YouSaid · the spoken record

Atal Behari Vajpayee

lines on the record: 64
first: 1998-09-24
most recent: 2003-09-24
sittings or episodes: 4
sources: un-general-debate

Every line below is reproduced as it was said and linked to the record it came from. Nothing here is summarised or generated. Directory · Search · Corrections

“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.”
2003-09-24 · UN General Assembly · General Debate, Session 58 (2003)
“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.”
2003-09-24 · UN General Assembly · General Debate, Session 58 (2003)
“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.”
2003-09-24 · UN General Assembly · General Debate, Session 58 (2003)
“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.”
2003-09-24 · UN General Assembly · General Debate, Session 58 (2003)
“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.”
2003-09-24 · UN General Assembly · General Debate, Session 58 (2003)
“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.”
2003-09-24 · UN General Assembly · General Debate, Session 58 (2003)
“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.”
2003-09-24 · UN General Assembly · General Debate, Session 58 (2003)
“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.”
2003-09-24 · UN General Assembly · General Debate, Session 58 (2003)
“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.”
2003-09-24 · UN General Assembly · General Debate, Session 58 (2003)
“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.”
2003-09-24 · UN General Assembly · General Debate, Session 58 (2003)
“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.”
2003-09-24 · UN General Assembly · General Debate, Session 58 (2003)
“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.”
2003-09-24 · UN General Assembly · General Debate, Session 58 (2003)
“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.”
2003-09-24 · UN General Assembly · General Debate, Session 58 (2003)
“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.”
2003-09-24 · UN General Assembly · General Debate, Session 58 (2003)
“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.”
2003-09-24 · UN General Assembly · General Debate, Session 58 (2003)
“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.”
2003-09-24 · UN General Assembly · General Debate, Session 58 (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.”
2003-09-24 · UN General Assembly · General Debate, Session 58 (2003)
“We have to be vigilant against threats to democracy worldwide arising from forces that are opposed to it, be they rooted in fundamentalist political ideologies or extremist religious dogmas. All of us are aware of the challenges. Most of us are agreed that a stable global order has to rest on the four strong pillars of peace, security, sustainable development and democracy. We have to ensure that each of these pillars is strong and resilient. We are conscious of our collective responsibility. It is the leap from this theoretical understanding to its practical realization that we have often failed to execute. We should not fail again. Our future generations will not forgive us if we do.”
2002-09-24 · UN General Assembly · General Debate, Session 57 (2002)
“A genuinely democratic framework enables us to respect alternative points of view, to value diversity and to fashion solutions responsive to the aspirations of people. India's own experience as a hugely populated and diverse nation shows how complex problems can be addressed within a constitutional and democratic framework. These values need to be assiduously nurtured in our societies, so that at least a future generation is rid of the scourge of poverty, intolerance, obscurantism and religious extremism. Democratic societies are far less prone to ideologies based on violence or militarist yearnings, since they do not have their fingers permanently on the trigger of a gun.”
2002-09-24 · UN General Assembly · General Debate, Session 57 (2002)
“If we are to achieve the development goals we have promised ourselves by 2015, we need such a dialogue urgently. As we come together once again at the United Nations, at a time of new and diverse challenges, we should reflect on our collective commitment to the Charter, its purposes and principles. There is a growing perception, particularly among the weaker and poorer countries, that responses to issues of far-reaching impact often seem arbitrary and contradictory. A common destiny is at stake. The world needs collective multilateralism. It needs the United Nations, the coming together and working together of all its nations in the development of a common and collective perspective. Conflicts arise when there is no spirit of democracy within and among nations.”
