PANDIT NEHRU

AT

THE UNITED NATIONS

Addresses by Prime Minister Jawaharlal Nehru at the United Nations General Assembly

Edited

by

E. S. Reddy

CONTENTS

INTRODUCTION

I. ADDRESS TO THE THIRD SESSION OF THE UNITED NATIONS GENERAL ASSEMBLY

Paris, November 3, 1948

II. MESSAGE BROADCAST BY UNITED NATIONS RADIO

Lake Success, New York, May 5, 1950

III. ADDRESS TO DELEGATES TO THE ELEVENTH SESSION OF THE UNITED NATIONS GENERAL ASSEMBLY

New York, December 20, 1956

IV. ADDRESS TO THE ASIAN-AFRICAN GROUP AT THE UNITED NATIONS

New York, December 21, 1956

V. ADDRESS TO THE COMMONWEALTH GROUP AT THE UNITED NATIONS

New York, December 21, 1956

VI. ADDRESS TO THE FIFTEENTH SESSION OF THE UNITED NATIONS GENERAL ASSEMBLY

New York, October 3, 1960

VII. SPEECHES ON FIVE-POWER RESOLUTION FOR EASING WORLD TENSION

New York, October 5, 1960

VIII. ADDRESS TO THE SIXTEENTH SESSION OF THE UNITED NATIONS GENERAL ASSEMBLY

New York, November 10, 1961

INTRODUCTION

This booklet contains the addresses delivered by Prime Minister Jawaharlal Nehru at the United Nations General Assembly in 1948, 1956, 1960 and 1961.

He attended the third session of the General Assembly in Paris after the Commonwealth Prime Ministers` Conference in London, and delivered an address on November 3, 1948, in which he proclaimed the adherence of India, completely and absolutely, to the principles and purposes of the United Nations Charter and its commitment to work for the realisation of those principles and purposes. He drew special attention to the emergence of Asia in world affairs and the need to end colonial and racist domination all over the world.

His first visit to the United Nations Headquarters was in December 1956, during an official visit to the United States. On that occasion, he did not deliver a formal address to the United Nations but spoke to a meeting of all the delegations of the General Assembly, as well to the Asian-African Group and the Commonwealth Group at the United Nations.

The main concern of the United Nations and of Pandit Nehru at the time was with the crises resulting from the invasion of Egypt by forces of the United Kingdom, France and Israel, and the intervention of Soviet armed forces to suppress opposition in Hungary.

In 1960, he attended the fifteenth session of the General Assembly in New York at a time of grave international tension. An American U-2 plane had been shot down over Soviet territory in April and in the wake of that crisis a four-Power summit meeting, scheduled for May in Paris, was aborted. The developments in the Congo had led to great Power confrontation; the Soviet Union denounced the United Nations Secretary-General, Mr. Dag Hammarskjold, and demanded a triumvirate to head the Organisation.

The main address of Prime Minister Nehru was, therefore, devoted primarily to the problem of war and peace, disarmament and the situation in the Congo. He emphasised the importance of the United Nations and opposed a weakening of its executive.

He spent several days at the United Nations, meeting many Heads of State and Government present in order to promote a relaxation of international tension. He joined with leaders of four other non-aligned countries - Kwame Nkrumah of Ghana, Sukarno of Indonesia, Gamal Abdel Nasser of the United Arab Republic and Josip Broz Tito of Yugoslavia - in proposing a resolution expressing deep concern over the deterioration of international relations, and expressing the hope

that the President of the United States (General Dwight Eisenhower) and the Chairman of the Council of Ministers of the USSR (Nikita Khrushchev) renew their interrupted contacts. Though the resolution had to be withdrawn, when it was truncated by procedural maneuvres by the West, it served to convey world concern over the situation.

Pandit Nehru again addressed the General Assembly on November 10, 1961, at the conclusion of his official visit to the United States. By that time, contacts between the United States and the Soviet Union had been renewed at a high level, though tension remained high. Foreign mercenaries from the Congo had been expelled and the integrity of that country preserved, largely with the assistance of Indian peacekeeping forces. U Thant of Burma had been unanimously elected Acting Secretary- General of the United Nations. The address of the Prime Minister focussed on measures to promote peace and international cooperation.

These addresses reflect his strong support for the United Nations and his hopes for the strengthening of that Organisation as an instrument for international cooperation.

While he did not hesitate to criticise the failings of the Organisation, caused by the realities of international relations, he constantly emphasised, in these addresses and other statements, that the United Nations represented forces of peace and prevented many situations from developing into violent conflicts, apart from directing attention towards programmes of economic and social progress.

He was the first world statesman to draw world attention forcefully to the fact that entirely new thinking had become essential with the development of weapons of mass destruction.

"The choice today before the world is a choice which has never come to it before: it is a choice of self-extinction, practical extinction or survival.

"... under modern conditions either war must be ruled out, or the world, civilisation and humanity have to submit to the ending of all that they have laboured for over thousands of years.

"... there is no victory today for any country in a major war - only defeat and extermination for all."

While the addresses of Prime Minister Nehru have a great historic value, as early warnings of the dangers of the drift in great Power relations and the need to revitalise the United Nations, they are also of particular relevance today as the great Powers finally begin to move away from their disastrous confrontation and recognise the usefulness of the United Nations.

The new thinking that Pandit Nehru urged must lead to a total prohibition of nuclear weapons and a general and complete disarmament, as well as the widest international cooperation for the solution of human problems, many of which have been aggravated by four decades of the cold war. His view of the role of the United Nations is worth recalling today:

"The main purpose of the United Nations is to build up a world without war, a world based on the co-operation of nations and peoples. It is not merely a world where war is kept in check for a balancing of armed forces. It is much deeper than that. It is a world in which the major causes of war have been removed and social structures built up which further peaceful cooperation within a nation as well as between nations."

He recognised the vital importance for the United Nations of the backing of public opinion, and stressed that what it had accomplished was largely due to aroused public opinion...

E. S. Reddy Former Assistant Secretary-General of the United Nations

I. ADDRESS TO THE THIRD SESSION OF THE UNITES

NATIONS GENERAL ASSEMBLY, PARIS, NOVEMBER

3, 1948

I am grateful for the opportunity that has been given to me to address this great Assembly. I feel a little embarrassed and a little overwhelmed on this occasion, because this Assembly represents the world community, and, whether we who are present here are big men and women or small, we represent a mighty cause and something of the greatness of that falls upon us too, and makes us, for the moment, greater perhaps than we are.

Therefore, in venturing to address this Assembly, I feel embarrassed. You have been dealing with intricate and difficult problems, and I do not, and I would not, venture on this occasion to say anything about those great problems that confront you. You can carry the burdens and sorrows of the world.

Ends and Means

But I have often wondered whether, in dealing with those problems, the approach that is normally made to them is the right one. The Charter of the United Nations has laid down in noble language the principles and purposes of this great organisation. I do not think it would be possible to improve upon that language. The objectives are clear; our aim is clear; and yet, in looking at that aim, we lose ourselves often, if I may venture to say so, in smaller matters and forget the main objective that we were looking at. Sometimes it seems that the objective itself gets a little clouded.

I come from a country which, after a long struggle, though that struggle was a peaceful struggle, attained her freedom and her independence. In these long years of struggle we were taught by our great leader never to forget not only the objective we had, but also the methods whereby we should achieve those objectives. Always he laid stress on this, that it was not good enough to have a good objective, that it was equally important that the means of attaining those objectives were good; means were always as important as ends. You will permit me to repeat that here, because I am convinced that, however good the ends, the larger ends of the United Nations, or the lesser objectives which we may from time to time have before us, either as individual nations or as groups of nations, it is important that we should remember that the best of objectives may not be reached if our eyes are bloodshot and our minds clouded with passion.

Therefore, it becomes essential for us, for a while, to think more of how we are doing things than what we are aiming at, even though we should never forget what we are aiming at. It becomes necessary for us always to remember the principles and the purposes for which this great Assembly was formed.

Hatred and Violence

Now, a mere repetition of those principles and purposes would perhaps indicate to us how sometimes, with passion and prejudice, we swerve away from that path. This Assembly took shape after two mighty wars and as a consequence of those wars. What has been the lesson of those wars? Surely the lesson of those wars has been that out of hatred and violence you will not build peace. It is a contradiction in terms. The lesson of history, the long course of history, and more especially the lesson of the last two great wars which have devastated humanity, has been that out of hatred and violence only hatred and violence will come. We have got into a cycle of hatred and violence, and not the most brilliant debate will get you out of it, unless you look some other way and find some other means. It is obvious that if you continue in this cycle and have wars which this Assembly was especially meant to avoid and prevent, the result will not only be tremendous devastation all over the world, but non-achievement by any individual Power or group of its objective.

How, then, are we to proceed? It may be that it is difficult to get this hatred and prejudice and fear out of our minds. Nevertheless, unless we try to proceed in this way, to cast out this fear, we shall never succeed. Of that I am quite convinced.

Emergence of Asia and Struggle against Colonialism

You meet here, representatives of all nations of the world, or nearly all. Inevitably, you have behind you and before you the immediate great problems that confront more especially Europe, which has suffered so much.

May I say, as a representative of Asia, that we honour Europe for its culture and the great advance in human civilisation which it represents? May I say that we are equally interested in the solution of European problems; but may I also say that the world is something bigger than Europe, and you will not solve your problems by thinking that the problems of the world are mainly European problems? There are vast tracts of the world which may not in the past, for a few generations, have taken much part in world affairs. But they are awake; their people are moving and they have no intention whatever of being ignored or of being passed by.

That is a simple fact I think we have to remember, because unless you have the full picture of the world before you, you will not even understand the problem, and if you isolate any single problem in the world from the rest, you do not understand the problem. Today I do venture to submit that Asia counts in world affairs. Tomorrow it will count much more than today. Asia till recently was largely a prey to imperial domination and colonialism; a great part of it is free today, part of it still remains unfree; and it is an astonishing thing that any country should still venture to hold and to set forth the doctrine of colonialism, whether it

is under direct rule or whether it is indirectly maintained in some form or other. After all that has happened, there is going to be no mere objection to that, but active objection, an active struggle against any and every form of colonialism in any part of the world. That is the first thing to remember.

We in Asia, who have ourselves suffered all these evils of colonialism and of imperial domination, have committed ourselves inevitably to the freedom of every other colonial country. There are neighbouring countries of ours in Asia with whom we are intimately allied. We look at them with sympathy; we look at their struggle with sympathy. Any Power, great or small, which prevents the attainment of the freedom of those peoples does an ill turn to world peace.

Great countries like India who have passed out of that colonial stage do not conceive it possible that other countries should remain under the yoke of colonial rule.

Racial Equality

There is another problem which we in Asia regard as a vital problem, and it is a question to which I want to draw attention: that is the question of racial equality, which is something which is laid down in the provisions of the United Nations Charter. It is well to repeat that, because after all this question of racial equality has frequently been spoken about in the Assembly of the United Nations.

I do not think I need dwell on any particular aspect of that question, but I would remind this Assembly of the world-wide aspects of this question. Obviously there are large regions of the world which have suffered from this question of racial inequality. We also feel that there is no part of the world where it can be tolerated in the future, except perhaps because of superior force. If racial inequality is practised, if it is a menace to world peace and if it violates the principles of the United Nations Charter, to tolerate it is obviously to sow the seeds of conflict.

The effects of this inequality in the past have made themselves felt in Asia, Africa and other parts of the world much more than in Europe, leading towards a conflict in the future, and it is a problem which, if it is not properly understood, will not be solved.

Urgent Economic Problems

It is a strange thing that when the world lacks so many things, food and other necessities in many parts of the world and people are dying from hunger, the attention of this Assembly of nations is concentrated only on a number of political problems. There are economic problems also. I wonder if it would be possible for this Assembly to take a holiday for a while from some of the acute political problems which face it, and allow men’s minds to settle down and look at the vital

and urgent economic problems, and look at places in the world where food is lacking.

I feel that today the world is tied up in fears and apprehensions, some of them justified no doubt. But where a person feels fear, bad consequences and evil consequences follow. Fear is not a good companion. It is surprising to see that this sense of fear pervading great countries - fear, and grave fear of war, and fear of many things.

Well, I think that it is admitted, or it will be admitted, that no aggression of any kind can be tolerated, because the very idea of aggression must upset the balance and lead to conflict. Aggression of every type must be resisted.

