PRIME MINISTER’S ADDRESS AT 58TH
SESSION OF UN GENERAL ASSEMBLY
The
Prime Minister, Shri Atal Bihari Vajpayee addressed the 58th
session of the UN General Assembly in New York, today.
Following is the
text of the Prime Minster’s address on the occasion:
"We
congratulate you on your election to the Presidency of the 58th
session of the UN General Assembly. We wish you every success
in our shared endeavours. You will have our fullest co-operation
in your efforts.
As we gather
here, in the wake of many momentous events over the past year,
it is inevitable that we ponder on some fundamental questions
about the role and the relevance of the United Nations.
The United Nations
was charged by its Charter ‘to save succeeding generations from
the scourge of war’. The Charter also speaks of our collective
determination ‘to unite our strength to maintain international
peace and security’. There was an implicit conviction that the
UN would be stronger than the sum of its constituent member-states.
Its unique legitimacy flows from a universal perception that it
pursues a larger purpose than the interests of one country or
a small group of countries.
This vision of an
enlightened multilateralism has not materialised. There have been
difficulties and deficiencies in ensuring a world free from strife,
a world without war. The United Nations has not always been successful
in preventing conflicts or in resolving them.
During the past
year, the United Nations encountered further new challenges. We
saw the extraordinary inability of the five permanent members
of the Security Council to agree on action in respect of Iraq,
in spite of complete agreement on basic objectives. Most recently,
the brutal terrorist attack on the UN Office in Baghdad struck
a body blow at the UN’s humanitarian efforts there.
Looking back
at events over recent years, we can analyse the successes and
failures of the UN in this or that crisis. But it would be more
purposeful to reflect on our own commitment to multilateralism,
the extent of its applicability in the real world of today, and
the manner in which it can be exercised through the UN. The reality
is that international institutions like the UN can only be as
effective as its members allow it to be.
Our reflections on
the UN should focus on three key aspects:
- First, we need to introspect on
some of the assumptions that have been made over the years on
the will and reach of the United Nations. In the euphoria after
the Cold War, there was a misplaced notion that the UN could
solve every problem anywhere. Its enthusiasm and proactive stance
on many issues reflected laudable intentions. But we soon realised
that the UN does not possess magical powers to solve every crisis
in all parts of the globe, or to change overnight the motivation
of leaders and communities around the world. We need to clearly
recognise, with a sense of realism, the limits to what the UN
can achieve, and the changes of form and function required for
it to play an optimal role in today’s world.
- Second, the Iraq issue has inevitably
generated a debate on the functioning and the efficacy of the
Security Council and of the UN itself. Over the decades, the
UN membership has grown enormously. The scope of its activities
has expanded greatly, with new specialised agencies and new
programmes. But in the political and security dimensions of
its activities, the United Nations has not kept pace with the
changes in the world. For the Security Council to represent
genuine multilateralism in its decisions and actions, its membership
must reflect current world realities. Most UN members today
recognise the need for an enlarged and restructured Security
Council, with more developing countries as permanent and non-permanent
members. The permanent members guard their exclusivity. Some
states with weak claims want to ensure that others do not enter
the Council as permanent members. This combination of complacency
and negativism has to be countered with a strong political will.
The recent crises warn us that until the UN Security Council
is reformed and restructured, its decisions cannot reflect truly
the collective will of the community of nations.
- Third, even after such reform,
the Security Council would have to evolve suitable decision-making
mechanisms, which ensure better representation of the collective
will of the international community. How can multilateralism
be genuinely implemented? A single veto is an anachronism in
today’s world. On the other hand, the requirement of unanimity
can sabotage imperative actions. A simple majority vote may
not be sufficiently representative for major issues of gravity.
Should we aim for the highest common factor, or should we settle
for the lowest common denominator? National experiences in democratic
countries provide usable models of mechanisms, which could specify
the extent of support required, depending on the impact of action
to be taken.
The Secretary General
has rightly emphasised the urgency for reform of the institutions
and processes of the United Nations. We encourage his efforts
in this direction. We should seek to implement these reforms within
a specified time frame.
The Iraq issue continues
to present a major challenge to the United Nations. At this point
in time, it is not very productive to linger on the past. Our
thoughts and concerns should be about the suffering of the people
of Iraq. It is imperative that the people of Iraq should be empowered
to determine their own future, to rebuild their nation.
The immediate priorities
are ensuring security and stability, restoration of basic facilities
and infrastructure, and a roadmap of political processes for a
representative Iraqi government. It is clear that the UN has a
crucial role to play in this process of political and economic
reconstruction of that country. This has been acknowledged both
by those who had opposed military action and by those who did
not seek specific UN endorsement for it.
One issue on
which the UN showed remarkable unanimity after 9/11 was global
terrorism. Security Council Resolutions 1373 and 1456 were unequivocal
in condemning all forms of terrorism and in calling for united
action against support, shelter, sponsorship, arming, training
and financing for terrorism or terrorists.