2002-09-24 · UN General Assembly · General Debate, Session 57 (2002)
“On the contrary, if we are guided by compassion, care, feeling for our fellow human beings, cooperation and other human values, we are bound to get the right solutions to every problem on our planet. Humanity is crying out for a harmonious integration of the economic, social, political, environmental and spiritual dimensions of development. This task calls for the closest possible cooperation among nations and communities, with a readiness to accept the best from every cultural and spiritual tradition around the globe. The United Nations needs to take up newer and bigger initiatives in this direction. In this Assembly, less than a year ago, and in the United States Congress the year before, I had extended India's offer to coordinate a comprehensive global development dialogue. I reiterate that offer today.”
2002-09-24 · UN General Assembly · General Debate, Session 57 (2002)
“Early this month, the Johannesburg Summit for Sustainable Development debated some of the linkages between poverty, trade, environment, national, international and corporate governance and global financial flows. We emerged from the Summit with some encouraging outcomes, but these fell well short of the demands of our time. It has become a categorical imperative to understand and address man's developmental needs in their totality, and not in isolated parts. It is disconcerting that the highways of development are jammed with the noisy and unruly traffic of materialism and its brash cousin, consumerism. Human values have become mute bystanders in most political, economic and social activities. The result of this imbalance between our material and non-material needs can never be happy for mankind.”
2002-09-24 · UN General Assembly · General Debate, Session 57 (2002)
“What is lacking is the political will among the developed countries to sincerely and speedily address the legitimate developmental needs of the developing countries, especially the least developed ones. 16 Casting an even longer shadow over this grim developmental canvas is global climate change, from which the poor will most suffer, though they contributed least to it. The recent floods and forest fires in Europe are a forewarning that the countries of Asia and Africa are not the only victims of the fury of a degraded environment. The Earth's atmosphere and biosphere know no national boundaries. The choice before the global community is stark: Either we take urgent steps to protect the environment or be prepared for far worse natural calamities.”
2002-09-24 · UN General Assembly · General Debate, Session 57 (2002)
“We have to recognize that the developmental divide between the North and the South is becoming wider and deeper by the day. The challenges that face us are stark, and there is no alternative to having all countries of the world join hands to face them together. Over the last decade, 10 million people have been joining the ranks of the poor each year. A quarter of the world's population lives in extreme poverty. We have to find US$ 24 billion annually for investment in poor countries, if we are to achieve the World Food Summit goal of halving hunger by 2015. The continuation of widespread poverty, at a time when unimaginable wealth is concentrated in a small social layer, is totally unacceptable. The twenty-first century has all the means to end this sad legacy of the past centuries.”
2002-09-24 · UN General Assembly · General Debate, Session 57 (2002)
“Those who speak of underlying or root causes of terrorism offer alibis to the terrorists and absolve them of responsibility for their heinous actions, such as the 11 September attacks on the United States or the 13 December attack on our Parliament. Yesterday we heard yet another patently false and self-serving claim that in India Muslims and other minorities are the target of Hindu extremists. With 150 million Muslims, India has the second largest Muslim population in the world; greater than that of Pakistan. We are proud of the multi-religious character of our society. Equal respect for all faiths and non- discrimination on the basis of religion are not just part of our Constitutional obligations, but, as the whole world knows, they are the signature theme of India's civilization and culture.”
2002-09-24 · UN General Assembly · General Debate, Session 57 (2002)
“It requires an effort of acrobatic logic to believe that the carnage among innocents is an instrument for freedom and that elections are a symbol of deception and repression. If the elections are a mere fraud, why are terrorists being trained and infiltrating India at the command of the Inter-Services Intelligence Agency of Pakistan to kill election candidates and to intimidate voters? If Pakistan claims to be a crucial partner in the international coalition against terrorism, how can it continue to use terrorism as an instrument of State policy against India? How can the international coalition condone Pakistan-directed killings of thousands of innocent civilians women and children included to promote a bizarre version of self-determination?”