There are other forms of fear; there is the fear of war. In existing circumstances it is difficult for people to say that they will not defend themselves, because ifthere is fear of aggression one has to defend oneself against aggression. We have to defend ourselves but even in defending ourselves, we must not submit ourselves to this Assembly without clean hands. It is easy to condemn people. Let us not do so. Who are there without blame, who cannot themselves be condemned? In a sense, of us all who are gathered here today in this continent of Europe, are there any who have not been guilty in many ways? We are all guilty men and women. While we are seeking points where error occurs, we should not forget that there is not one of us who is exempt from blame.

Banish Fear

If we proceed to this problem, and discuss in peace the psychology of fear, if we realise the consequences of what is happening, it is possible that this atmosphere of fear may be dissipated. Why should there be this fear of war? Let us prepare ourselves against any possible aggression, but let no one think that any nation, any community, can misbehave. The United Nations is here to prevent any fear or hurt, but at the same time let us banish all thought of an aggressive attitude, whether by word or deed.

However, I feel that few of us can altogether avoid this attitude, whether it is in the course of discussions before this Assembly or elsewhere. One tries to make one`s points by this sort of language. It is always easy to make one’s points in the course of a discussion, but there always rests a bitterness which complicates the problem still further. As I have already said, I ask this Assembly to remember that such great problems cannot be solved if our eyes are bloodshot and our minds are obscured by passion. I have no doubt that this Assembly is going to solve our problems. I am not afraid of the future. I have no fear in my mind, and I have no fear, even though India, from a military point of view, is of no great consequence. I am not afraid of the bigness of great Powers, and their armies, their fleets and their atom bombs. That is the lesson which my Master taught me. We stood as an unarmed people

against a great country and a powerful empire. We were supported and strengthened because throughout all this period we decided not to submit to evil, and I think that is the lesson which I have before me and which is before us today.

I do not know if it is possible to apply this to the problems which face the world today. It is a terrible problem but I think if we banish this fear, if we have confidence, even though we may take risks of trust rather than risk violent language, violent actions and in the end war, I think those risks are worth taking.

In any event, there are risks - and great risks. If it is a question of taking risks, why take risks which inevitably lead to greater conflict? Take the other risks, while always preparing yourself to meet any possible contingency that may arise.

India’s Approach

It is perhaps not very proper for me to address this great Assembly in such matters, because I have not been associated with it nor with all these different problems in any intimate degree. However, there would have been no point in my addressing you merely to repeat certain pious phrases. I feel strongly about this matter, and that is why I should like to present the views and wishes of the Indian people. And the Indian people happen to be three hundred and thirty millions in number; it is well to remember that. We have had a year of freedom and a year of difficulty. We have overcome many of those difficulties and we shall overcome the others. We propose to go ahead at a rapid pace. We propose to build and construct and be a power for peace and for the good of the world. We propose to meet every aggression, from whatever quarter it comes, in every possible way open to us.

However, we do not think that the problems of the world or of India can be solved by thinking in terms of aggression or war or violence. We are frail mortals, and we cannot always live up to the teaching of the great man who led our nation to freedom. But that lesson has sunk deep into our souls and so long as we remember it, I am sure we shall be on the right path. And, if I may venture to suggest this to the General Assembly, I think that if the essentials of that lesson are kept in mind, perhaps our approach to the problems of today will be different; perhaps the conflicts that always hang over us will appear a little less deep than they are and in fact gradually fade away.

I should like to state to this General Assembly, on behalf of my people and my Government, that we adhere completely and absolutely to the principles and purposes of the United Nations Charter and that we shall try, to the best of our ability, to work for the realisation of those principles and purposes.

Road towards Peace

In conclusion, may I congratulate the General Assembly on the resolution introduced by the delegation of Mexico which it has just passed? It is certainly a great resolution. If the General Assembly follows up that resolution, it will go a long way on the road toward peace and the solution of the problems that are before us. We may not solve those problems. No one can be optimistic enough to think that all problems will fade away simply if we feel good; that is not what I mean to say. The problems are difficult and intricate and they will take a lot of solving. But I do feel that our approach to those problems should not be the approach of anger and passion and fear. Then, perhaps, the problems will gradually appear in a different light. Perhaps, we shall understand the other side better; perhaps, the fear of one another will grow less in our minds, and then a solution may come. At any rate, even if the solution does not come, this pall of fear that surrounds us will grow less, and that in itself will be a partial solution of the world problem.

II. MESSAGE BROADCAST BY UNITED NATIONS RADIO, LAKE SUCCESS, NEW YORK, MAY 5, 1950

The proposal to limit the United Nations by the exclusion of some nations has surprised me greatly. Indeed, it seems to forget the very purpose and the very name of the United Nations. It is true that the high hopes with which the United Nations Organisation was started have not been fulfilled. At the same time, there can be no doubt that the mere fact of its existence has saved us from many dangers and conflicts. Also, there is no doubt that in the world of today it is the only hope of finding a way for peaceful cooperation among nations. If the United Nations ceases to be or if it radically changes its position and nature, then there is nothing left which would inspire hope for the future. We shall have to go through terrible experiences and face disasters again before we return to something which offers a forum for all nations, even though they differ from one another.

The whole conception of One World, however distant that One World may be, involves an organisation like the United Nations. To imagine that strict conformity to a single doctrine or approach can solve the problems of the world is to forget the lessons of history and to ignore the realities of today. Howeverdifficult the path, it has to be pursued by repeated attempts at cooperation on the part of all nations. Once that attempt is given up, the consequence can only be a preparation for conflict on a world-wide scale and, ultimately, the conflict itself.

Some people think that, in the circumstances of today, it is quite inevitable that the world should be divided up into two hostile camps and that every country should line up on this side or that. Hostility, no doubt, exists but there are many countries who refuse to line up in this way. These countries believe that neither the pressure of world events nor their own destiny requires this lining up on either side and they, therefore, maintain their separate identity and viewpoint and thus serve the causes they have at heart.

If any attempt is made to change the essential nature of the United Nations, it will not lead to another or a more powerful organisation which can work for peace. It would only mean the break-up of something that is actually and potentially valuable with nothing to take its place. I think, therefore, that the proposal to exclude any independent country from the United Nations is unwise and harmful.

III. ADDRESS TO DELEGATES TO UNITED NATIONS GENERAL ASSEMBLY, NEW YORK, DECEMBER 20, 1956

The United Nations has grown in the eleven years of its existence. This year, particularly, it has assumed an even more important position in world affairs than previously. Of course, even if the United Nations did not do anything wonderful, the mere fact of the United Nations itself is of the greatest significance to the world. But recently it has shown that it can face problems courageously and deal with them with a view to their ultimate solution.

Perhaps, of the many things that have happened in recent years, this is one of the most hopeful. It may be that the United Nations decides something occasionally which is not agreeable to some of you or to me. That is bound to happen. But the point is that there is some forum like this, representing the world community, which can deal with problems and, if not solve them suddenly by magic, can positively try to solve them and ultimately, I hope, succeed, and negatively prevent the consequences of no solution at all.

So this great responsibility and burden has fallen upon you. Although I have many burdens to carry in my country - and in a distant way all of us are associated with the work of the United Nations - nevertheless I have not had the privilege and honour of ever coming here as a delegate. I have heard of your activities and how, in spite of difficulties, in spite of apparent conflicts, gradually this sense of a world community conferring together through its elected representatives is not only happening but seizing the minds of people all over the world.

That, I think, is a great event. I hope that, gradually, each representative here -while, obviously, not forgetting the interests of his country - will begin to think that he is something more than the representative of his country, that he represents, in a small measure perhaps, the world community. I hope that this thinking in terms of the whole will gradually take the place of separate thinking, in terms of each country. Approach to Problems

Quite apart from the problems which you have to face, the thing that worries me often is the manner of facing these problems. It is because of that that I welcome this development - gradual, no doubt, and difficult - of a sense of facing the problems from the larger point of view of the world and of the principles which are laid down in the United Nations Charter and which should gradually be translated into effect in the world.

You will forgive me if I refer to something which has very powerfully influenced my own country. I represent a generation in my country which struggled for freedom in a particular way, under the guidance of Mahatma

Gandhi. The one major lesson that Mr. Gandhi impressed upon us, in season and out of season, was how to do things, apart from what we did. Objectives and ends we all have, but what is important is how to proceed in attaining an objective so as not to create a fresh problem in the attempt to solve one problem; never to deal even with the enemy in such a way as not leave a door open for friendship, for reconciliation.

In this respect our country and the United Kingdom - whatever our past history of conflict may have been - did set a good example when we came to an agreement resulting in the independence and freedom of India, and resulting, further, in friendship between the two countries. It is rather a unique example that we who, for generations past, had come into conflict with each other, with resultant feelings of ill will and hostility, nevertheless - having solved the problem of the independence of India - could forget that past of hostility and could be friends. Certainly, credit for this is due to both parties, but to some extent it is also certainly due to the manner of approach that we had under the guidance of Mr. Gandhi. Always he was telling us: "You are fighting for a principle - for independence. You are fighting against British imperialism; you are not fighting the British people; you are not fighting anyone British; be friendly with them."

There were many occasions in India when there was tremendous anger and bitterness at something that had been done; our people may have been shot down or beaten down in public streets. But on no occasion, even when passions were excited, do I remember that an Englishman could not walk unharmed through even a hostile crowd in India. That is rather remarkable.

I do not say that Indians are more peaceful or better than others. It is not that at all. They are as feeble specimens of humanity under stress and strain as any, but this repeated lesson had been driven into our heads. And once or twice, when our people misbehaved, Mr. Gandhi took a step which enraged us younger people at the time. He stopped the whole movement. He said, "You have misbehaved. Stop it. I do not care what the consequences are."

So, year after year, decade after decade, he trained us. I do not know if we became any better for the training, but a certain habit grew - a habit of thinking as well as a habit of action.

I gave that instance because I do feel that there is something in it, whether dealing with national or international problems. Wars come, and whether wars have been good or bad in the past may be argued. But after the war we often find that the problems that we have to face are more difficult than before the war. The problems have not been solved, even though victory has come. The question, therefore, is to solve problems and not have other problems - perhaps more difficult problems - afterwards.

We cannot afford to take a short-term view. We must look ahead, and the only way to look ahead assuredly is for some kind of world order - call it what you will; "one world", or whatever it may be - to emerge in this world of ours. There is no other way. That is obvious.

If that is so, nothing should be done, even in the excitement of the moment, which comes in the way of the evolution of that order. Nothing should be done which increases hostility, hatred and bitterness. There is plenty of hatred and bitterness in the world today. We all feel it. I feel it; you feel it. We cannot become angels, but nevertheless the actions we indulge in - in a larger way as nations, or as individuals - might perhaps be so controlled, without giving up a single principle or opinion that we may hold, as not to make the path of reconciliation difficult.

World Public Opinion

Recently we have had, apart from the normal major problems of the world, two developments, incidents, tragedies - call them what you will - which have engaged the attention of this august Assembly. Whether it is in Egypt or in Hungary, both were very important and very unfortunate happenings, and yet both, perhaps, having an element of good in them too, not in the act itself but in the consequences. Many things have emerged from these which personally I welcome - apart from the sorrow at the tragedies - and the one big thing that has emerged is that world opinion - represented in the United Nations Assembly and elsewhere - is today a strong enough factor not to tolerate what it considers wrong. That is a very important factor which, in future, will probably deter or make more difficult any such aberrations from the path of rectitude by any nation. Every country, weak or strong, will have to think twice before it does something which enrages world opinion. That is a good thing, and that itself shows this development of some kind of conscience of the world.

After all, wars and other conflicts take place essentially because something happens in the minds of men. In the constitution of UNESCO it is stated that wars begin in the minds of men. It is perfectly true. Therefore, it becomes important that any decision we may arrive at - and it should be according to principles no doubt - must not lead to greater bitterness. To some extent it might. An attempt should be made to avoid that. The attempt should be to solve the problem and not merely to exhibit our anger at something that has happened, although there may be cause for anger and annoyance. After all, we are working for the future. That future can only be of cooperation between countries based on freedom of nations and freedom of individuals.

Avoidance of War

There are these two problems before you, and they are being dealt with by the Assembly. I can offer no suggestion except what I have said in the way of an approach to them; that is, the way of tolerance. Tolerance does not mean carelessness; it does not mean just passivity. It means something active. It does not mean forgetting any principle that you stand for that is laid down in the Charter of the United Nations. It is of the greatest importance that the United Nations, as all of us, should always keep the Charter in mind. That is the basis.

