India, 1998

I congratulate you, Sir, on

your election to the presidency of the General Assembly

at its fifty-third session. We wish you well in our shared

endeavours in the United Nations and offer you our full

cooperation. We would like to thank your predecessor for

his commitment and contribution, and to commend him

for his work throughout the last year.

I first addressed the Assembly as Foreign Minister

in 1977. Since then I have for many years had the

privilege to attend General Assembly sessions, but

without ministerial responsibility. I acknowledge with

gratitude the confidence of successive Prime Ministers.

To me, this also signifies the consensus on the national

interests and the foreign policy of India. When I

addressed the General Assembly in 1977, it was in many

ways a turning point in the history of India. The Janata

Government was a coalition of many factions, which

united in the restoration of our people?s faith in

democracy. Since then we have had many changes of

Government, but the people?s political awareness and

their faith in the institutions which uphold our

constitutional system has been unwavering. Today, when

I come to this rostrum as Prime Minister, I come on

behalf of another coalition. India has demonstrated that

democracy can take root in a developing country. I am

confident that the Indian experience will prove that

democracy can also provide the basis for stable, long-term

economic growth in developing societies. That is the path

that the people of India have chosen, and I stand before

the Assembly today as the symbol of this new resurgent

India.

16

The world of the 1970s has receded into history. The

shackling constraints of the cold war are gone. The

distinguishing feature of the last two decades has been the

spread of democracy worldwide. By force of example, we

have been one of the authors of the triumph of democracy.

From this flows our desire to see the democratization of the

United Nations itself. An international body that does not

reflect, and change with, changing international realities

will inevitably face a credibility deficit. We therefore

support a revitalized and more effective United Nations,

one that is more responsive to the concerns of the vast

majority of its Member States and is better equipped to

meet the challenges that are ahead of us in the twenty-first

century.

The Security Council does not represent contemporary

reality; it does not represent democracy in international

relations. Following the end of the cold war, it acquired the

freedom to act, but experience shows that the Council has

acted only when it was convenient for its permanent

members. The experience of Somalia does not do credit to

the Security Council — and there are other examples too.

Peacekeeping operations cannot be a reflection of ulterior

political priorities and perceptions.

There is only one cure: to bring in new blood. The

Security Council must be made representative of the

membership of the United Nations. Developing countries

must be made permanent members. This is a right to which

the developing world is entitled. The presence of some

developing countries as permanent members is inescapable

if the responsibilities of the Security Council are to be

effectively discharged, particularly when we see that the

Council acts almost exclusively in the developing world. It

is only natural that on decisions affecting the developing

world, these countries should have a say, on equal terms.

Along with other measures, the Security Council too must

be reformed, expanding its non-permanent membership so

that more developing countries can serve on it. But that

alone is not enough, because as long as effective power in

the Council rests with the permanent membership, the

interests of the developing world will not be promoted or

protected unless developing countries are made permanent

members on a par with the present permanent members.

Only this will make the Council an effective instrument for

the international community in dealing with current and

future challenges.

The new permanent members must of course have

the ability to discharge the responsibilities that come with

permanent membership. India believes it has that ability,

and, as we have said before from this rostrum, we are

prepared to accept the responsibilities of permanent

membership, and believe we are qualified for it.

It will be a great day when democracy becomes the

universal norm, and when the United Nations reflects that

democracy in its institutions and functioning. However,

open democratic societies have one scourge to contend

with: terrorism. The challenge before countries like mine

and other democracies is to maintain our openness,

safeguard individual rights, and at the same time give no

quarter to terrorists. Several speakers before me have

recounted the terrible toll that terrorists have exacted

worldwide, taking advantage of the trust that characterizes

open societies. I recall that the Group of Seven summit

almost two decades back identified terrorism as one of the

most serious threats to civilized societies. Events since

then, including the blowing up of the Air India Kanishka

aircraft and the Pan Am flight over Lockerbie, and the

recent bombings in Nairobi and Dar-es-Salaam, have only

established the correctness of that judgement.

Terrorism is one threat that affects us all equally.

Terrorism takes a daily toll around the world. It is the

most vicious among international crimes, and the most

pervasive, pernicious and ruthless threat to the lives of

men and women in open societies, and to international

peace and security. In India, we have had to cope with

terrorism aided and abetted by a neighbouring country for

nearly two decades. We have borne this with patience, but

none should doubt the strength of our resolve to crush

this challenge. Its tentacles have spread around the world.

Today, it has links with illicit trade in drugs and arms and

with money-laundering. In short, terrorism has gone

global and it can only be defeated by organized

international action.

