YouSaid · the spoken record

Krishna MENON

lines on the record: 599
first: 1956-09-24
most recent: 1961-09-24
sittings or episodes: 5
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

“Therefore, my delegation wishes to place this in context, perhaps rather abruptly, because we are likely to lose sight of the importance, the necessity, and today, the possibility of total disarmament in the world within a short. and measurable time. We stand four-square for the complete abandonment of all weapons of mass destruction and for speedy progress towards their abolition. Today therefore, in discussing disarmament in this general debate, and without going into great detail, I should like to refer to the background of disarmament in regard to the Charter itself.”
1960-09-24 · UN General Assembly · General Debate, Session 15 (1960)
“So today in our world, with the technological developments which are taking place, to which I will address myself in a minute, any limitation of armaments which makes large-scale war possible cannot be an end in itself, in that it goes on to the next phase where speed is of great value, because the effort has to begin somewhere. 117. If you asked a person whether he preferred to be destroyed by such and such a weapon or by another kind of weapon, whether the size of the gun should be this, that or the other, I suppose he would be in the position of the fish that is asked, "would you like to be fried in margarine or in butter?" It makes no difference to the fish whether you fry it in butter or in margarine. It is fried! Therefore, the world is not satisfied with being told that we are using more "humane" weapons.”
1960-09-24 · UN General Assembly · General Debate, Session 15 (1960)
“That is why we say that the idea of total disarmament, a world without war, is no longer a Utopia, it becomes an imperative necessity, because in a world that is disarmed, where war is still the instrument of policy, it is only common sense to think that if war were to break out the men who made the thermo-nuclear weapons, the machinery that could make them, would still be available to nations. The experience of history shows that neither the generals nor the weapons that were prevalent at the outbreak of war are the people or the instruments which will prosecute or end the war! It has been a commonplace that peacetime generals soon give way to wartime generals just as peacetime weapons also give way to wartime weapons.”
1960-09-24 · UN General Assembly · General Debate, Session 15 (1960)
“But what I am trying to point out is this: whatever may have been the justification for wars between nations or wars to end wars and what-not, today there can only be wars, in a global sense, only to end the world. We are told (I do not know what the basis of the calculation is) that the destructive thermo-nuclear and nuclear power of the world as at the present time, on a conservative calculation, equals the power of twelve tons of TNT per head of the population of the world. Therefore, the destructive power is so tremendous that any kind of outbreak of war would mean possible destruction of humanity as a whole.”
1960-09-24 · UN General Assembly · General Debate, Session 15 (1960)
“This was the idea of previous times, but now we have reached the situation in which, if the world were to enter into war there would be no muscles to be developed, and apparently this philosopher had the foresight to recognize this even at that time when he said (and this passage is also quoted in that prefatory note): "When whole nations are the armies" — that is the position today — "and the science of destruction vies in intellectual refinement with the science of production" — that Is what is happening to us now — "I see that war becomes absurd and impossible from its own monstrosity. Extravagant ambitions will have to be replaced by reasonable claims, and nations must make common cause against them." 116. Today these two sentences reflect what every thoughtful person believes.”
1960-09-24 · UN General Assembly · General Debate, Session 15 (1960)
“The quotation continues: "To most theorists and statesmen, war was not the desperate last resort for settling conflicts; rather it was the mechanism that prevented society from slipping into 'degeneration' and that served as a supreme arbiter for testing the virtue and worth of that society." Then, in the same prefatory note, we come to a quotation from the great American philosopher, the father of modern pragmatism, William James. He said: "'History is a bath of blood' but war is 'the gory nurse that trains society to cohesiveness' and provides 'the moral spur’ to develop the essential manly virtues of 'intrepidity, contempt of softness, surrender of private interest, obedience to command’." 115. That is the formal view of war as an exercise to tune up our muscles.”
1960-09-24 · UN General Assembly · General Debate, Session 15 (1960)
“Fortunately, the time has passed in the world where there are nations which regard war as a kind of muscle development, and here I should like to read an extract which I took from a book I read recently. This is an extract from the editor's prefatory note of a special issue of the publication Daedalus: "Until two generations ago, war was widely regarded as a biological and sociological inevitability — even a necessity." You may remember that there was a gentleman who said this during the war years.”
1960-09-24 · UN General Assembly · General Debate, Session 15 (1960)
“The corollary to collective security is disarmament. 113. Having said this much, I want to make the position of my country very clear, as we did on instructions of our Government at San Francisco in 1955 at the commemoration of the tenth anniversary of the United Nations. We regard disarmament only as a means to an end. The end is the avoidance of war. What we seek is not merely disarmament, that is to say, the limitation of arms, the categories of arms that should be avoided and so on, which all have their own purposes, but what we seek is a world without war, where war will be no longer regarded as an instrument of settling disputes, particularly in modem times when large populations are subject to the cruel consequences of war Itself. 114.”
1960-09-24 · UN General Assembly · General Debate, Session 15 (1960)
“Its advocates, whether a Tsar Alexander or a Lord Castlereagh, kept their own reservations. When we have pacific settlement of disputes, it follows inevitably that we must have collective security because if there is pacific settlement of disputes there must be some guarantee that It will be enforced or it will not endure. Therefore collective security, which has now become accepted in the world, has followed — ever since the beginning of the century, anyway. If there is pacific settlement of disputes, then collective security follows in its train. It equally follows that there must be disarmament because it should not be possible for any great Power, or for any Power at the disposal of the United Nations, or any other bloc, to be so powerful as to impose its will by force upon anyone else.”