It may be that you cannot give effect to the Charter quickly or suddenly because the world is imperfect. Nevertheless, step by step one should move in that direction. The first thing to remember and to strive for is to avoid a situation getting worse, and finally leading to major conflict because that means the destruction of all the values one holds.

Because of the development of various new types of weapons, war has really become an impossible proposition for any sane world or any sane country. Wars have been terribly bad previously, and we have seen that wars have not solved any question. Negatively they might have done something; positively, they have not solved anything. Far from solving anything, they may bring enormous destruction. So the very first thing to remember is the avoidance of war, and the avoidance of creating a situation which might drive the world into war. Nobody wants war, but perhaps we do not always think about creating situations which might ultimately result in the madness of war. That may perhaps be the rather negative side to this question.

The positive side consists in working actively for peaceful solutions based on principles and at the same time based on the future cooperation of the world. We have to live at peace with our neighbours. There is no other way to live. Today, with various developments, every country is practically the neighbour of the other. We therefore have to work for cooperation among all countries of the world.

Cold War is Negation of United Nations

Unfortunately, we have had what is called the cold war. The cold war is better than a hot war or a shooting war. It can be pulled back. When a shooting war begins, nothing can be pulled back until it exterminates a large part of the world. Nevertheless, surely the idea of the cold war is the very negation of what the United Nations stands for.

Cold wars mean nourishing the idea of war in the minds of men. If we go on nourishing the idea of war in the minds of men, then obviously there is always the danger of its bursting out from the minds to other activities.

Mr. Gandhi, as you know, was devoted to non-violence and preached non-violence all his life, and yet he said, "If you have a sword in your mind, it is better

to use it than to nurse it and nourish it in your mind all the time. Take it out, use it and throw it away, instead of being frustrated in yourselves and always thinking of the sword or the use of the sword and yet superficially trying to avoid it."

I submit to you that this idea of cold war is essentially, fundamentally wrong. It is immoral. It is opposed to all ideas of peace and cooperation.

It may be, of course, that because human nature is weak, countries may quarrel. That is a different matter. But let us at least be clear in our minds as to what the right way is and try to follow that.

Military Alliances are now out of Place

We have, as we know, all kinds of military alliances. It is not for me, especially on this occasion, to criticise them or to say that they are justified or unjustified. Nevertheless, since you have been gracious enough to ask me to speak to you, it would serve little purpose if I talked empty platitudes to you, and I want to place before you what I have in my own mind. I am quite sure that at the present moment, as we stand today, all these pacts and military alliances are completely out of place.

I would go a step further. They are unnecessary, even from the point of view of those people who have those pacts and alliances. I may admit for the sake of argument that they were necessary at an earlier stage when conditions were different, but in the circumstances of today. I do submit that these pacts and alliances do not add to the strength of any nation. They only make that country or some other country hostile. Thereby armaments are piled up, and disarmament becomes more and more difficult. Hatreds continue; in fact, a cold war continues.

If it is our objective, as it must be of any reasonable person, that we must have peace, then it follows necessarily that we must not have cold war. If we must not have cold war, then it follows necessarily that we must not buttress our idea of peace by past military establishments and pacts and alliances. All this seems to me to follow logically. It may be that you cannot suddenly give effect to your wishes. That is a different matter, and you must face it. But you must aim at that and state that you aim at that.

I have no doubt that all the peoples of the world are passionately desirous of peace. I doubt if there are any people anywhere - even those who sometimes talk rashly about these matters - who desire war. Certainly the common man all over the world desires peace passionately. If that is so, why should we not follow the path of peace? Why should we be led away by fears, apprehensions, hatreds and violence?

Presence of Foreign Forces and Bases Undesirable

We have seen and we know that the presence of foreign forces in a country is always an irritant; it is never liked by that country; it is abnormal.

It may be that an abnormal situation takes place because life is sometimes illogical and abnormal. But the point is that the presence of foreign forces in another country is abnormal and undesirable. It does not conduce even to producing that sense of security which it is meant to produce.

I am a layman, of course, and I know nothing about warfare - but I do possess some intelligence to consider these matters. I know that with the development of warfare as it is developing today, as it has developed and will develop, any war that takes place is likely to be a world war, with missiles hurled from vast distances. If that is so, even the military practice of having places dotted all over with armed forces and bases becomes unnecessary and becomes simply an irritant and an invitation to some other party to do the same, to enter into competition in evil and wickedness.

How are we to face this problem? I know that we cannot put an end to it by passing a resolution, even in the United Nations General Assembly. However, if we are clear in our aim, then surely we can work toward that end, even though it may take some time.

Problem of Disarmament

Connected with that, naturally, is the very important problem of disarmament. We all know how difficult it is. I remember that long ago the old League of Nations had a Preparatory Commission for Disarmament. It worked for years and produced dozens of fat volumes of arguments and discussions which the League of Nations itself considered. And it came to nothing.

You cannot, by any manner of disarmament, make a weak country strong or a non-industrial country the equal of an industrial country. You cannot make a country which is not scientifically advanced the equal of a country which is.

You can lessen the chances of war, the fear of war. Ultimately, of course, the entire question is - or at any rate, partly is - a question of confidence and of lessening the fear of one another. For that purpose, disarmament helps, although it does not equalise conditions. Dangers remain.

There is a powerful feeling for peace in every country and vast areas of the world which are backward, poverty-stricken and unhappy, and which passionately want progress, are having the world’s attention directed to their development. Surely, that is not only good in itself, but will reduce the sense of fear that pervades the world and oppresses us.

Countries Should be Independent

What, then, can our possible steps be? I feel that we must aim at two or three things.

One is that, according to the Charter, countries should be independent. Countries that are dominated by another country should cease to be so dominated. No country or, at any rate, very few countries in the world, can be said to be independent in the sense that they can do anything they like. There are restraining factors and quite rightly. In the final analysis, the United Nations itself is a restraining factor in regard to countries misbehaving or taking advantage of their so-called independence to interfere with the independence of others. Every country’s independence surely should be limited in this sense. The first thing, then, is to have this process of the independence of countries extended until it covers the whole world.

Armaments do not Ensure Security

Secondly, there is this idea that we can ensure security by increasing our armaments; this notion has been rather exposed recently, because obviously the other party can increase its armaments and so, in a sense, the balance of arms would vary but little. Total destruction may well be the result. Therefore, this maintenance of armed forces all over the world on foreign soil is basically wrong, even though such maintenance is with the agreement of the countries concerned. Those countries may agree to it through fear of somebody else, in order to seek protection, but it is not a good way of thinking.

If we could remove these armies and simultaneously bring about some measure of disarmament - although I admit a difficulty in doing so suddenly - I believe the atmosphere in the world would change completely. I think the natural result would be a much more rapid progress towards peace and the elimination of fear. Furthermore, I do not see how you can make progress so long as you, I and all of us are constantly afraid and are thinking of becoming more powerful than the other country, and thus speaking to the other country from a position of strength. Obviously, the other country thinks in the same way and there can be no great improvement in the situation.

I know that it can be said that all this involves risk to a particular nation or group of nations. I do not think there is any way to avoid this risk. Human life is full of risk and uncertainty and, certainly, the existing situation is full of risk and danger. Therefore, even if you look at it from the point of view of taking a minor risk to avoid a major one, such minor risk is an improvement. For my own part I am quite certain there is no risk.

Choice has to be made

We have seen in the world in the last two or three months how it reacts to what it considers evil-doing. That is one of the healthiest signs apparent. Even a country which might seem for the moment to be indulging in wrongful actions does so because it believes it can carry some part of world opinion with it. If it cannot carry such opinion, it is difficult for it to proceed. We have seen that even the biggest and the strongest of nations cannot impose their will against world opinion.

Therefore, we have developed a very strong protection against a country which acts wrongly. Why not adopt this protection instead of these armies and armaments and so on? Instead of countries having armed forces in other countries, ostensibly to protect them, why not do away with the system of military alliances and pacts, and face each other frankly and openly and, if there is a quarrel, deal with it in a normal way, endeavouring to settle it by argument - either in the United Nations or elsewhere?

We have come to a stage in the world when a choice has to be made. We really cannot go on following the old path which leads to no particular destination except the preservation of force and hatred.

I do feel strongly that the events in Egypt and Hungary have introduced in their own way a certain new phase in historical development. This phase of historical development must be dealt with by this august Assembly and by all countries with understanding and sympathy, not with anger nor with the desire to humiliate anybody, for then you get the psychology of cold war or war fever. Where you drive a party into war and the choice becomes one of humiliation and surrender -which few countries are prepared to accept - or war, that is a bad result to produce even though our motives may be good. If it leads to something wrong, something that we do not want, then we have erred.

To go back to what I ventured to suggest at the beginning, means are at least as important as ends; if the means are not right, the end is also likely to be not right, however much we may want it to be right. And therefore, here especially in this world Assembly to which all the nations of the world look, I hope an example will be set to the rest of the world in thinking always about the right means to be adopted in order to solve our problems. The means should always be peaceful, not merely in an external way in the non-use of armaments, but in the approach of the mind. That approach, I have no doubt, will create an entirely different atmosphere, a climate of peace which will help greatly in the solution of our problems.

IV. ADDRESS TO THE ASIAN-AFRICAN GROUP AT THE UNITED NATIONS, NEW YORK, DECEMBER 21, 1956

I wish to express my gratitude to you for this opportunity to meet the members of this group which has played such an increasing part at the headquarters of the United Nations and which represents the great continents of Asia and Africa. I am grateful to you also, Sir, for the very kind and generous sentiments you have expressed.

I do not quite remember when this group was first started - I am told more than five years ago - and as with everything which has reality behind, it did not start artificially, but grew out of circumstances which delegates from these countries had to face. Anyhow it has grown now, and that is something obviously important not only for our respective countries, but also for the United Nations.

It can powerfully affect the decisions of the United Nations this way or that way, and it can affect the policies of our respective countries to some extent. Some differences arise, I suppose, with all of us, in regard to various policies, which each country naturally has to determine for itself. Our representatives here may sometimes find it difficult to say or do something which might commit their countries without their countries having occasion to consider the questions that come up from day to day. But it is obvious that all of us who sometimes differ from each other, facing different problems in each country, have some common bonds, some common approaches to important questions which have led us to form this group.

Changes in Asia and Africa

This group took a greater shape and form after the Bandung Conference which represented countries of Asia and Africa. I have no doubt that this group, representing Asia and Africa, performs a historic function.

I am not myself very anxious for groups to be formed on a continental basis or a regional basis, which while on the one hand bringing some countries together, inevitably results in separating them to some extent from the others who are outside that group. But that argument, which may be valid in certain circumstances, does not apply to this particular group. This is a big enough group; it is a geographical group, even though there might be some differences amongst them, but representing more specially countries that might be called under-developed - the countries that should have greater attention for their development - the countries to which not enough importance was attached in the past.

One of the many changes since the war is a certain shift in the balances in the world due to changes in Asia and Africa, especially Asia. There is, however, a

tendency still for questions relating to even Asia and Africa, and much more so to questions outside that region, to be decided by countries outside Asia and Africa.

The old habit that Asian and African problems could be decided by others has no meaning at all today. But the old habit persists, and it is not an easy matter for people and countries to get out of the ways of thinking to which they had grown accustomed in the past. They have not adjusted themselves to the reality in Asia and Africa. Asia and Africa are not static but changing and developing. This basic fact should be kept in view.

I had the privilege of addressing the United Nations General Assembly about eight years ago in Paris, and I laid stress even then on this fact. I imagine the necessity for stressing this fact is not great today.

Recent months have seen many things happening in the world and more especially one particular matter which powerfully affects countries in Asia and Africa and others, a situation that arose in Egypt owing to invasion and intervention. I have no doubt it will powerfully affect the future.

Building for the Future

May I say a word or two about how perhaps we might help in the solution of these problems that affect us in Asia and Africa and even world problems which are outside our region but which affect us?

This group consists of distinguished representatives of countries functioning in the United Nations who have to grapple with problems with a view to their solution, not merely with a view to expressing opinion strongly this way or that way. After all, we are grappling with problems when we want to avoid war, when we want economic and political and social progres, and when we want to develop a feeling of good fellowship among ourselves and all other countries of the world.