Let us make up our minds once and for all: terrorism

is a crime against humanity. Unilateral steps can hardly

stand scrutiny in an open society, let alone in the eyes of

the international community. It should be the primary task

of all open and pluralist societies to develop collective

means for tackling this menace. At its summit meeting in

Durban, the Movement of Non-Aligned Countries called

for an international conference in 1999 to develop such a

collective response. We earnestly recommend that the

1999 conference launch the process of negotiations on an

international convention to provide for collective action

17

against States and organizations which initiate or aid and

abet terrorism.

Now, at the fiftieth anniversary of the Universal

Declaration of Human Rights, there is a growing realization

that economic, social, cultural, civil and political rights

form a seamless web. Analyses carried out in recent years

by the Office of the United Nations High Commissioner for

Refugees amply reflect the vicious cycle of how violations

of economic, social and cultural rights inevitably lead to

violations of civil and political rights. In defining its index,

the Human Development Report gives a higher weighting

to economic criteria for developing countries; this weighting

is reduced for developed countries, highlighting the

importance of the right to development for developing

societies. It is therefore a matter of concern that the

absolutism that some are seeking to advocate in the

promotion of human rights is often at the cost of the right

to development.

India has ratified both the International Covenant on

Economic, Social and Cultural Rights and the International

Covenant on Civil and Political Rights. Other institutions in

our country — the National Human Rights Commission, a

free media and an independent judiciary — all serve to

ensure that the rights set out in international human rights

statutes are enjoyed by all citizens. We also remain

convinced that unless progress is made on economic, social

and cultural rights, including the right to development, the

world will continue to witness international conflict leading

to migrations, displacement of people and human rights

abuses.

In the closing years of the twentieth century, the

challenge of nuclear disarmament is another of the priorities

facing the international community. We have successfully

prohibited chemical and biological weapons in recent

decades. The present century has witnessed the

development and the tragic use of nuclear weapons. We

must ensure that the legacy of this weapon of mass

destruction is not carried into the next century.

For the last half-century, India has consistently

pursued the objectives of international peace, along with

equal and legitimate security for all through global

disarmament. These concepts are among the basic tenets of

our national security. India has, over the years, sought to

enhance its national security by promoting global nuclear

disarmament, convinced that a world free of nuclear

weapons would enhance both global security and India?s

national security.

The negotiations on a Comprehensive Nuclear-Test-

Ban Treaty (CTBT) began in 1993 with a mandate that

such a treaty would contribute effectively to the non-

proliferation of nuclear weapons in all aspects, to the

process of nuclear disarmament and, therefore, to the

enhancement of international peace and security. India

participated actively and constructively in the

negotiations, and sought to place the Treaty in a

disarmament framework by proposing its linkage with a

time-bound programme for the universal elimination of all

nuclear weapons.

It is a matter of history that India?s proposals were

not accepted. The Treaty, as it emerged, was not accepted

by India on grounds of national security. We made

explicit our objection that, despite our stand having been

made clear, the Treaty text made India?s signature and

ratification a precondition for its entry into force. Mindful

of its deteriorating security environment, which obliged us

to stand apart from the CTBT in 1996, India undertook a

limited series of five underground tests, conducted on 11

and 13 May 1998. These tests were essential for ensuring

a credible nuclear deterrent for India?s national security in

the foreseeable future.

These tests do not signal a dilution of India?s

commitment to the pursuit of global nuclear disarmament.

Accordingly, after concluding this limited testing

programme, India announced a voluntary moratorium on

further underground nuclear test explosions. We conveyed

our willingness to move towards a de jure formalization

of that obligation. In announcing a moratorium, India has

already accepted the basic obligation of the CTBT. In

1996, India could not have accepted the obligation, as

such a restraint would have eroded our capability and

compromised our national security.

India, having harmonized its national imperatives

and security obligations and desirous of continuing to

cooperate with the international community, is now

engaged in discussions with key interlocutors on a range

of issues, including the CTBT. We are prepared to bring

these discussions to a successful conclusion, so that the

entry into force of the CTBT is not delayed beyond

September 1999. We expect that other countries, as

indicated in article XIV of the Treaty, will adhere to it

without conditions.

After protracted discussions, the Conference on

Disarmament in Geneva is now in a position to begin

negotiations on a treaty that will prohibit the production

of fissile materials for nuclear weapons or other nuclear

18

explosive devices. Once again, we are conscious that this is

a partial step. Such a treaty, as and when it is concluded

and enters into force, will not eliminate existing nuclear

arsenals. Yet we will participate in these negotiations in

good faith in order to ensure a treaty that is non-

discriminatory and meets India?s security imperatives. India

will pay serious attention to any other multilateralinitiatives

in this area during the course of the negotiations in the

Conference on Disarmament.