2002-09-24 · UN General Assembly · General Debate, Session 57 (2002)
“As far as India is concerned, we have repeatedly clarified that no one in our country wants a war, conventional or otherwise. Nor are we seeking any territory. But absolutely everyone in India wants an end to the cross-border terrorism which has claimed thousands of innocent lives and denied entire generations their right to a peaceful existence with normal economic and social activity. We are determined to end it with all the means at our command. Let there be no doubt about that in any quarter. Yesterday we heard the extraordinary claim in this Assembly that the brutal murder of innocent civilians in Jammu and Kashmir is actually a freedom struggle and that the forthcoming elections in that state are a farce, since they cannot be a substitute for a plebiscite demanded over 50 years ago.”
2002-09-24 · UN General Assembly · General Debate, Session 57 (2002)
“The international community has taken some collective decisions in the global effort to combat terrorism and to choke off its lifelines. Security Council resolution 1373 (2001) contains the essence of these decisions. The Council's Counter-Terrorism Committee should now move beyond information compilation and legal assistance to enforcing compliance by States known to be sponsoring, sheltering, funding, arming and training terrorists. In our South Asian region, nuclear blackmail has emerged over the past few months as a new arrow in the quiver of State-sponsored terrorism. Dark threats were held out that actions by India to stamp out cross- border terrorism could provoke a nuclear war. To succumb to such blatant nuclear terrorism would mean forgetting the bitter lessons of the 11 September tragedy.”
2002-09-24 · UN General Assembly · General Debate, Session 57 (2002)
“I congratulate Mr. Kavan on his election as President of the General Assembly at its fifty-seventh session. I also extend my best wishes to Secretary-General Kofi Annan in this first year of his second term in office. Two days ago, we commemorated the first anniversary of a terrible event that focused the collective global consciousness on international terrorism. Terrorism did not start on 11 September. It was on that day that it brazenly announced itself on the global stage, flaunting its immunity from distance and power. 15 As a country exposed to the depredations of terrorism for decades, India empathized with the pain of the American people, admired their resilience in coming to terms with the consequences and supported the bold decision to counter-attack terrorism at its very source.”
2002-09-24 · UN General Assembly · General Debate, Session 57 (2002)
“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.””
2001-09-24 · UN General Assembly · General Debate, Session 56 (2001)
“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.”
2001-09-24 · UN General Assembly · General Debate, Session 56 (2001)
“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.”
2001-09-24 · UN General Assembly · General Debate, Session 56 (2001)
“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.”
2001-09-24 · UN General Assembly · General Debate, Session 56 (2001)
“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.”
2001-09-24 · UN General Assembly · General Debate, Session 56 (2001)
“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.”
2001-09-24 · UN General Assembly · General Debate, Session 56 (2001)
“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.”
2001-09-24 · UN General Assembly · General Debate, Session 56 (2001)
“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.”
2001-09-24 · UN General Assembly · General Debate, Session 56 (2001)
“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.”
2001-09-24 · UN General Assembly · General Debate, Session 56 (2001)
“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.”
2001-09-24 · UN General Assembly · General Debate, Session 56 (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.”
2001-09-24 · UN General Assembly · General Debate, Session 56 (2001)
“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.”
1998-09-24 · UN General Assembly · General Debate, Session 53 (1998)
“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.”
1998-09-24 · UN General Assembly · General Debate, Session 53 (1998)
“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.”
1998-09-24 · UN General Assembly · General Debate, Session 53 (1998)
“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.”
1998-09-24 · UN General Assembly · General Debate, Session 53 (1998)
“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.”
1998-09-24 · UN General Assembly · General Debate, Session 53 (1998)
“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.”
1998-09-24 · UN General Assembly · General Debate, Session 53 (1998)
“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.”
1998-09-24 · UN General Assembly · General Debate, Session 53 (1998)
“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.”
1998-09-24 · UN General Assembly · General Debate, Session 53 (1998)
“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.”
1998-09-24 · UN General Assembly · General Debate, Session 53 (1998)
“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.”
1998-09-24 · UN General Assembly · General Debate, Session 53 (1998)