The Bandung Conference was held for us to get together. It was not meant to be some kind of conference opposed to Europe or America. That was not our intention.

We are building for the future, not merely deciding problems on which votes might be taken in the U. N. today or tomorrow. We are building up a future not of conflict between continents, but a future of cooperation and good fellowship of free and independent nations. We should take no steps that take us into another direction. Things have happened in the world which have moved us greatly and have angered us, yet anger does not help us in solving the problems. The angered actions of today may be stumbling blocks of tomorrow.

This juncture of history - which I consider a very important juncture because I do believe that we have arrived at a certain phase in historical development which

is of great importance - may well lead us away from all the troubles of the "Cold War" and conflict between nations, towards a somewhat better and cooperative future.

I do not say that this will happen suddenly, but I do say that something has been happening, which has been more evident lately, and we should take advantage of it. It is obvious that each country can play a helpful role, and the U. N. can play the most helpful role of all. This group can play an important role, not only by pressing the claim of Asian and African countries, but in doing so impressing the world that we are working not merely in an angry way reflecting the passions of the moment, but that we have in view the future which we and others will inherit.

I do trust that this may be kept in view, that the prestige of this group will rise and that it will wield more influence than its votes in the General Assembly, because we stand for something constructive and not destructive. We want constructive efforts to solve the problems of the world.

May I finally express my great pleasure at some of the recent admissions of members to the United Nations and to this group, including Japan which came in a few days ago. A little before that Morocco and Tunisia and Sudan came in, and I have no doubt that these countries will play a very important part in the United Nations and more especially in this group.

I am very grateful to you, friends, for this opportunity to meet you and say a few words to you.

V. ADDRESS TO THE COMMONWEALTH GROUP AT THE UNITED NATIONS, NEW YORK, DECEMBER 21, 1956

Mr. Pearson, Ladies and Gentlemen,

As you know, I have come to this great city and great institution just for two days, and I have had a large number of engagements, but I am particularly glad that it was possible for me to come here for a short time and meet the representatives of the Commonwealth at the United Nations. I know that the Commonwealth group here meets from time to time to discuss matters and express their respective opinions. I think that is a good thing. It is not enough merely to deliver formal speeches at the United Nations. It is much more important that we should discuss problems and matters in a more informal way amongst ourselves. That helps at least to understand the other’s position, even if one does not wholly agree, and that is a great thing.

You have just referred, Mr. Pearson, to certain statements of mine in regard to the Commonwealth during the last two or three months. I spoke in our own Parliament on several occasions about the Commonwealth and made perfectly clear what the attitude of our Government is to it, in spite of differences of opinion on important matters. I do attach importance to this Commonwealth connection which I think is not only good for ourselves, but is good also to the larger cause of peace that we represent.

There are far too many disruptive tendencies in the world: any tendency which brings together rather than separates is to be welcomed. The Commonwealth represents such a powerful tendency and shows vitality; it can help in our having many common approaches and common ways of working in spite of our differences.

I hope that these meetings of your group here will continue and will help each one of us to thrash out problems and reach agreements if possible; and even if we differ, to agree to differ and remain friends and associates in the Commonwealth.

VI. ADDRESS TO THE FIFTEENTH SESSION OF THE UNITED NATIONS GENERAL ASSEMBLY, NEW YORK,

OCTOBER 3, 1960

I am a newcomer to this Assembly and not accustomed to its ways and conventions. I seek, therefore, the indulgence of the President, and the indulgence of the members of the Assembly for what I have to say.

I have listened attentively and with respect to many of the speeches here, and sometimes I have felt as if I were being buffeted by the icy winds of the cold war. Coming from a warm country, I have shivered occasionally at these cold blasts.

Sitting here in this Assembly chamber, an old memory comes back to me. In the fateful summer of 1938 I was a visitor at a meeting of the League of Nations in Geneva. Hitler was advancing then and holding out threats of war. There was mobilisation in many parts of Europe and the tramp of armoured men was heard, but even so the League of Nations appeared to be unconcerned with the shadow of war and discussed all manner of topics but not the most vital subject of the day.

War did not start then. It was a year later that it descended upon the world with all its thunder and destructive fury. After many years of carnage that war ended and a new age, the atomic age, was ushered in by the terrible experiences of Hiroshima and Nagasaki. Fresh from these horrors the minds of men turned to thoughts of peace and there was a passionate desire to put an end to war itself.

Tribute to the United Nations

The United Nations took birth on a note of high idealism, embodied in the noble wording of the Charter. There was this aspect of idealism, but there was also a realisation of the state of the post-war world as it was then, and so provision was made in the structure of the Organisation to balance certain conflicting urges. There were the permanent members of the Security Council and the provision for great Power unanimity. All this was not very logical, but it represented certain realities of the world as it was. Because of this we accepted it. At that time many large areas in Asia, and even more so in Africa, were not represented in the United Nations as they were under colonial domination. Since then the colonial part of the world has shrunk greatly and we welcome here many countries from Africa in their new freedom. The United Nations has become progressively more representative, but we must remember that even now it is not fully so.

Colonialism still has its strong footholds in some parts and racialism and racial domination are still prevalent, more especially in Africa.

During these past fifteen years the United Nations has often been criticised for its structure and for some of its activities. These criticisms have often had some

justification behind them, but looking at the broad picture I think that we can definitely say that the United Nations has amply justified its existence and repeatedly prevented our recurrent crises from developing into war. It has played a great role, and it is a little difficult now to think of this troubled world without the United Nations. If it has defects, those defects lie in the world situation itself which, inevitably, it mirrors. If there had been no United Nations today, our first task would have been to create something of that kind. I should like, therefore, to pay my tribute to the work of the United Nations as a whole, even though I might criticise some aspects of it from time to time.

Move Forward to Full Cooperation among Nations

The structure of the United Nations when it started was weighted in favour of Europe and the Americas. It did not seem to us to be fair to the countries of Asia and Africa, but we appreciated the difficulties of the situation and did not press for any changes. With the growth of the United Nations and with more countries coming into it, that structure today is still more unbalanced.

Even so, we wish to proceed slowly and with agreement and not to press for any change which would involve an immediate amendment of the Charter and the raising of heated controversies. Unfortunately, we live in a split world which is constantly coming up against the basic assumptions of the United Nations. We have to bear with this and try to move ever more forward to that conception of full cooperation between nations. That cooperation does not and must not mean any domination of one country by another, any coercion or compulsion forcing any country to line up with another country. Each country has something to give and something to take from others. The moment coercion is exercised, that country’sfreedom is not only impaired but also its growth suffers.

We have to acknowledge that there is great diversity in the world and this variety is good and is to be encouraged, so that each country may grow and its creative impulse may have full play in accordance with its own genius.

Hundreds and thousands of years of past history have conditioned us in our respective countries, and our roots go deep down into the soil. If these roots are pulled out, we wither, but if these roots remain strong and we allow the winds from the four quarters to blow in upon us, then they will yield branch and flowerand fruit.

World Without War

Many of the speakers from this forum have surveyed the world scene and spoken on a variety of problems. I should like to concentrate on what I consider to be the basic problem of all. If necessity arises we may, with the permission of the President, intervene later with regard to other problems.

My own mind is naturally filled with the problems of my own country and our passionate desire to develop and put an end to the poverty and low standards which have been a curse to our hundreds of millions of people. To that end we labour, as indeed other under-developed countries are also doing.

Seated here in this tremendous and impressive city of New York, with all the achievements of modern science, technology and human effort, my mind often goes back to our villages in India and my countrymen who live there. We have no desire to imitate or to compete with any other country, but we are firmly resolved to raise the standards of our people and give them the opportunities to lead a good life. Even though this fills our minds, I do not propose to speak to you on this subject here because there is something else that is of even greater importance, that is, peace.

Without peace all our dreams vanish and are reduced to ashes. The Charter of the United Nations declares our determination "to save succeeding generations from the scourge of war", and "to reaffirm faith in fundamental human rights... and for these ends to practise tolerance and live together in peace and with one another as good neighbours."

The main purpose of the United Nations is to build up a world without war, a world based on the co operation of nations and peoples. It is not merely a world where war is kept in check for a balancing of armed forces. It is much deeper than that. It is a world from which the major causes of war have been removed and social structures built up which further peaceful cooperation within a nation as well as between nations.

In the preamble of the Constitution of the United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organisation it is stated that wars begin in the minds of men. That is essentially true, and ultimately it is necessary to bring about this change in our minds and to remove fears and apprehensions, hatreds and suspicions.

Disarmament is a part of this process for it will create an atmosphere helpful to cooperation. But it is only a step towards our objective, a part of the larger effort to rid the world of war and the causes of war. In the present context, however, disarmament becomes of very special importance for us all, overriding all others. But we must always remember that even in pursuing disarmament we have to keep in view our larger purpose.

Choice is between Annihilation and Peaceful Co-existence

For many years past there has been talk of disarmament, and some progress has undoubtedly been made in so far as plans and proposals are concerned. But still we find that the armaments race continues, and so also the effort to find ever more powerful engines of destruction. Fear and hatred overshadow the world. If even a

small part of this effort was directed to the search for peace, probably the problem of disarmament would have been solved by this time. Apart from the moral imperative of peace, every practical consideration leads us to that conclusion, for as everyone knows, the choice today in this nuclear age is one between utter annihilation and destruction of civilisation, or of some way to have peaceful co-existence between nations. There is no middle way.

The world consists of a great variety of nations and peoples differing in their ideas and urges and in their economic development. All of them desire peace and progress for their people, and yet many of them are afraid of each other andtherefore cannot concentrate on the quest for peace. We must recognise this variety of opinion and objectives in the world and not seek to coerce or compel others to function according to our own particular way. The moment there is an attempt at coercion, there is fear and conflict and the seeds of war are sown. That is the basic philosophy underlying the attempt to avoid military or other violent methods for the solution of problems. That is the main reason which impels those countries who are called "unaligned" to avoid military pacts.

If war then is an abomination and the ultimate crime which has to be avoided and combated, then we must fashion our minds and policies accordingly and not hesitate because of our fears to take steps forward. There may be risks but the greatest risk is to allow the present dangerous drift to continue. To achieve peace we have to try to develop a climate of peace and tolerance and avoid speech and action which tends to increase fear and hatred.

United Nations and Disarmament

It may not be possible to reach full disarmament in one step, though every step should be conditioned to that end. Much has already been done in these discussions of disarmament; but the sands of time run out and we dare not play about with this or delay its consideration. That, indeed, is the main duty of the United Nations today and if it fails in this, the United Nations fails in its main purpose.

We live in an age of great revolutionary changes brought about by the advance of science and technology. Therein lies hope for the world and also the danger of sudden death. Because of these advances the time we have for controlling the forces of destruction is strictly limited. If within the next three or four years effective disarmament is not agreed to and implemented, then it may be too late and all the good will in the world will not be able to stop the drift to certain disaster. We may not therefore delay or postpone the consideration of this vital problem.

In the context of things today, two great nations, the United States and the Soviet Union, hold the key to war and peace. Theirs is a great responsibility. But

every country, small or big, is concerned in this matter of peace and war and therefore every country must shoulder this responsibility and work to this end.

It is easy to criticise the action or inaction of any country; but this criticism does not help us much; it only increases tension and fear, and nations take up rigid attitudes from which it is difficult to dislodge them. The issues before the world are too vital to be left to a few countries only or to be affected by personal likes or dislikes. In order to deal with these big issues effectively we have to take big and impersonal views. It is only the United Nations as a whole that can ultimately solve this problem. Therefore, while all efforts towards disarmament must be welcomed, the United Nations should be closely associated with them.

The question of disarmament has been considered at various levels. There is general disarmament and the ending of test explosions of nuclear and thermo-nuclear weapons. So far as test explosions are concerned, considerable progress has been made by the Conference which has been meeting in Geneva. Indeed, it would appear that an agreement has been reached there on many basic issues and only a little more effort is needed to complete this agreement. I suggest that a final agreement on the subject should be reached as early as possible. That is not, strictly speaking, disarmament, but undoubtedly any such agreement will bring a large measure of relief to the world.

Disarmament must include the prohibition of the manufacture, storage and use of weapons of mass destruction, as well as the progressive limitation of conventional weapons. It is well to remember that there is a great deal of common ground already covered, and the various proposals made by different countries indicate this common ground, but certain important questions have not yet been solved. Behind all this lies the fear of a surprise attack and of any one country becoming stronger than the other in the process of disarmament. It is admitted that disarmament should take place in such stages as to maintain broadly the balance of armed power. It is on this basis only that success can be achieved and this pervading sense of fear countered.