As a responsible State committed to non-proliferation,

India has undertaken that it shall not transfer these weapons

or related know-how to other countries. We have an

effective system of export controls and shall make it more

stringent where necessary, including by expanding control

lists of equipment and technology to make them more

contemporary and effective in the context of a nuclear

India. At the same time, as a developing country, we are

conscious that nuclear technology has a number of peaceful

applications, and we shall continue to cooperate actively

with other countries in this regard, in keeping with our

international responsibilities.

A few weeks ago, at the Non-Aligned Summit in

Durban, India proposed, and the Movement agreed, that an

international conference be held, preferably in 1999, with

the objective of arriving at an agreement before the end of

this millennium on a phased programme for the complete

elimination of all nuclear weapons. I call upon all members

of the international community, and particularly the other

nuclear-weapon States, to join in this endeavour. Let us

pledge that when we assemble here in the new millennium

it will be to welcome the commitment that mankind shall

never again be subjected to the use or threat of use of

nuclear weapons.

The decade of the 1990s has fallen far short of

expectations. Nowhere is this more apparent than on the

global economic scene. The sense of triumphalism that

heralded the wave of global capitalism is now giving way

to caution and realism. What was initially seen as an Asian

flu is now spreading to other continents.

The hypothesis that unfettered capital flows would

foster economic development, with the global financial

markets adjusting the exchange rates, stands falsified. What

we have seen is the growth of a large volume of “virtual

money” that has not been generated by productive

economic activity. But the power of the “virtual money” is

real, evident in the fact that national regulatory mechanisms

are unable to cope with the impact of its rapid movement

in and out of currencies. Its volatility in the short run

follows not economic logic but rumour and sentiment,

with results that are self-reinforcing. In developing

countries and in western financial capitals, there is now

a growing acceptance that premature liberalization of

capital markets has been a primary cause of the current

crisis.

Does it mean that the world should turn back from

globalization? Our answer is an emphatic “No”. Rising

economic interdependence is a phenomenon driven by the

technological imperative, but we must learn how to

manage the change. India has not been affected as

severely as some other countries, largely because we

adopted policies that were more prudent. But a drop in

commodity prices by 30 per cent in a year and a

reduction in net capital flows to the emerging markets by

50 per cent will have a negative impact on growth

everywhere, including in the developed world.

I must emphasize that democratically elected

leadership in an open developing society such as India

also faces another challenge. We cannot let an unbridled

free market system aggravate existing economic and

social disparities. In fact, we need policy instruments to

reduce disparities, thus creating a more stable

environment in the long term. Such policies are necessary

in accountable democracies and are in no way

inconsistent with managed liberalization.

It is high time that we begin a new international

dialogue on the future of a global and interdependent

economy. This is a task for the sovereign States

represented here and cannot be left solely to the dynamics

of an unregulated market place.

I think I speak for all of us when I say that we are

on the threshold of a new age. This is an overused phrase,

but we are all aware that an exciting new universe is

within our reach. Several centuries ago, Isaac Newton

described his scientific discoveries as pebbles on the

beach, while the ocean of truth lay undiscovered. It was

modest of that great scientist to so describe his work, but

I believe that we are now actually sailing

in the ocean of truth. We have made exciting discoveries

and will make many more which will move humankind

forward.

And yet there is also an uneasy feeling that all is not

well. The world is not at ease with itself. In almost all

parts of the world forces are bubbling under the surface

tranquillity that threaten the gains of the last century and

19

seek to lead the world towards bigotry, violence and

unhealthy exclusivism.

India has a message — not a new one, for almost all

religions have expressed the thought before. But we have

preserved the tenets of freedom, equality and tolerance in

our daily lives. If the world of the twenty-first century is to

be a better place than the world we have seen so far, these

values must prevail. History also shows that these are easier

to prescribe than to observe. And yet, as we move towards

ever closer interdependence, there is no alternative. The

world and its leaders must summon the will to rise to the

occasion and enter the new age with a new outlook. This is

the task before us, and I declare India?s readiness to make

its full contribution in the testing times ahead.

I close with an ancient “sloka” from the Rig Ved as

composed thousands of years ago in Sanskrit, the oldest

language in the world:

“Svastir manushebhyaha

Oordhvam Jugatu beshajam

Sam no astu dvipathe

Sam Chathusthpate

Om Shanti, Shanti, Shanti”

This means: Let all human beings be blessed with

prosperity. Let all flora and fauna which are life line of all

creatures grow abundantly. Let there be harmony with all

two-legged creations. Let there be harmony with all four-

legged creations. Let there be peace, peace, peace.