India, 2001

I congratulate the President on his election to the

presidency of the General Assembly at its fifty-sixth

session. I also take this opportunity to warmly

congratulate the Secretary-General, Mr. Kofi Annan,

and the United Nations on being honoured with the

Nobel Peace Prize.

This session of the General Assembly is being

held in the shadow of the barbaric terrorist acts of 11

September, which dramatically reminded us that

neither distance nor power insulates a State from

terrorism. Such acts represent an arrogant rejection of

the values of freedom and tolerance, which democratic

and pluralistic societies cherish.

Even while uniting the nations of the world in

their grief, this terrible tragedy has created the

opportunity to fashion a determined global response to

terrorism in all its forms and manifestations, wherever

it exists and under whatever name.

We in India know from our own bitter experience

that terrorists develop global networks driven by

religious extremism. Their operations are supported by

drug trafficking, money laundering and arms

smuggling. Some States follow a policy of sponsoring

and sheltering them. Terrorists can only be countered

through closely coordinated efforts of the international

community.

Security Council resolutions 1368 (2001) and

1373 (2001) are steps in the right direction, but it

requires the firm political will of the freedom-loving

world to implement them rigorously. The two crucial

elements in this would be strict curbs on sources of

financing for terrorists and denying them safe havens

for training, arming and operation.

We must firmly rebuff any ideological, political

or religious justification for terrorism. We should reject

self-serving arguments seeking to classify terrorism

according to its root causes, and therefore justifying

32

terrorist action somewhere while condemning it

elsewhere. Those that advance these arguments should

explain what the root causes of the brutal acts of 11

September were.

India supports the current campaign against the

terrorist networks in Afghanistan. We hope that it

reaches an early and successful conclusion. That

country’s current travails can only end with the

establishment of a broad-based, representative and

neutral Government, which would stop the export of

terrorism and extremism. The international community

should work towards this goal, even while the military

campaign continues, so that we avoid a political

vacuum at the end of the campaign.

We must recognize that current structures to

facilitate a post-Taliban political settlement are

unrepresentative and therefore ineffective. Located as

it is in Afghanistan’s neighbourhood, India’s vital

national interests are affected by developments in it.

We also have traditionally close links with

Afghanistan. This is the basis for our belief that India

can play a useful role in this process.

The task of reconstruction in post-conflict

Afghanistan also merits the urgent attention of the

international community. It would require massive

external assistance to create an economic situation

conducive to the speedy return and rehabilitation of the

millions of Afghans who have taken refuge in other

countries of this region. Again India stands ready to

join international efforts for this.

We have already announced relief assistance of a

million tons of wheat, medicines and medical

assistance for needy Afghans within, and outside, the

country. We have also pledged $100 million to post-

conflict Afghanistan for reconstruction. We are

prepared to do more.

Nearly 6,000 lives were lost on 11 September, but

the global economic downturn in its aftermath will take

a far larger human toll, mainly in the developing world.

The World Bank has estimated that tens of thousands

more children will die worldwide and some 10 million

more people are likely to go below the poverty line of

$1 a day. It is pertinent to reflect on these chilling

statistics even as the Ministerial Conference gets under

way in Doha to consider World Trade Organization

(WTO) issues. Before we embark on any new

initiatives for globalization and sustainable

development, we should recognize that political

support for them will be determined primarily by the

impact of these regimes on poverty.

For most developing countries, the Uruguay

Round has done little for economic growth, while

poverty levels and income gaps have worsened.

Globalization has constrained developing countries in

mobilizing public resources for poverty alleviation.

That is why public support for the globalization regime

has vanished in developing countries. This is also why

we have argued strongly that implementation issues

should first be resolved before we try to widen the

WTO agenda further. Our public is unwilling to accept

another post-dated cheque, when an earlier one has

bounced.

Similarly, the movement towards sustainable

development has proved a disappointment. Developing

countries are unable to realize fair payments for their

sovereign biodiversity resources and traditional

knowledge. The treaties on climate change and

biodiversity have also failed to activate the anticipated

investment and technology transfers to developing

countries. Industrialized countries have not shown the

political will to enhance their overseas development

budgets. Multilateral development agencies are also

constrained in their resources, of which, in any case,

very little is available on concessional terms.

The inevitable conclusion is that for current

regimes of globalization and sustainable development

to be strengthened, or even to survive, they must be re-

engineered to generate large-scale finances for poverty

alleviation. The passion for globalization has to be

tempered by compassion for its victims. Sadly, this

thought has not penetrated into the thinking of the

developed economies. Their actions also do not reflect

the realization that there cannot be a sustainable revival

of their own sluggish economies unless the

globalization and sustainable development priorities

are re-oriented and anchored in the developmental

needs of two-thirds of the global population.

A year ago, I suggested in my speech to the

United States Congress a comprehensive global

dialogue on development. The aim of such a dialogue

would be to address the highly unstable situation in

which one-third of the world’s population lives in

luxury and condemns the remaining two-thirds to

poverty and want. It is a fertile breeding ground for

political unrest, economic chaos and social fractures.

33

India would be happy to coordinate this dialogue,

with the immediate objective of mobilizing resources

for poverty alleviation programmes in developing

countries. A preliminary agenda for the dialogue could

include the accelerated liquidation of external debts of

low-income and highly indebted countries; poverty

alleviation programmes specifically aimed at

developing countries facing financial crises;

stabilization of international prices of primary

commodity exports; and, most importantly, welfare and

development programmes for all the world’s needy

children — for their nutrition, health, education and

protection from degrading and hazardous employment.

The struggle for equitable development and the

war against poverty are as important as our campaign

against terrorism and our collective search for security.

At a time when an external stimulus has motivated us

to unite against terrorism and for security, let us

summon an equally strong inner resolve for

development and poverty alleviation. They are just as

crucial for a global order at peace with itself.

This fundamental and seamless linkage between

peace, security and development can be recalled in the

sage words of the great Indian poet Rabindranath

Tagore:

“From now onward, any nation that takes an

isolated view of its own interests will run

contrary to the spirit of the New Age, and will

know no peace. From now onward, the anxiety

that each country has for its own safety must

embrace the welfare of the whole world.”