There is an argument as to whether disarmament should precede controls or whether controls should precede disarmament. This a strange argument because it is perfectly clear that disarmament without controls is not a feasible proposition. It is even more clear that controls without disarmament have no meaning. The whole conception of controls comes in only because of disarmament. It is not proposed, I hope, to have controls of existing armaments and thus in a way to perpetuate those armaments. It must therefore be clearly understood that disarmament and a machinery for control must go together, and neither of these can be taken up singly. It seems very extraordinary to me that great nations should argue about priorities in this matter and make that a reason for not going ahead. Therefore, both questions should be tackled simultaneously and as parts of a single problem.

Success may not come immediately, but it is, I think, of the greatest importance that there should be no gap, no discontinuity, in our dealing with this problem. Once there is discontinuity, this will lead to a rapid deterioration of the present situation and it will be much more difficult to start afresh.

A proposal has been made that this question of disarmament should be referred to a group of experts. One can have no objection to such a reference but, in fact, experts have been considering this matter during the past many years and we have the advantage of their views. In any event, any reference to a committee of experts should not lead to any postponement of the major issue. Any such delay would be disastrous. Possibly while the major issues are being considered by the United Nations commissions or other committees, a reference of any particular special aspect might be made to the experts. What is important is that the United Nations at this present juncture should ensure that there is adequate machinery for promoting disarmament and this machinery should function continuously from now onwards.

The fear of surprise attacks or accidental happenings leading to dangerous consequences is undoubtedly present. That itself is a reflection of the climate of cold war in which unfortunately we are living. The best way to deal with this fear is to reduce this international tension and create an atmosphere which will make it very difficult for any surprise attack to take place. In that atmosphere, even some accidental happening may not lead to a final crisis.

In addition to this, such other steps as may be considered necessary for the prevention of surprise attacks should be taken. Thus, if there is an agreement on the subject of nuclear tests and the use of vehicles, immediately the danger from surprise attacks will be greatly lessened.

Ferment in Africa

While disarmament is by far the most important and urgent problem before the United Nations and is a subject which brooks no delay, we have to face today a situation in Africa, in the Congo, which has led the United Nations to assume heavy and novel responsibilities. Everyone present here, I am sure, warmly welcomes the coming of independence to many parts of Africa and to many peoples there who have suffered untold agony for ages past. We can see very well that the United Nations has shown its readiness to help them in various ways.

There are three aspects of these African problems. First, there is the full implementation of the independence and freedom that have been achieved. Secondly, there is the liberation of those countries in Africa which are still under colonial domination. This has become an urgent task. Today, some of these countries are almost cut off from the outside world and even news is not allowed to reach us. From such accounts as we have, the fate of the people there is even worse than we have known in other parts of Africa. Thirdly, there is the question

of some countries in Africa which are independent, but where that freedom is confined to a minority and the great majority have no share in it and, indeed, are suppressed politically, socially and racially in defiance of everything that the United Nations and the world community stand for. Racialism and the doctrine of the master race dominating over others can be tolerated no longer and can only lead to vast racial conflicts.

Recent developments in Africa have indicated the great danger of delay. It is not possible any longer to maintain colonial domination in any of these countries, and I think it is the duty and the basic responsibility of the United Nations to expedite this freedom. There is a tremendous ferment all over the continent of Africa, and this has to be recognised and appreciated and met with foresight and wisdom.

United Nations Role in the Congo

The question of the Republic of the Congo has come before us especially and cast on the United Nations difficult responsibilities. The first thing that strikes one is the utter failure of the colonial system which left the Congo in its present state. Long years of colonial rule resulted in extracting vast wealth from that country for the enrichment of the colonial Power, while the people of the country remained utterly poor and backward.

What is the role of the United Nations in the Congo? The situation there is a complicated and frequently changing one, and it is not always easy to know what is happening. Disruptive forces have been let loose and have been encouraged by people who do not wish well to this newly independent State. Some footholds of the old colonialism are still engaged in working to this end. It appears that many thousands of Belgians, including military men, are still in the Congo, more especially in Katanga Province. Because of past colonial history, this is particularly unfortunate and is likely to be considered a continuation of occupation, by whatever name it may be called. Also, it is an encouragement to the disruption of the State.

We must realise that it is essential to maintain the integrity of the Congo for, if there is disintegration of the State, this is bound to lead to internal civil war on a large scale. There will be no peace in the Congo except on the basis of the integrity of the State. Foreign countries must particularly avoid any interference in these internal affairs or encouragement to one faction against another.

The role of the United Nations is a mediatory one: to reconcile and to help in the proper functioning of the Central Government. Help in the development of the Congo is again a tremendous and long-term problem. Ultimately it is the people of the Congo who will have to produce their own leadership, whether it is good or bad. Leadership cannot be imposed, and any attempt to do so will lead to conflict.

The United Nations obviously cannot act all the time as policeman, nor should any outside Power intervene.

There is at present an elected Parliament in the Congo, though it does not appear to be functioning. I think that it should be the function of the United Nations to help this Parliament to meet and function so that, out of its deliberations, the problems of the Congo may be dealt with by the people themselves. Decisions must be those of the Parliament as representing the people of the Congo, and not of others. The functioning of Parliament may itself lead tothe ironing out of internal differences. I hope that it will be possible soon for the Congo to take its place in the Assembly of the United Nations.

The Security Council has repeatedly laid stress on Belgian military personnel’sleaving the Congo. These decisions have apparently not been given full effect. This is highly undesirable. It seems to me of great importance, in view both of past history and present conditions, that every type of Belgian military or semi-military personnel should leave the Congo. The General Assembly might well consider sending a delegation to the Congo to find out what foreign troops or other personnel, apart from those sent on behalf of the United Nations, are still there and how far they are interfering in local affairs.

Recently an emergency special session of the General Assembly considered the situation in the Congo and made certain suggestions. I think that the resolution adopted by the emergency special session has rightly indicated the broad lines of approach, and the basic principles laid down in it should be implemented.

Adapt United Nations Machinery

The Congo situation has emphasised the increasing responsibilities of the United Nations. Not only have military forces been sent there, but the problem of the development of a huge country has become partly the responsibility of the United Nations. These responsibilities cannot be shirked, and it may have to be considered how best to shoulder these responsibilities.

Two aspects have to be borne in mind. The broad policies in these grave matters must be laid down by the General Assembly or by the Security Council. In so far as executive action is concerned, it would not be desirable for the executive to be weakened when frequent and rapid decisions have to be made. That would mean an abdication of the responsibilities undertaken by the United Nations.

If the executive itself is split up and pulls in different directions, it will not be able to function adequately or with speed. For that reason, the executive should be given authority to act within the terms of the directions issued. At the same time the executive has to keep in view all the time the impact of various forces in the world, for we must realise that unfortunately we live in a world where there are

many pulls in different directions. The Secretary-General might well consider what organisational steps should be taken to deal adequately with this novel situation.

It has been suggested that some structural changes should take place in theUnited Nations. Probably some changes would be desirable, as I have indicated above, and because of the emergence of many independent countries in Asia and Africa. But any attempt at bringing about these structural changes by an amendment of the Charter at the present juncture is likely to raise many controversial questions and thus add greatly to the difficulties we face.

It should be possible for us, even within the terms of the Charter, to adapt the United Nations machinery to meet situations as they arise, in view more especially of the increasing responsibilities of the United Nations.

If, as I earnestly hope, disarmament makes progress, then another domain of vast responsibility will come to the United Nations. It will have to be carefully considered how this responsibility is to be discharged. Possibly several special commissions, working together under the umbrella of the United Nations, might be charged with this task.

I have referred to the situation in Africa and to the Congo, as it is an immediate issue for us, but I should like to make it clear that neither this immediate issue nor any other should be allowed to delay the consideration of what I consider the most vital issue facing us in the world, that is, the disarmament issue.

Representation of China

I do not propose to deal with many other matters here but, in view of the controversy that is at present going on in the General Assembly, I should like to refer briefly to the question of the proper representation of China in the United Nations. For a number of years India has brought this issue before the United Nations because we have felt that it was not only improper for this great and powerful country to remain unrepresented but that this had an urgent bearing on all world problems, and especially those of disarmament.

We hold that all countries must be represented in the United Nations. We have welcomed during this session many new countries. It appears most extraordinary that any argument should be advanced to keep out China and to give the seat meant for China to those who certainly do not and cannot represent China.

It is well known that we in India have had, and are having, a controversy with the Government of the People’s Republic of China about our frontiers. In spite of that controversy, we continue to feel that proper representation of the People’sRepublic of China in the United Nations is essential, and the longer we delay it the more harm we cause to the United Nations and to the consideration of the

major problems we have before us. This is not a question of liking or disliking, but of doing the right and proper thing.

Membership of Mongolia

In this connexion, I should like to mention another country, Mongolia. When we are, rightly, admitting so many countries to the United Nations, why should Mongolia be left out? What wrong has it done, what violation of the Charter? Here is a quiet and peaceful people working hard for its progress, and it seems to me utterly wrong from any point of principle to exclude it from this great Organisation.

India has a special sentiment in regard to Mongolia, because our relations go back into the distant past of more than 1,500 years. Even now there are many evidences of those old contacts and friendly relations between these two countries. I would earnestly recommend that Mongolia be accepted in this world assembly of nations.

Algerian Freedom

There is one other matter to which I should like to refer, and that is Algeria. It has been a pain and a torment to many of us in Asia, as in Africa and possibly elsewhere, to witness this continuing tragedy of a brave people fighting for its freedom. Many arguments have been advanced and many difficulties pointed out, but the basic fact is that the people have struggled continuously for many years at tremendous sacrifice and against heavy odds to attain independence. Once or twice it appeared that the struggle might end satisfactorily in freedom by the exercise of self-determination, but the moment slipped by and the tragedy continued.

I am convinced that every country in Asia and Africa and, I believe, many countries in other continents also, are deeply concerned over this matter and hope earnestly that this terrible war will end, bringing freedom in its train for the Algerian people. This is an urgent problem to which the United Nations must address itself in order to bring about an early solution.

Five-nation Resolution

Two or three days ago I presented, on behalf of Ghana, the United Arab Republic, Indonesia, Yugoslavia and India, a resolution to the General Assembly. That resolution is a simple one and requires little argument to support it. It does not seek to prejudge any issue. It does not seek to bring pressure to bear on any country or individual. There is no cynicism in it. The main purpose of that resolution is to avoid a deadlock in the international situation. Every representative present here knows how unsatisfactory that situation is today and

how gradually every door and window for the discussion of vital issues is being closed and bolted.

As the resolution says, we are deeply concerned with the recent deterioration in international relations which threatens the world with grave consequences. There can be no doubt that people everywhere in the world look to the Assembly to take some step to help to ease the situation and lessen world tension. If the Assembly is unable to take that step, there will be utter disappointment everywhere, and not only will the deadlock continue but there will be a drift in a direction from which it will become increasingly difficult to turn back.

The Assembly cannot allow itself to be paralysed in a matter of such vital importance. The responsibility for this deadlock has to be shared by all of us, but in the circumstances as they exist in the world today a great deal depends upon the two mighty nations, the United States and the Soviet Union, and if even a small step could be taken by them the world would heave a sigh of relief. We do not expect that by the renewal of contacts between these two great countries some solution is likely to emerge. We do not underrate the difficulties. Realizing all this, and after giving a great deal of thought to these matters, we decided to share our apprehension with the Assembly and to suggest this step which undoubtedly will help to ease tension.

The resolution has not been placed before this Assembly to add to the controversies already existing, nor to embarrass anyone, but solely with the desire, anxiously felt, that something must be done. We cannot meet here in this Assembly and sit helplessly by, watching the world drift in a direction which can only end in catastrophe.

Last night I received a letter from the President of the United States in which he was good enough to deal with this resolution. I presume that the other sponsors of this resolution have also received a similar reply. This reply has appeared in the Press. I am grateful to the President for writing to me in reply immediately after receiving our communication. Although this reply does not indicate that any contacts such as we have recommended are likely to take place in the near future, I should like to point out to this Assembly that the President has not wholly rejected the idea.

