheres of responsibility, it is idle to expect that these institutions finally exhaust, among them, the scope for financing productive development in the under-developed countries of the world. Notwithstanding all the measures taken by the United Nations on its own, or through its specialized agencies, as well as by the industrially advanced countries, through enlightened national policies, to promote economic development of these countries, and, moreover, notwithstanding all the conscious and determined efforts made by the under-developed countries themselves to press on with the national task of their own development, one must face the unpleasant truth that the rate of economic growth between the industrially advanced countries and the less developed countries of the world is now widening instead of narrowing. In other words, rich countries are continuing to get richer, while the less developed countries, in spite of all their development programmes, are getting relatively poorer. This widening disparity in rates of economic growth, it must be conceded, cannot conduce to international peace and understanding. 159. When one considers carefully the various international measures, taken or currently contemplated, to assist financially the economic growth of underdeveloped countries, one is forced to conclude that the finances so provided take care of only a fraction of the cost of national development. All of them emphasize that development projects, to qualify for international assistance, must be bankable, however elastically this latter term may be stretched for the purpose at hand. Practically all of them are concerned with financing primarily the direct foreign exchange cost of development, though, in certain instances, the indirect foreign exchange cost is also embraced within the financing schemes. 160. Here, let me make a brief reference to a statement reported to have been made by Mr. Eugene Black at the meeting of the Board of Governors of IBRD which indicates the insufficiency of the funds available under this scheme and the need, for that and other reasons, to limit the loans to only economically sound schemes. This is what he is reported to have said, and I quote: "Loans of the new international development association will go only to countries that pursue sound economic policies". This is quite unexceptionable and can be accepted. He also said, and I quote: "The billion dollar affiliate of the World Bank will make 'soft loans' but will not be a soft lender, and it will operate in accordance with the same high standards of the Bank". It is clear from these statements, which are certainly, as I said before, unexceptionable from a banking point of view, and in the context of the high standard maintained by IBRD, that there will be practically the same test of bankability applied to these loans as was applied before, and thus there will be a serious limitation on loans. We have to remember that not every loan for essential economic development can stand up to the test of being sound in the bankable sense. 161. Another limitation inherent in this new effort to help world economic development is to be seen in the following statement made by Mr. Black at the same meeting. He said: "The supply of capital for industrial development is too small and the worldwide need for it is too great for any of it to be wasted. I regard it as essential therefore, that I.D.A." — that is the new institution — "shall support only sound projects of high development priority, and only in countries that follow sound economic and financial policies". 162. I am in full agreement with Mr. Black when he points out the utter inadequacy of even 1,000 million dollars to meet the urgent needs of industrial development, and I agree that, with the limited funds at his disposal, he has to make a careful selection of the best projects. The point of his remarks, however, is that, both because of inadequacy of funds and because of the need to confine the application of these funds only to a limited class of projects, the establishment of the international development association will not solve the problem of development. Undoubtedly, these additional funds will be most valuable as going some way to help countries in need of development. My delegation is very glad that, in that sense, IBRD has taken a further step forward and, while appreciating the every-watchful recognition it has given to the importance of economic development of under-developed countries, we should like to take this opportunity to congratulate all concerned and wish IBRD every success. 163. National development embraces not only economic investment, strictly so called, which is bankable but also, more importantly, economic investment, which is not of a self-liquidating character, as well as social investment, all of which it is now fashionable to identify with the provision of so-called infrastructure of development. The financial problem that faces under-developed countries now is that these latter categories of expenditure outlays are proving to be not only excessively burdensome for the available resources of the countries concerned but, more significantly, entail in the process such heavy drains on their foreign exchange resources, by reason of the direct and the indirect foreign costs their development programmes impose, that much needed national development at an adequate rate to make economic growth self-generating continues to be severely checked. 164. A dispassionate analysis will thus show that the core of the problem of financing economic development through international action still remains, for the balance of payment impact of national development of under-developed countries can be solved only internationally. This is an important point which still remains and must be noted. It is for this reason that the delegation of Ceylon would urge that Member nations should continue to give their unremitting attention to the question of establishing a United Nations capital development fund, which should constitute the reservoir of finances that can fill the important lacuna in the existing scheme of international financial arrangements set up to promote economic development. This is a question which we should not ignore. On the contrary, it should continue to engage our attention and we should not allow ourselves to be led astray by suggestions that seek to identify the proposed international development association as offering the only or a sufficient and satisfactory solution, through international action, to the financial problem facing the under-developed countries. 