Unfortunately,
the solidarity in words has not translated into coherent and effective
action. Terrorist acts continue to shatter our peace: from Mombasa
to Moscow; from Baghdad to Bali. India has had more than its share
in various parts of the country. The global coalition against
terrorism has registered successes in Afghanistan, but has not
been able to extend this elsewhere. Some of its members are themselves
part of the problem. We are sometimes led into semantics about
the definition of terrorism. The search for "root causes"
or imaginary "freedom struggles" provides alibis for
the killing of innocent men, women and children.
There is a lot
that the UN can do to carry forward the war against international
terrorism. Its Counter Terrorism Committee should develop measures
to ensure compliance by member-states of their obligations under
UNSCR 1373 and 1456. We should have credible multilateral instruments
to identify states that contravene these Resolutions. Multilateral
mechanisms must be created to detect and choke off international
financial flows to terrorists and terrorist organisations.
A much better international
system of information exchange and intelligence sharing needs
to be devised to prevent terrorists from evading capture, simply
by crossing national borders. No state should be allowed to profess
partnership with the global coalition against terror, while continuing
to aid, abet and sponsor terrorism. To condone such double standards
is to contribute to multiplying terrorism.
Yesterday, the President
of Pakistan chose this august assembly to make a public admission
for the first time that Pakistan is sponsoring terrorism in Jammu
& Kashmir. After claiming that there is an indigenous struggle
in Kashmir, he has offered to encourage a general cessation of
violence within Kashmir, in return for "reciprocal obligations
and restraints".
We totally refuse
to let terrorism become a tool of blackmail. Just as the world
did not negotiate with Al-Qaida or the Taliban, we shall not negotiate
with terrorism.
If we do so, we would
be betraying the people of Jammu & Kashmir, who defied a most
ferocious campaign of violence and intimidation sponsored from
across our borders, and participated in an election, which has
been universally hailed as free and fair. This was an unequivocal
expression of both determination and self-determination.
When the cross-border
terrorism stops – or when we eradicate it – we can have a dialogue
with Pakistan on the other issues between us.
While on this subject,
I would also like to point out to the President of Pakistan that
he should not confuse the legitimate aspiration for equality of
nations with outmoded concepts of military parity.
We should be
particularly concerned at the various recent revelations about
clandestine transfers of weapons of mass destruction and their
technologies. We face the frightening prospect of these weapons
and technologies falling into the hands of terrorists. Surely
something needs to be done about the helplessness of international
regimes in preventing such transactions, which clearly threaten
international security. The same regimes expend considerable energy
in imposing a variety of discriminatory technology-denial restrictions
on responsible states.
Our preoccupation
with terrorism should not dilute our commitment to tackle the
non-military threats to human and international security. We have
to sustain the fight against trafficking in narcotic drugs, human
beings and small arms; the pandemic of HIV/AIDS; diseases like
malaria and tuberculosis that grip developing countries and the
degradation of our common environment. Food security, energy security
and health security are important goals.
The countries
of the North and of the South – the developed, developing, and
transition economies – must resume their dialogue to build a better
world for the present and future generations. For the agenda of
globalization, Cancun was a disappointment. Significant progress
was made at Johannesburg towards realisation of sustainable development,
but the entry into force of the Kyoto Protocol on climate change
remains stalled. The Bio-diversity Convention has not yielded
any tangible benefits to the world’s poor.
International
economic relations continue to be characterised by inequities
and inequalities. Globalisation has helped sections of the international
economy, including some developing countries. However, large communities
have been left outside its pale. It has engendered economic crises
and instability in several developing countries, which have sharply
increased poverty.
Poverty is multidimensional.
It extends beyond money incomes to education, health care, skills
enhancement, political participation at all levels from the local
to the global, access to natural resources, clean water and air,
and advancement of one’s own culture and social organisation.
Poverty alleviation
requires resources on a far greater scale than now available.
Globalization itself constrains developing country governments
in raising public resources for poverty alleviation. The promise
of the climate change and biodiversity treaties to raise significant
resources for investment and technology transfer is yet unrealised.
The resources of multilateral and bilateral development agencies
are limited by the failure of industrialised countries to enhance
development budgets.
Therefore, if the
current regimes of globalization and sustainable development are
to be expanded – or even to survive – they must be directly harnessed
to provide the necessary resources for poverty alleviation. In
fact, all international agreements and initiatives affecting developing
countries have to be evaluated by their impact on poverty.
Developing countries
need to coordinate their positions in international negotiations
to promote the adoption of regimes, which would help poverty alleviation.
The India-Brazil-South Africa Dialogue Forum, which was established
earlier this year, is an effort in this direction.
We in the developing
countries do not have the luxury of time. Political compulsions
force us to meet the aspirations of our people quickly even as
we subject ourselves to newer and more rigid international standards
and norms. We owe it to our future generations to make strong
efforts to meet the Millennium Development Goals. There is a mutuality
of interest in this between the developed and the developing countries.
Global interdependence today means that economic disasters in
developing countries could create a backlash on developed countries.
We hope the world will act in this spirit of enlightened self-interest.
Thank you".