India, 2003

Mr. President, we

congratulate you on your election to the presidency of

the fifty-eighth session of the United Nations General

Assembly. We wish you every success in our shared

endeavours. You will have our fullest cooperation in

your efforts.

As we gather here, in the wake of the many

momentous events over the past year, it is inevitable

that we should ponder some fundamental questions

about the role and relevance of the United Nations.

The United Nations was charged by its Charter

“to save succeeding generations from the scourge of

war.” The Charter also speaks of our collective

determination “to unite our strength to maintain

international peace and security.” There was an implicit

conviction that the United Nations would be stronger

than the sum of its constituent Member States. Its

unique legitimacy flows from a universal perception

that it pursues a larger purpose than the interests of one

country or a small group of countries.

This vision of an enlightened multilateralism has

not materialized. There have been difficulties and

deficiencies in ensuring a world free from strife, a world

without war. The United Nations has not always been

successful in preventing conflicts or in resolving them.

During the past year, the United Nations

encountered new challenges. We saw the extraordinary

inability of the five permanent members of the Security

Council to agree on action in respect of Iraq, in spite of

complete agreement on basic objectives. Most recently,

the brutal terrorist attack on the United Nations Office

in Baghdad struck a body blow at the United Nations’

humanitarian efforts there.

Looking back at events over recent years, we can

analyse the successes and failures of the United

Nations in this or that crisis. But it would be more

purposeful to reflect on our own commitment to

multilateralism, the extent of its applicability in the

real world of today, and the manner in which it can be

exercised through the United Nations. The reality is

that an international institution like the United Nations

can only be as effective as its Members allow it to be.

Our reflections on the United Nations should

focus on three key aspects:

First, we need to introspect on some of the

assumptions that have been made over the years

concerning the will and reach of the United Nations. In

the euphoria after the Cold War, there was a misplaced

notion that the United Nations could solve every

problem anywhere. Its enthusiasm and proactive stance

on many issues reflected laudable intentions. But we

soon realized that the United Nations does not possess

magical powers to solve every crisis in all parts of the

globe or to change overnight the motivation of leaders

and communities around the world. //We need to

clearly recognize, with a sense of realism, the limits to

what the United Nations can achieve, and the changes

of form and function required for it to play an optimal

role in today’s world. We need to clearly recognize,

with a sense of realism, the limits to what the United

Nations can achieve, and the changes that it needs to

make to its form and function to play an optimal role in

today’s world.

Secondly, the Iraq issue has inevitably generated

a debate on the functioning and the efficacy of the

Security Council and of the United Nations itself. Over

the decades, the United Nations membership has grown

enormously. The scope of its activities has expanded

greatly, with new specialized agencies and new

programmes. But in the political and security

dimensions of its activities, the United Nations has not

kept pace with the changes in the world. For the

Security Council to represent genuine multilateralism

in its decisions and actions, its membership must

reflect current world realities. Most United Nations

Members today recognize the need for an enlarged and

restructured Security Council, with more developing

countries as permanent and non-permanent members.

The permanent members guard their exclusivity. Some

States with weak claims want to ensure that others do

not enter the Council as permanent members. This

combination of complacency and negativism has to be

countered with a strong political will. The recent crises

should serve as a warning to us that until the Security

Council is reformed and restructured, its decisions

cannot truly reflect the collective will of the

community of nations.

Thirdly, even after such reform, the Security

Council would have to develop suitable decision-

making mechanisms that ensure better representation of

the collective will of the international community. How

can multilateralism be genuinely implemented? A

single veto is an anachronism in today’s world. On the

other hand, the requirement of unanimity can sabotage

imperative actions. A simple-majority vote may not be

15

sufficiently representative for major and serious issues.

Should we aim for the highest common factor, or

should we settle for the lowest common denominator?

Democratic countries could use their national

experience to provide feasible models for mechanisms

and determine the extent of support required based on

the impact of action to be taken.

The Secretary-General has rightly emphasized the

urgent need for reform of the institutions and processes

of the United Nations. We encourage his efforts in this

direction. We should seek to implement these reforms

within a specified time frame.

The Iraq issue continues to present a major

challenge to the United Nations. At this point in time,

it is not very productive to linger on the past. Our

thoughts and concerns should be about the suffering of

the people of Iraq. It is imperative that the people of

Iraq should be empowered to determine their own

future and to rebuild their nation.

The immediate priorities are ensuring security

and stability, restoration of basic facilities and

infrastructure and a road map of political processes for

a representative Iraqi Government. It is clear that the

United Nations has a crucial role to play in the process

of political and economic reconstruction of that

country. This has been acknowledged both by those

who had opposed military action and by those who did

not seek specific United Nations endorsement for it.

One issue on which the United Nations showed

remarkable unanimity after 11 September was global

terrorism. Security Council resolutions 1373 (2001)

and 1456 (2003) were unequivocal in condemning all

forms of terrorism and in calling for united action

against support, shelter, sponsorship, arming, training

and financing of terrorism or terrorists.

Unfortunately, the solidarity that was voiced has

not translated into coherent and effective action.