165. As matters stand, the proposed international development association will not be able to tap all the international financial resources that are available. This, in itself, is a serious blemish on the proposed scheme. What is more fundamentally important is the principle that financing economic development, outside of the limited category of strictly bankable projects, should become the responsibility of the United Nations and be subject to its control and authority. This purpose can be achieved only by establishing a special financial agency within the United Nations. The proposed United Nations capital development fund would do this, 166. We all know of the great success achieved by the Marshall Plan in Europe. There was great war damage and much reconstruction work was needed. Despite the material destruction and the loss of life caused by the ravages of war, there were still skilled scientists and technicians available in these countries. Thus, the work of reconstruction was not so difficult, owing to the advanced conditions prevailing in Europe at the time. What was needed was financial help and capital equipment. The merit of the Marshall Plan, apart from its exemplification of United States generosity and the high sense of responsibility of the American people and the inspired act of statesmanship of General Marshall, was that it was conceived in big terms, big enough to deal with the total need and provide all the money that was needed to reconstruct Europe all along the line. If the figures available to me are correct, they illustrate the point I am making, that we need a unified, concentrated approach, with adequate financial resources spread over a limited but definite period of time. In the period from 1948 to 1952, the total amount spent under the Plan amounted to $13,600 million, while the total cost of the Plan to date is said to be about $24,000 million. The economic development of the under-developed parts of the world is a much bigger job. 167. There are, of course, other aspects of economic development than the financial aspects. I do not propose to take up the time of the Assembly, as these can be dealt with at a later stage, particularly the very important problems of price stabilization. I had hoped to go fully into some aspects of the problems connected with economic development, but, owing to the lateness of the hour, I shall not at this stage refer to them, except to draw the attention of the Assembly to the great importance and absolute need of action on matters connected with price stabilization in regard to primary agricultural commodities. This is an issue which has been with us for over thirteen years. It has been discussed in many places, particularly by the members of the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade, and we are very regretful that no definite action has. been taken to deal with this important problem. 168. Before I conclude these very general remarks on this important matter, I should like to invite attention to the close connexion which it has to the other matter I discussed earlier, namely, disarmament. The following points briefly set out are worth some consideration. 169. First, disarmament and economic development are both basic and fundamental factors in the accomplishment of the aim of the United Nations Charter to achieve world peace and improve living standards. 170. Secondly, both are essentially human problems, the solution of which require the united effort of all peoples, based on good will, understanding and confidence. 171. Thirdly, there is the extreme difficulty of providing for economic development adequately without reducing or abolishing the financial burden of armaments. One of the strongest objections raised against the provision of more money for economic development by the great Powers is the already crushing burden of defence expenditure. Therefore, there is a very close connexion between these two and, if an era of peace and plenty is to begin, we must hasten disarmament. President Eisenhower has said that his Government is ready to ask its people to join with all nations in directing a substantial percentage of the savings which would be achieved by disarmament to a fund for world aid. The Soviet Union has urged a percentage cut on armament expenditure, to be used for economic development. Disarmament has got to be brought about if only to enable adequate support of economic development of under-developed countries. 172. Before I conclude, I wish to make briefly a reference to a rather important aspect of fee work of the United Nations. I refer to our duties to the territories under international trusteeship under Article 76 and to territories which are not yet self-governing under Article 73. My Government has always in the past made, and will continue in the future likewise to make, our contribution to the development of self- government in these territories and towards the political, economic, social and educational advancement of these peoples. It is not in dispute that the continent of Africa is today the scene of vital activity in this sphere. We have watched with pride and satisfaction the movement of the African peoples towards their rightful place in the councils of the world. We look forward with warm interest to seeing with us next year the representatives of four sovereign independent African States — Nigeria, Togoland, the Cameroons and Somalia. Perhaps the most pressing and the most difficult problem which Africa presents to us today is the demand of the peoples of Algeria for the right to determine their future. 173. Finally, I wish to make a few observations on the important problem of Algeria. My delegation notes with extreme satisfaction the improvement that has taken place since we last met at the thirteenth session of the General. Assembly. I refer to the very statesmanlike and courageous declaration of French policy made recently by the distinguished President of France, General de Gaulle. Speaking on this same problem last year, I expressed the confidence of my delegation that General de Gaulle would attempt to solve the problem in a bold, liberal and statesmanlike way. His recent declaration of policy justifies the confidence which we had in him. 174. This declaration itself may not bring a complete solution of the problem, but we are equally confident this year that he will not take a rigid attitude in the implementation of his policy and that it will be done in a manner reasonably acceptable to all concerned, and especially to the Algerian people as a whole. He has made an unequivocal offer of self-determination to the Algerian people, giving them the right to choose the kind of political status which they would wish to have. The choice includes the right to opt for independence. All the bitter fighting, all the bloodshed and loss of life and property that have taken place hitherto were to attain political freedom and independence. Now General de Gaulle has offered them the opportunity to choose freedom at a referendum to he held after a cessation of hostilities. 