The door is still open for consideration, and the President of the United States has expressed his deep anxiety to help in the lessening of international tensions. The President has pointed out that:

"... the chief problems in the world today are not due to differences between the Soviet Union and the United States alone, and therefore are not possible of solution on a bilateral basis.

"The questions which are disrupting the world at the present time are of immediate and vital concern to other nations as well."

May I respectfully express my complete agreement with what the President has said? We are convinced that these great questions cannot be dealt with on a bilateral basis, or even by a group of countries. They are of immediate and vital concern to the entire world and to all those who have gathered here at this General Assembly session from the four corners of the earth. It was because of this feeling that some of us ventured to put this resolution before the General Assembly. If the matter were of concern only to two countries, then perhaps no necessity would have arisen for us to raise it here.

Nor did we think that a mere renewal of contacts would lead to some magical solution. Such a solution will come only after long and arduous labour in which many countries participate. But we did think that, in this present situation of dangerous drift, even a small approach on behalf of the two great representatives of two great countries would make a difference and might mark a turn of the tide.

Oppressed by the growing anger and bitterness in international relations, we wanted to find some way out, so that further consideration might be given to these problems. We have suggested no remedy, no particular solution, in our draft resolution. But we did feel, and we still feel, that the General Assembly should consider this problem and try its utmost to find a way to remove the new barriers that have arisen.

As the President of the United States has rightly stated, the importance of these matters is such as to go beyond personal or official relations between any two individuals. We are dealing with the future of humanity, and no effort which might improve the present situation should be left undone. It was with that intention that we put forward the resolution, as a part of the efforts that should be made to open the door for future consultations, not only between the two eminent individuals who are mentioned in the resolution, but by the world community.

I earnestly appeal to the General Assembly to adopt the resolution unanimously at an early date, and I trust that it will do so.

Labour for Peace

In this world, enveloped and bedevilled by the cold war and all its progeny, with problems awaiting urgent solution, I have ventured to add my voice in appeal. I do believe that the vast majority of people in every country want us to labour for peace and to succeed. Whether we are large or small, we have to face large issues, issues vital to the future of humanity. Everything else is of lesser importance than this major question.

I am absolutely convinced that we shall never solve this question by war or by the mental approach which envisages war and prepares for it. I am equally convinced that if we aim at the right ends right means must be employed. Good will not emerge out of evil methods. That was a lesson which our great leader, Gandhi, taught us - and, though we in India have failed in many ways in following his advice, something of his message still clings to our minds and hearts.

In ages long past, a great son of India, the Buddha, said that the only real victory is one in which all are equally victorious and there is defeat for no one. In the world today, that is the only practical victory. Any other way will lead to disaster. It is therefore this real victory of peace, in which all are winners, that I should like the Assembly to keep before it and endeavour to achieve.

VII. SPEECHES ON FIVE-POWER RESOLUTION FOR EASING WORLD TENSION, OCTOBER 5, 1960

A. Speech on the Australian Amendment

I should like at the beginning to say that I welcome the small amendment to the five-Power resolution which was proposed by the Foreign Minister of the United Arab Republic. This amendment makes no effective change, but I think it is a happier way of putting forward the idea contained in the draft resolution.

Some three or four days ago, when it was my privilege to put forward this resolution from five nations before the Assembly, I expressed the hope that it would be unanimously accepted. It did not seem to me reasonably possible that any member of this Assembly could object to that resolution. It is simple. It is straightforward. There is nothing contained in it against this person or that person or this group or that group. But it does represent a strong desire, a passionate desire, to get things moving. It does represent the feeling that this Assembly should not sit by helplessly watching, paralysed, as if it could not act. It represented something to do - not much, maybe; but it might come to something.

Nothing can be worse than this Assembly arriving at a stage where it cannot move and can only deliver speeches about general problems. Therefore, it was with considerable surprise that I received the next day or the day after the amendment submitted by Australia. I read it with care. I found some difficulty in understanding it. I read it again. And the more I read it the more surprised I was that any member of the Assembly should have put this forward as an amendment.

Not an Amendment

I venture to place before this Assembly my reasons for this. First of all, it seemed to me, quite patently, that it had nothing to do by way of amending the proposition which we had put forward. It is not an amendment. Perhaps I do not know the rules of this Assembly, but it is not an amendment. The Prime Minister of Australia, in his speech, made it quite clear that it is not an amendment, although he may call it so. Therefore, it is not an amendment.

It may be, of course, a separate draft resolution in some form or another. It might have been brought forward and considered by the Assembly. Of course, if it was so considered, I would have much to say about it and against it; but, anyhow, it might have been considered separately. It is not an amendment to this resolution which the five nations have put forward. I could not understand this departure from the normal workings of this Assembly. I could not quite understand what meaning lay behind this so-called amendment.

I have the greatest respect for the Prime Minister of Australia, more especially for his keen mind and ability. I wondered if that keen mind and ability had not

tried to cover up, with a jumble of words, something which had no meaning at all - or the wrong meaning. So I was particularly keen and anxious to listen to the Prime Minister of Australia in order that he might throw some light on this aspect of this question which I had failed to understand. And I listened to him with great care. And the more I listened the more confused I grew. And the more I listened the more I realised that there is no substantive idea in this motion, but some idea of just dislike of what the five-nation resolution had suggested. Why dislike it? That, I could not understand.

He said, clearly, that he dissented from the last paragraph of that resolution - a very big paragraph, a very innocuous one; nevertheless, a paragraph with very considerable meaning. In fact, the whole draft resolution led up to that; the rest is a preamble. Therefore, he dissented from the very basis of this draft resolution. He came forward with his amendment to it, and he said that the effect of this draft resolution, if carried, would be undesirable. I wondered if I had understood him correctly or if I had made some mistake in regard to what he said. Why, I ask the Prime Minister, from any point of view, from any approach, could the adoption of this resolution possibly be undesirable? I have given thought to this matter, and I am quite unable to understand this reasoning. Therefore, it must be undesirable from some point of view of which I am not aware. It must be undesirable from some point of view which has nothing to do with this resolution. That is the conclusion I arrived at.

I would put to the Assembly, with respect and without meaning offence: is this rather trivial way of dealing with this not only important but vital question which is shaking the world - the question of world conflict and how to avoid it -rendered proper, by calling it an amendment of the resolution? I submit that we are discussing - although we are using simple words here - very important matters, matters affecting this Assembly, matters affecting the world.

The Prime Minister, in his argument, talked about a conference. Why does our resolution suggest a meeting or a conference? I would beg him to read the resolution again and again, because he has failed to understand it. It does not necessarily suggest a conference or a meeting. It suggests a renewal contacts.

Then again, he asked, why should two people meet? Why should not four meet? Why dismiss the United Kingdom and France? Why omit them from summit talks? These are quotations which I took down when he was speaking. Why all this? he asked. Well, simply because there is no "why?" about it -because nobody is dismissing anybody, or pushing anybody out, or suggesting it. He has again missed the point of the resolution and has considered, possibly, that there is some kind of, shall I say, secret motive behind this. I really regret that any such idea should have gone abroad.

The draft resolution was put forward in all good faith for the purposes named in it, and to suspect it of some secret device to push somebody out, or not to pay

adequate respect to some country, is not fair of the honourable gentleman. Indeed, I greatly regret to say that the Prime Minister of Australia has done very little justice to himself in proposing this amendment or in making the speech he did. And I am sure that the Assembly will not look at this matter from the superficial points of view which the Prime Minister put forward, but will consider it from the basic point of view which is of the highest importance to the Assembly and to the world.

Role of the Assembly

Let us look at this amendment, which I think is not amendment. The wording is interesting. It says:

"Recalling that a Conference between the President of the United States of America, the Chairman of the Council of Ministers of the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics, the President of the French Republic and the Prime Minister of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland was arranged to take place in Paris on 17 May 1960,"

now note the words

"in order that these four leaders should examine matters of particular and major concern for their four nations,"

It is a private matter between the four nations, according to the Prime Minister of Australia. What has the Assembly to do with it? Then, this amendment says:

"Believing that much benefit for the world could arise from acooperative meeting of the Heads of Government of these four nations in relation to those problems which particularly concern them,"

Now this is a very extraordinary idea to put before the Assembly - that is, that these matters, these so-called summit meetings and the rest, are private concerns of the four eminent dignitaries, Heads of State or Prime Ministers, of these four countries. Where does the Assembly come in? Where do all of us who happen to be in the outer darkness come in?

The Prime Minister of Australia then said that we, the sponsors of this draft resolution, had fallen into some communist trap which was aimed at describing the world as being divided up, or as dealing with two great protagonists and ignoring the world.

What the communist technique may be in regard to this matter I am not aware. It may be like this, it may not be: I am not particularly concerned with these techniques. But it seems to me that the Prime Minister of Australia’s technique is obvious. It is, "There are these four great Powers" - whom we respect, of course,

whom we honour - "so leave it to them. What business has the Assembly to deal with these matters? It is obvious - his amendment says so. Now surely this kind of thing, this idea, this approach, cannot, should not, must not be accepted.

When we suggested that these two distinguished Heads of great States should renew contacts it was not with an idea that they should discuss the affairs of the world and finalise them. I, personally, would not agree to any finalisation of these matters with two Powers, or four Powers or ten Powers. Only the Assembly should finalise them. But it is true that, in dealing with these tremendous questions, it is convenient and desirable for matters to be discussed in small groups and - more particularly in a question such as disarmament - by some of the countries which have most to disarm. Most of the people sitting here have nothing to disarm, or practically nothing, although we are greatly interested in the disarmament of others so that war may not break out and destroy the world.

So that it is right that two Powers, or four Powers, or ten committees or commissions may consider these matters quietly - not always making speeches at each other, as is done in the Assembly, but from a constructive point of view. That is all right - but remembering always that in a matter of this magnitude no group of Powers, however big, can dispose of the destiny of the world.

But that appears to be the idea in the mind of the Prime Minister of Australia, and because he has that idea that four Powers should dispose of this he was, naturally and rightly, somewhat irritated at the idea that only two Powers should do so. Well, it is not my intention that any two Powers, or four or six or more, should do so. Therefore, I should like to disabuse him of this wrong opinion that he has in mind.

Assembly Should Act

My difficulty in dealing with this amendment is that it proceeds, I imagine, from some kind of basic suspicion that there is a trick. The Prime Minister cannot put his finger on what the trick is, but there must be a trick because the idea has not come from him or his group. That kind of thing may sometimes happen. Personally, I am rather innocent of the working of the Assembly. I do not know if the members who come here often play these tricks on each other. But certainly I can assure the Prime Minister, with all earnestness, that there is no trickery in this resolution.

However, there is something which I would like him to appreciate, and that is that there is passion in this draft resolution. It is not a question of words. The Prime Minister said - and I was happy to hear it - that he prayed daily for the avoidance of armed conflict. I earnestly hope that his prayers will have effect, and that all our prayers will have effect. But even prayers require some action and we meet here not merely to pray - although prayer is good - but for action, to give a lead to the world, to induce people, to request people, to urge people to act in a

particular way, and sometimes to push people to act in a particular way. That is the only thing we can do.

And this draft resolution that we have ventured to put before the Assembly, in its simple form of words, represented that passion and that conviction that something must be done, or that, at any rate, the beginnings of something must take place so that it might take effect later on. Above all, it seemed to us that for the Assembly to meet, with members coming here from the four corners of the earth, and to avoid discussing this matter was a confession of helplessness and of paralysis of a great Organisation, which was intolerable. I submit that it would be an intolerable position that the Assembly could not deal with these matters because some people were angry with each other.

Anger may be justified; nevertheless, it cannot override the major considerations that we have to deal with. We realise that this resolution cannot lead us into the path of a solution, cannot lead even to a basic consideration of these problems. As things are, we must recognise the facts, and the facts are that this cannot be done at this stage. But what we were concerned with was the hope that this glacier, as it were, that had come to surround us, might be pushed a little or might be made to melt here and there, so that in the future discussions could take place at suitable times. At the present moment they cannot.

Let us be frank about it: this great country, the United States, is engaged in a great election and it is not convenient for it - I quite recognise that - to enter into these basic talks. That is true. But even now, if nothing is done to arrest the process of deterioration, then it can become more difficult even at a later stage to have those talks. That is a fact to be borne in mind. Therefore we suggested that this small but highly important step might be taken as an urgent move towards the renewal of contacts. Remember that.