Terrorist acts continue to shatter our peace, from

Mombasa to Moscow and from Baghdad to Bali. India

has had more than its share of terrorism in various

parts of the country. The global coalition against

terrorism has registered successes in Afghanistan, but

has not been able to extend this elsewhere. Some of its

members are themselves part of the problem. We are

sometimes led to enter into semantic arguments over

the definition of terrorism. The search for root causes

or imaginary freedom struggles provides alibis for

killing innocent men, women and children.

There is much that the United Nations can do to

carry forward the war against international terrorism.

The Counter-Terrorism Committee should develop

measures to ensure compliance by Member States of

their obligations under Security Council resolutions

1373 (2001) and 1456 (2003). We should have credible

multilateral instruments to identify States that

contravene these resolutions. Multilateral mechanisms

must be created to detect and choke off international

financial flows to terrorists and terrorist organizations.

A much better international system of

information exchange and intelligence sharing needs to

be devised to prevent terrorists from evading capture

simply by crossing national borders. No State should

be allowed to profess partnership with the global

coalition against terror, while continuing to aid, abet

and sponsor terrorism. To condone such double

standards is to contribute to multiplying terrorism.

Yesterday, the President of Pakistan chose this

august Assembly to make a public admission for the

first time that Pakistan is sponsoring terrorism in

Jammu and Kashmir. After claiming that there is an

indigenous struggle in Kashmir, he has offered to

encourage a general cessation of violence within Kashmir,

in return for reciprocal obligations and restraints.

We totally refuse to let terrorism become a tool of

blackmail. Just as the world did not negotiate with al

Qaeda or the Taliban, we shall not negotiate with

terrorism. Were we to do so, we would be betraying the

people of Jammu and Kashmir, who defied a most

ferocious campaign of violence and intimidation

sponsored from across our borders and participated in

an election, which has been universally hailed as free

and fair. This was an unequivocal expression of both

determination and self-determination.

When the cross-border terrorism stops, or when

we eradicate it, we can have a dialogue with Pakistan

on the other issues between us.

While on this subject, I would also like to point

out to the President of Pakistan that he should not

confuse the legitimate aspiration for equality of nations

with outmoded concepts of military parity.

We should be particularly concerned at the

various recent revelations about clandestine transfers of

weapons of mass destruction and their technologies.

We face the frightening prospect of these weapons and

technologies falling into the hands of terrorists. Surely

16

something needs to be done about the helplessness of

international regimes in preventing such transactions,

which clearly threaten international security. The same

regimes expend considerable energy in imposing a

variety of discriminatory technology-denial restrictions

on responsible States.

Our preoccupation with terrorism should not

dilute our commitment to tackle the non-military

threats to human and international security. We have to

sustain the fight against trafficking in narcotic drugs,

human beings and small arms, the pandemic of

HIV/AIDS, diseases like malaria and tuberculosis that

beset developing countries and the degradation of our

common environment. Food security, energy security

and health security are important goals.

The countries of the North and of the South —

the developed, developing and transition economies —

must resume their dialogue to build a better world for

the present and future generations. For the agenda of

globalization, Cancún was a disappointment.

Significant progress was made at Johannesburg

towards the realization of sustainable development, but

the entry into force of the Kyoto Protocol on climate

change remains stalled and the Convention on

Biological Diversity has not yielded any tangible

benefits to the world’s poor.

International economic relations continue to be

characterized by inequities and inequalities.

Globalization has helped sections of the international

economy, including some developing countries; however,

large communities have been left outside its pale. It has

engendered economic crises and instability in several

developing countries and sharply increased poverty.

Poverty is multidimensional. It extends beyond

money and income to education, health care, skills

enhancement, political participation at all levels from

the local to the global, access to natural resources,

clean water and air, and advancement of one’s own

culture and social organization.

Poverty alleviation requires resources on a far

greater scale than now available. Globalization itself

places constraints on Governments of developing

countries in raising public resources for poverty

alleviation. The promise of the climate change and

biodiversity treaties to raise significant resources for

investment and technology transfer is as yet unrealized.

The resources of multilateral and bilateral development

agencies are limited by the failure of industrialized

countries to enhance development budgets.

Therefore, if the current regimes of globalization

and sustainable development are to be expanded — or

even to survive — they must be directly harnessed to

provide the necessary resources for poverty alleviation.

In fact, all international agreements and initiatives

affecting developing countries have to be evaluated by

their impact on poverty.

Developing countries need to coordinate their

positions in international negotiations to promote the

adoption of regimes which would help alleviate

poverty. The India-Brazil-South Africa Dialogue

Forum, which was established earlier this year, is an

effort in this direction.

We in the developing countries do not have the

luxury of time. Political compulsions force us to meet

the aspirations of our people quickly, even as we

subject ourselves to newer and more rigid international

standards and norms. We owe it to our future generations

to make strong efforts to meet the Millennium

Development Goals. There is a mutuality of interest in

this between the developed and the developing

countries. Global interdependence today means that

economic disasters in developing countries could

create a backlash in developed countries. We hope the

world will act in this spirit of enlightened self-interest.