175. By itself, this is a magnanimous offer. It is an act of great faith and courage, and the whole world will applaud him for his recognition of the right of people to decide for themselves the kind of government under which they would like to live. The members of the Algerian Provisional Government have accepted this offer. Even if the Provisional Government is not recognized by France and many other countries, it represents the Nationalists and the national aspirations of the people. We are glad that the representatives of Algerian national liberation have shown realism, a constructive attitude and a willingness to do what is in their power to bring about a peaceful solution of the problem on the basis of self-determination. Even if the French declaration contained nothing more than an offer of unconditional self-determination at the end of hostilities, it would not seem to us to be unreasonable that some preliminary consultation and discussion would be required before the Nationalists disbanded their armed forces. They would find it difficult to do so without getting a detailed understanding of the conditions of the referendum and the time limit imposed and other important points of detail. 176. But the French offer has several important qualifications, such as the possibility of partition and the control of the Sahara. The Algerian Nationalists have asked for an opportunity to discuss these matters which are undoubtedly of vital importance to them. Is this unreasonable? Even if we were to admit that Algeria is an integral part of Metropolitan France, an important change is now taking place when France offers complete freedom on the fulfilment of certain conditions. If such a request were made at that time and in that connexion for discussion and further consideration, it would seem to us to be not unreasonable. I feel sure that the French Government would accept this position were it not for what it regards as a fundamental difficulty. It does not recognize the Algerian Provisional Government. It is unable, therefore, to negotiate with it. One can understand this difficulty. On the other hand, the Algerian Provisional Government would find it extremely difficult to dissolve itself unless and until the conditional offer were discussed and clarified. 177. I believe it is correct that the Provisional Government has agreed to its dissolution after "pourparlers" have taken place and a satisfactory understanding has been reached. Thus, while we are at the threshold of a peaceful solution, we encounter an impasse, a formidable barrier. Friends of France and of Algeria, indeed all men of good will, must do everything possible at this juncture to bridge the very narrow gulf which separates the two parties. We have confidence that they will strain every nerve themselves not to be diverted from their common goal and to find a liberal formula that will act as the "open sesame" to the door that bars the road to peace. There are many friendly countries that are prepared to stand by them in support of this effort. Notably, we think of Tunisia and Morocco whose people and whose leaders have been working hard for many years to bring about an understanding. We have no doubt that they will help. 178. In addition, it is the firm conviction of my delegation that here we are faced with just the kind of situation in which the United Nations should unhesitatingly extend its hand of friendship and help to the parties concerned. We, therefore, suggest that we indicate our readiness to designate a member country, or a group of such countries, to use their good offices to make agreement possible, if such an offer is acceptable to all concerned. We know that we cannot and would not want to force ourselves on unwilling parties, but we are sure that France, which has such a glorious history of a people dedicated to the principle of freedom, and which is a distinguished Member of the United Nations and permanent member of the Security Council, a body principally responsible for world peace and security, would not reject any offer of help from the United Nations, if it is considered necessary. We are all aware of the consistent and firm attitude adopted by France under Article 2, paragraph 7, of the Charter of the United Nations. But the present situation is different from the situation in which every year France has invoked the provisions of that Article. Here we are on the verge of a settlement, made possible by her own generous and wise act. A little accommodation between the parties only is required. Any offer of help in these circumstances cannot be considered as an interference in the internal affairs of France. Of course, we shall all be delighted if France alone, or with the help of any other country, succeeds in getting implementation of her proposal. If not, it would be a pity if she failed to invoke the assistance of the great Organization which she herself was instrumental in founding. 179. It is with a great deal of hesitation and much diffidence that my delegation has taken upon itself to make this suggestion. We want the French delegation to believe that we are inspired only by a sincere desire to promote a settlement. And we should like our Algerian nationalist friends also to believe that, in making this suggestion, we are actuated by a sincere desire to see the people of Algeria obtain, after all these years and after so much difficulty and the need to wage a costly war, the freedom to which they are entitled. We have therefore made this suggestion as friends, and it is based on an objective approach in the hope that France may proceed in carrying out her desire to give to the Adrian people their freedom and thus create the possibility that they will live together in peace and friendship.