We think we were perfectly right. Let us consider what the effect would be if the advice of the Prime Minister of Australia were to be followed. It would mean -the amendment says so quite clearly - that this renewal of contacts would not take place, that the negative view prevails and that we should wait for some future occasion, which obviously is a fairly distant occasion now, for some kind of summit conference to be held. I am in favour of a summit conference, but I realise, and the Assembly realises, that it cannot be held in the next few months. Therefore, we should have to wait and spend our time, presumably, in daily prayer that this might take place and that war might be avoided.

I submit that this position is not only a completely untenable position, but it verges on absurdity, and I am surprised that a man of the high ability of the Prime Minister of Australia should put it forward. Also, this amendment, I regret to say, does have a tinge of the cold war approach, and it is obvious that if we are to seek solutions for these mighty problems it is not through such approaches that we shall do so. Charge and counter-charge, accusation and counter-accusation - we

have had plenty of them and perhaps we shall go on having them. But the fact remains that if we are to deal with serious questions it is not by accusing each other or by bringing counter-accusations in reply. We are out to achieve something, and if we want to achieve something we have to recognise facts as they are and deal with the problem as it is. We cannot merely satisfy ourselves by making charges and counter-charges.

There is, I feel - though I hope I am wrong - some of this cold war approach in the so-called amendment of Australia. I am anxious, therefore, that this resolution that has been sponsored by the five nations should be adopted - adopted unanimously, or, if not unanimously, nearly unanimously. Not to adopt it would be a dangerous thing from the point of view of the objectives we have and those for which the United Nations stands, from the point of view of creating some kind of disengagement, some kind of "detente" in this matter - the beginnings of it, at least; not a solution - a solution will come later - but some little movement in the right direction. It would be dangerous, it would be harmful, it would be wholly unjustifiable not to pass it. Therefore it should be passed

I still hope that the Prime Minister of Australia will realise that his amendment is not what he apparently imagined it to be, and that it is a harmful amendment which shows a certain lack of care as to what should or should not happen. The amendment would say that we should let months pass and then those four great countries can meet together and possibly renew their charges and counter-charges. Now, that is not good enough. Even if we of the humbler countries, without vast armies and nuclear weapons, may sometimes unburden our hearts, I hope; and if we cannot unburden our hearts and our minds in the Assembly, what are we to do? Are we just to be shepherded into this group or that group and say what we are told to say here and there, and not be allowed even to express our innermost feelings? I do submit that this kind of approach would not be right, for any of us.

The Minister or Foreign Affairs of the United Arab Republic has moved a small amendment. We would not object to small amendments if they bettered the resolution and if the purpose of the draft resolution remained and was not distorted and changed completely into something entirely the opposite of it. Therefore, I beg again to press for the adoption of this resolution if not unanimously then nearly unanimously.

B. Speech on Voting Procedure

I do not understand what this means. I was not aware, and I believe that this Assembly was not aware of the formal, diplomatic official contacts of the United States of America and the Soviet Union being interrupted. Therefore, this statement has no meaning at all. In fact, it would put the Assembly in the rather absurd position of making in a formal resolution a statement which is wholly

incorrect. I submit that an amendment which reduces a draft resolution, or a part of it, to absurdity is not in order and certainly cannot be accepted.

I can understand come representatives of some countries not agreeing with this proposition and voting against it. That is understandable. But one cannot reduce it by an amendment to a meaningless jargon or indeed worse than that, to suggest something which is not a fact. It is not a fact. I trust all of us agree that the official, normal diplomatic relations of these two countries mentioned here have not been interrupted at any time, whatever their sentiments or feelings might have been on this issue.

I submit therefore that on this point alone such an amendment would be most unfortunate and would not bring great credit on those who have put it forward because it reduces a resolution of this General Assembly to something approaching absurdity.

I do not wish to say anything else except to point out again that when this draft resolution was put forward I ventured to express the hope that it would be unanimously passed because I did not see anything to which anyone could object. But that has not been so and it has been opposed, or amendments have been introduced - one amendment has been rejected. This amendment I feel should not be put forward at all. But anyhow, because of this debate, this simple and, as I thought, non-controversial resolution has become rather a major issue attracting fully the attention not only of this Assembly but probably a good part of the world.

We have to remember that whatever we may decide on this will have larger repercussions and consequences than otherwise might have been so. And if on this occasion, having attracted the attention of the world to a particular matter, we decide something which cannot be logically argued, which states a fact which is not a fact, I submit that it will not be good for the Assembly to be put in this way before the world.

Some objection has been made; it has been stated that this brings in persons -individuals. I would submit that this is not quite correct. It refers to high offices. It is true that each high office at the present moment is occupied by an individual, as it must be. But the purpose is not to bring in individuals but rather to refer to the high offices concerned.

Therefore, I submit that this amendment is not in order; it is not logical and will put this Assembly in considerable difficulty in passing something which cannot be justified on the facts of the situation. On its merits, I submit also that it is undesirable.

C. Speech Withdrawing the Resolution

The President was good enough to allow the sponsors of the draft resolution an opportunity to consult amongst themselves on the position that has been created because of certain changes that have been made in this resolution. The sponsors have taken advantage of this opportunity and have consulted amongst themselves and with others, many others, who have supported this draft resolution. We feel that the changes that have been made are of such a character as to make a difference to the purpose of this resolution.

I ventured to say earlier today that if any verbal changes were made without affecting the substance of it, we would gladly accept those changes. But the present changes that have been made, according to our thinking not only make part of this draft resolution contrary to fact, as we ventured to point out earlier today, but also make an essential change which, according to our thinking, takes away, as I have said, from the main purpose underlying this draft resolution.

That draft resolution was drafted under great stress of feeling, almost oppression, at what it describes as "the recent deterioration in international relations". And further, all over the world people will be looking to this Assembly to give them a lead, to indicate some step to prepare the way for the easing of this world tension. Again, the draft resolution refers to "the grave and urgent responsibility that rests on the United Nations to initiate helpful efforts".

As it has now been changed, it seems to us that that essential urgency has gone, that that passionate feeling that something should be done has faded away in the wording of the draft resolution as it is. And something has been said in it which is not true to fact, that is to say, that these two great countries, the United States and the Soviet Union, should renew their contacts. As I stated before, there has been no break in those contacts politically, diplomatically or otherwise. Therefore it is not a correct statement. It does not seem proper that the Assembly should be responsible for a statement which is so patently incorrect. At any rate, the sponsors of this draft resolution do not wish to associate themselves with such a statement. But that is a relatively minor matter. The major point is that the draft resolution as it stands now lacks that sense of passion and energy and dynamism which we thought this situation required.

We have had a considerable discussion over procedural matters. It was far from our intention to take up the valuable time of the Assembly in discussions about procedure. But, as has become evident during these discussions, behind those procedural matters lay high questions of policy. We held certain opinions about the procedural matters also, but I shall not refer to that now. It transpired throughout the discussion at this late hour in the evening that there were differences of opinion on basic matters, and that those differences were sought to be expressed in these changes which now form part of this draft resolution. For us, therefore, the purpose for which we had submitted this draft resolution is not being served. It may indeed create an impression that, shall I say, this Assembly

has taken up these matters without that sense of urgency which we thought was necessary.

From another point of view, all this discussion has seemed to us to raise major moral issues. I shall not go into them in any detail and take up the time of the Assembly in regard to them but we do consider that this resolution did involve a moral issue and the way it has been changed has deprived it of that moral approach.

Because of all these reasons, the sponsors of this resolution feel that they cannot associate themselves any longer with this resolution as it is now after these changes. Therefore, I would like to withdraw this draft resolution because its sponsors are unable to support it as it is.

VIII. ADDRESS TO THE SIXTEENTH SESSION OF THE UNITED NATIONS GENERAL ASSEMBLY, NEW YORK,

NOVEMBER 10, 1961

It is a little over a year now since I had the honour of addressing this Assembly. In the course of this year much has happened and this Organisation, which represents the world community, has faced many crises. Among these crises has been the tragic death of the late Secretary-General, Mr. Hammarskjold, who, during the many years of his high office, shaped to some extent the working of this Assembly and enlarged its functions. I would like to pay tribute to the memory of Mr. Hammarskjold.

To you, Sir, who occupy now this high seat of the Secretary-General, I offer my warm welcome and regard and greetings. And I can assure you that we, in common with others, not only welcome you here but offer you our full cooperation, for you represent the United Nations, to which all of us must offer cooperation.

These last years of difficulty and crisis have brought out more than ever before the importance of this Organisation. Indeed, one wonders what the world would be like if the United Nations ceased to be or did not function. Therefore, it is of the highest importance that this great Organisation should not only function but should function with effectiveness and with the support of the countries represented here.

I hope that under the Acting Secretary-General’s guidance the United Nations will advance from strength to strength and will serve the cause of the peace of the world and the cause of removing the remnants of foreign domination from various parts of the world.

The General Assembly and the Security Council took many steps in the last year or more in regard to these matters and thereby somewhat enlarged the functions of the Organisation and showed what it could do. Unfortunately, those steps did not immediately yield the results that we had hoped for, and that was true because of various difficulties and the rather obstructive methods which were employed by some. But I trust that in future we shall work with greater unanimity and effectiveness in carrying out the decisions of the United Nations.

UN Must Succeed in the Congo

In one place, the Congo, the United Nations has undertaken a great responsibility, and on the success of that venture of the United Nations depends in many ways the future of the United Nations itself, or its future effectiveness. It may continue, of course, even after a lack of success there, but it would then continue as an ineffective body whose mandate does not run far. Therefore, it is of

the utmost importance that the work that this great Organisation has undertaken in the Congo should succeed and should yield results.

All the countries represented here are interested in this vital problem. We in India are to some extent a little more interested than some others because, at the invitation of the United Nations, we have placed some of our resources and some of our armed forces at the disposal of the Organisation for service in the Congo, and we are naturally concerned that their use should yield success.

I have referred to the Congo - and I am not going to refer to each individual problem facing the United Nations - because the Congo has become the symbol and the touchstone of success for the activities of the United Nations.

New Members

During the last year, many additions have been made to the membership of the General Assembly. New countries have come here, chiefly from Africa, and I am happy about this enlargement. More particularly I should like to mention the name of just one country because, for years, we have been suggesting that name and hoping that that country will be admitted. I refer to Outer Mongolia, and I am happy that at last that country has found a place in this Assembly.

Emergence of Africa

When future historians write about this period in which we are living, they may well say that an outstanding feature of this period was the emergence of African countries, the new life that is coursing through the veins of Africa, which I think is, historically speaking, of vital importance today.

Because of that vitality and tremendous urge in the various countries of Africa, we find problems arising that are problems of a new vitality, and not problems of a decadent people - they are the problems of a new life emerging. Sometimes they are troublesome problems, but we must recognise that they are problems of growth and therefore problems which should encourage rather than discourage us.

In Africa, there is the Congo, to which I have referred, and there is the nearby country of Angola under Portuguese rule. It is well to remember that while colonialism is a fading institution and, historically speaking, a disappearing one, nevertheless today a fairly big empire remains in Africa and elsewhere under Portuguese rule when bigger empires have ceased to be. Apart from this theoretical question, practically speaking what we have heard of events in Angola has been distressing in the extreme. If it is distressing to us, we can imagine how much it must distress people in Africa. I earnestly hope that this remnant of colonialism will also peacefully change.

In the Congo there have been difficulties. The Security Council decided about eight or nine months ago on two basic principles about the Congo: one was the unity of the Congo, a republic, and the other was the removal of foreign mercenary elements. I have no doubt, and probably other members here present have no doubt, that much of the trouble in the Congo has been due to external encouragement and intervention. If this kind of activity continues, the problems will become more difficult of solution. Therefore, it is necessary that the problem should be solved as soon as possible and that these foreign elements should be removed or should be made to leave Katanga province and other parts of the Congo.

There is really no half-way house to this: one either has unity in the Congo or not. If there is no unity, the Congo will split up and instead of one problem we shall have to face many problems, each more difficult than the other, and not only will the Congo split up, but the United Nations will suffer a serious setback.

Therefore, I would beg this Organisation to consider what steps should be taken which would be effective and would yield quick results.

There are other colonial problems, of course. There is Algeria. I can only say that the terrible sufferings that the people of Algeria have undergone during the last eight years must end in fulfilment of that people’s hopes. I am sure they will, but I would hope that they will do so soon and that the story of their agony will not drag on. There are some indications that perhaps this may happen soon. I hope those indications point in the right direction.

Problem of World Survival

I do think that at this stage of the world’s history it has become impossible for colonies to continue without creating complications which may lead to major conflicts in the world. While that is so, it is a fact that as we stand or sit here today, the world is facing even graver problems, the problems of world survival, the problems of war and peace, and unless they are dealt with wisely and in a statesmanlike manner, the future that stares us in the face is a very painful one.

More and more we live under a kind of regime of terror. Terror of what? Terror of some kind of catastrophe like war descending upon us, some kind of disaster when nuclear weapons are used and the future of the world’s survival is imperilled. It is an odd circumstance that in spite of this general knowledge, the full realisation of this basic fact today perhaps has not come to us and is not appreciated by many Governments.

The choice today before the world is a choice which has never come to it before: it is a choice of self-extinction, practical extinction or survival. Many people think and talk about escaping from the disaster of a nuclear war by burrowing under the earth and living like rats in a hole. Surely it is a strange

commentary on our times that we should be driven to that conclusion, instead of diverting all our energies and all our strength to the prevention of that catastrophe.

The first thing to be realised is that there can no longer be any kind of normal existence unless we get rid of this terror that hangs over us. How can that terror be removed? There are basic problems before us - the German problem, the problem of the city of Berlin and other problems elsewhere which I believe are capable of solution, because I am convinced that no country deliberately desires war. I am convinced that the people all over the world are passionately in favour of peace. Why then are we unable to solve these problems?

It is difficult for me to say. The problems are difficult and they cannot be easily solved; nevertheless, the alternative, not to solve anything, is infinitely worse. No country, great or small, can easily agree to anything which wounds its honour and self- respect. Even a small country cannot easily be offended today - that is, its honour cannot be offended - much less a great country. No solution can therefore be found which is based on the wounding of the honour or self- respect of a country.

We talk about many problems like disarmament, and sometimes one has the feeling that although there is apparent agreement, really behind it there is not that faith in disarmament that is necessary, and that talks are some kind of attempt more to put the other party in the wrong rather than to achieve something while it is of the utmost importance that the achievement should take place. I am convinced that the modern world cannot continue for long without full disarmament. All these problems have come up again and again. Ultimately it is perhaps true that the material advance which has taken place in the world - and that is magnificent - has gone far ahead of the development of human minds, which lag behind.

They do not fit in with the modern age, and the mind still thinks, in its narrow terms of 100 or 200 years ago, of how nations functioned, how diplomats functioned and how wars took place. We know, we have heard and we have read about the new possibility of a nuclear war. Nevertheless, emotionally, we do not understand it fully; otherwise it seems to me that it is impossible that there should be these continuing deadlocks and impasses, because the fact is that under modern conditions either war must be ruled out, or the world, civilisation and humanity have to submit to the ending of all that they have laboured for over thousands of years.

If that is true, then surely it is important and urgent that we should approach this question with speed, deliberation and a determination to solve it, rather than merely to show that the other party is wrong.

I mentioned disarmament. The Assembly at its fourteenth session decided almost unanimously in favour of general and complete disarmament. The great

nations of the world have all committed themselves to that. The United States, through its President, recently put forward proposals which are in line with what this Assembly has decided. The Soviet Union has put forward proposals to the same effect, varying slightly but essentially aiming at the same thing; even in broad outline they have a good deal in common.

If that is so, what is getting in our way? Why should we not grasp this opportunity when there is so much agreement, and remove this fear and terror from peoples` minds, and devote all the great energies and resources of the people to the world’s advancement?

I do not know, except that, as I have said, we are quite unable to get out of old ways of thinking which ought to have no place in the modern world, old ways of hatred and violence, not realising that violence today is not the violence of yesterday but a violence which could exterminate all of us, not realising that there is no victory today for any country in a major war - only defeat and extermination for all.

If that is so, then surely this major and outstanding question must be dealt with speedily and those great countries, especially those which have the greatest responsibility because they possess the biggest weapons of warfare - nuclear weapons - should address themselves again and again to negotiations, to talks, to the consideration of this problem together to find some remedy, with the determination, of course, that they will not separate until they have come to some agreement.

Those agreements cannot be merely agreements of some countries, however great. They must represent all the Members of the United Nations. But I do think that it is better for those countries - a few of them - to deal with this problem rather than for a larger body to deal with it at the start.

I feel, I may say, rather strongly on this question, although we in India are not situated in one of the major theatres of a possible war - probably not. Nevertheless, I feel that everything that man has striven for in the past thousands of years is at stake today. Strongly as I feel about the freedom of colonial countries and others, I do think that the major question and the biggest question today is this question of war and peace and disarmament. There is not conflict between those. In fact, the whole atmosphere of the world will change if disarmament comes in, and these present problems move towards solution.

How then are we to do it? I do not know. The President was good enough to refer to the wisdom of the East, or to my wisdom. It was kind of him to make that reference to me, but I possess no greater wisdom than each one of us here; only perhaps in some matters, some of us may feel a little more, some of us who have experienced many ups and downs in their lives may think more deeply about them. But it is wisdom that we want, it is the common wisdom that should come

to everyone. In the problems before us there are no mysteries. They are obvious problems, and the fear of war is obvious; the fear that grips mankind is obvious. How can we go on dealing with the secondary questions of the world and discussing them, when this basic problem eludes us?

End Nuclear Tests

As a part of this question of disarmament there is the particular question today of nuclear tests. The General Assembly passed a resolution recently about them. It was, I think, a great misfortune that, after a period of abstinence from nuclear tests, there has been a resumption. There can be no doubt that that turned the attention of the world in a wrong direction, apart from the harm it might do. Immediately the idea of a possible war became more prevalent, immediately it became more difficult to have treaties for ending nuclear tests, because while treaties are essential to achieve this purpose, when the whole atmosphere becomes one of fear and apprehension, it becomes more difficult to produce a treaty.

I do think, and I would beg the countries concerned to realise, that they are doing a great disservice to the world, to their own countries even, by not putting an end to this business of nuclear tests, and putting an end to it by treaty, as rapidly as possible.

The Assembly has passed a resolution in favour of some kind of voluntary moratorium. No one imagines that a voluntary moratorium is going to solve this question. There must be stricter controls, by treaty and otherwise. But while that should be aimed at and worked for and achieved as rapidly as possible, the door should not be left open, during the discussions, for these nuclear tests to go on.

Arguments may be raised that one party or one country secures an advantage over the other and these arguments may have some substance. Yet my own reaction to these nuclear tests is a very strong one. I think they are basically evil, they encourage evil. Therefore, the sooner this evil is dealt with the better.

Year for International Cooperation

I cannot suggest any rapid or magic ways of dealing with the problems of the world. But I find that perhaps the worst difficulty we have to face is to fight something you cannot grip: an atmosphere, the imponderables of life, how people suddenly are filled with fear, passion and hatred. How can we deal with them? We live in this world of conflicts and yet the world goes on, undoubtedly because of the cooperation of nations and individuals.

The essential thing about this world is cooperation, and even today, between countries which are opposed to each other in the political or other fields, there is a vast amount of cooperation. Little is known, or little is said, about this cooperation that is going on, but a great deal is said about every point of conflict,

and so the world is full of this idea that the conflicts go on and we live on the verge of disaster. Perhaps it would be a truer picture if the cooperating elements in the world today were put forward and we were made to think that the world depends on cooperation and not on conflict.

A proposal has been made by various people to the effect that more attention should be directed to these cooperative ventures, especially for peace and in the interest of peace, so that there may be more positive thinking on this subject and people should realise that this cooperation is already taking place and can be extended. Some years ago it was resolved to have an International Geophysical Year. Although that was a specific subject, it has been suggested that perhaps this Assembly might resolve to call upon the countries of the world to devote a year, not to speeches about peace - I do not think that is much good - but to the furtherance of cooperative activities in any field - political, cultural and whatever fields there may be, and there are thousands of fields. That perhaps would direct some of our energy and some of our thinking to this idea of cooperation, which would create an atmosphere for solving the problems more easily. That by itself will not solve any problems, but it will lessen this destruction and conflict which now afflict the world.

I make this suggestion to you not in any detail but broadly, so that this Assembly may consider it and, if it thinks it worthwhile, perhaps appoint a committee to consider it further and make suggestions as to how this might perhaps be done.

Encourage New Thinking

As you will have noticed, the words I am using can easily be called hackneyed phrases or hackneyed thinking. There is nothing new or wonderful about them. There is nothing new or wonderful about the truths of the world, and the truth is that violence and hatred are bad - bad for individuals and bad for everybody.

The great men of the world have been those who have fought hatred and violence and not those who have encouraged it, even in some supposedly worthwhile cause, and we have arrived at the stage where this, I feel, has to be checked. It really requires a new way of thinking, a new development of humanity. Possibly we are going through that process, and possibly this very crisis will wake up the mind of man and direct it to this new way of thinking. The old way of thinking has landed us in this disastrous situation. Even though, as I said, the world has made tremendous progress in many ways, progress which manifestly can cure its material ills, what shall it profit the world if it conquers the material ills and then commits suicide because it has not controlled its own mind?

Therefore, we have to undertake this vast task of encouraging this new thinking, this new approach, the approach of cooperation, and that not on a mere ideological basis but on the practical basis of sheer survival in this world. I would

beg the Assembly to consider the matter from this larger point of view and not from the point of view of profit or loss to this nation or that nation, because the choice before us is not one of profit or loss, but one of survival or loss to everybody.

I realise that all this sounds very vague and amorphous and does not indicate anything very special. What are we to do? Here are these problems of Germany and Berlin and Southeast Asia. Undoubtedly there are those problems, and there are the problems of Africa. Even if I had some detailed ideas about these subjects, there is no occasion for me to put them forward. But I do think that the problems of Germany and Berlin, difficult as they are and involving something more than national conflicts - they involve large numbers of human beings and to me the human aspect of such problems is always important - they are capable of solution, if they are approached with the intention of solving them honourably and without attempting to bring discredit or dishonour to any party.

Indo-China

With regard to Indo-China, you will remember the Geneva Conference which was held five or six years ago. That Conference came to certain conclusions and appointed three international commissions. The main conclusions were that the countries concerned should be kept out of power conflicts, that they should be helped, that they should not be entangled in these major conflicts, because it was clear then that if they were so entangled they would perish, whatever the other result of the conflict. To some extent the commissions functioned satisfactorily and prevented this. Later some of those commissions were not allowed to function as they should have done, and I think that much of the difficulty has arisen because they were not allowed to function. It is not an easy question, but I think that even these questions can be solved primarily on the basis of applying the old Geneva Conference policy, which was agreed to by everyone, and allowing the Commissions to function.

Cooperate or Perish

It has been very gracious of the President to invite me to address this Assembly. I feel rather humble before it. I am no man of wisdom. I am only a person who has dabbled in public affairs for nearly half a century and learned something from them, and mostly what I have learned is how wise men often behave in a very foolish manner; and that thought makes me often doubt my own wisdom, or whatever you wish to call it. I question myself: "Am I right?"

I may have doubts about many things, but I have no doubt at all about some things, because I have been conditioned in that way; I have grown up in that way during long years of guidance from my old leader, Mahatma Gandhi, who taught that hatred and violence are essentially bad and evil, and anything that promotes hatred, therefore, is bad. One cannot solve questions by trying to destroy the other

party but by trying to win him over. You may not always win him over 100 per cent, but there is no other way. Now apart from theory, apart from idealism, the practical approach to the problem is such that the choice offered to the world is: cooperate or perish. The choice is between peaceful coexistence or no existence at all. There is no doubt about about it.

Therefore, I venture to suggest to the Assembly that these questions should be looked upon from this broader point of view and with the urgency that they demand. I am quite sure that the great nations and the small nations of the world feel that way, but somehow irritations come, difficulties come; and that prevents progress being made. But I do believe that the time is ripe for progress to be made in that direction and these great countries should seize this opportunity and proceed with it, not thinking too much about who makes the first move in this direction, because the person who makes the first move will do the right thing, will be respected, and it will not be considered that the first move or the secondmove comes from weakness. Countries are strong today. A strong country does not become a weak country by making the first move. Everybody knows a country’s strength.

I am grateful to the President for the opportunity that has been given to me to address this Assembly. Again I would repeat that the future of the world depends so much on the continuance of the United Nations; without it, perhaps that future itself would end.