1960-09-24 · UN General Assembly · General Debate, Session 15 (1960)
“112. I am not referring to our whole history. Then came, as I said, the Chinese instance. There has been the history of Europe, which is a more modern history. From the middle of the fifteenth century onwards attempts were made in this way from time to time, but I will not take the time of the Assembly to repeat history except to point out that we have now reached situations when we should remember that disarmament is part of a family tree almost, that Is to say, since humanity became organized in national groups with national rivalries, there has emerged within the conflicts the concomitant idea of the pacific settlements of disputes. Pacific settlement of disputes In the Western world from the time of Bodin and after world wars makes Its appearance at various times in conferences.”
1960-09-24 · UN General Assembly · General Debate, Session 15 (1960)
“First of all, we think that it is essential for us to remember that the Idea of disarmament has not come to us overnight but has been born in the context of human evolution. There have always been wars in the past, but that is no reason why there should be war again. In our time, in the last generation or two, there have been two great world wars, and at the end of each, efforts have been made, to create first a League of Nations and afterwards a United Nations. 111. As I said some time ago, the attempts to establish disarmament have a very long history. In our own country right through, when you go from north to south you see engraved In stone or metal by the great emperor Asoka, whose emblem we carry on our national flag today, the counsels of peace, though he had been victorious in his campaigns and pacification had been established.”
1960-09-24 · UN General Assembly · General Debate, Session 15 (1960)
“Therefore, once the blaze of freedom comes to a place and it is followed by the material sustenance that is necessary to maintain itself economically and socially free, certain consequences follow. Therefore, the presence of these free nations here is not only — as I said a while ago — something for which they have to congratulate themselves and rejoice in, but it is a great contribution to the world. 110. I come now to the next of the problems, the most Important of all, that is, the problem of disarmament. I hope that the Assembly will forgive me if I take most of the rest of my time for this subject. It is not the intention of my delegation to go into very accurate details on this question before the Item goes to the First Committee. But it is the desire of the Government of India to put forward its approach in these matters.”
1960-09-24 · UN General Assembly · General Debate, Session 15 (1960)
“So unless this Organization remains not only universal in its membership, but universal in the conception pervading it, not divided by factionism, we are not likely to get much further, 109. This was also the feeling of those who framed the Charter at San Francisco, and I have some extracts from some relevant speeches that I will not take time to read now. But the more we move in this direction, the better. I am happy also because of the independence of uncommitted nations, and because their numbers are being largely added to by newer nations and in the thought that, whatever may be the present situation, liberty carries its own consequences. You cannot set a man free and expect him to remain unfree forever. That would be like countries who say, "You can have self-determination provided you determine as we want you to determine".”
1960-09-24 · UN General Assembly · General Debate, Session 15 (1960)
“Tsar Alexander preached to the world the universal doctrine of Christendom and the great dreams that he had for the whole world, for the great human family. But he was torn between his dreams and his schemes for power, which ultimately resulted in the Holy Alliance. So here also is the great universal doctrine that has been explored by the fathers of our constitution — the Charter — including the representatives of the United States and of the Soviet Union whose speeches at the United Nations Conference in San Francisco I just read. On the one hand they try to reach universalism, while on the other hand keeping out a good little country like Outer Mongolia; and, on the other hand, not allowing the free play of independent nations through fear of one nation or the other.”
1960-09-24 · UN General Assembly · General Debate, Session 15 (1960)
“In fact, the position the United Nations is facing is what humanity has faced from almost the pre-Christian era, where on the one hand there was the doctrine or approach of universalism, one world and one family, whether on theological, political or other grounds — and on the other hand power for oneself. This has been the contradiction the whole time. In the sixth century B.C., the Chinese tried to bring about some degree of understanding among the rival areas of the Yangtse basin on the basis of peaceful settlements, and they ended up by imposing domination in the Yangtse region. 108. After that, in the Christian world at various times there were moves in this direction, and ultimately there was the Congress of Vienna of 1815.”
1960-09-24 · UN General Assembly · General Debate, Session 15 (1960)
“We are against the formation of isolated blocs in the United Nations, because it means that this Assembly has no capacity to decide in freedom; that decisions are reached elsewhere beforehand and that all that happens is degrees of master-minding. This would not lead to the prosperity of this world. Co-operation among like-minded nations, co-operation among people with like-minded experience past or present is both necessary and useful. But to say that we are a third force, or a neutralist bloc, the panacea for everything, is beside the point. 107. At the risk of being misunderstood, my country does not stand for the formation of blocs, because blocs mean isolationism. We stand for a universalist world.”
1960-09-24 · UN General Assembly · General Debate, Session 15 (1960)
“We shall not be a party at any time to intervening in any way, economically or otherwise, either in the developing continent of Africa and or in other parts of Asia with a view to profiting ourselves or in such a way as to stifle their progress, or anything of that character. 105. There are no troops, there is no soldier, no aeroplane, no horse and no gun belonging to the Republic of India anywhere outside our frontiers except at the behest of the United Nations or international agreements. The last of these were withdrawn on the last day of August 1947. Therefore, we stand, without any reservation whatsoever, as a country that does not want to be involved in the war blocs. 106. This takes me to another, perhaps more controversial question — the classification of uncommitted countries as a bloc.”
1960-09-24 · UN General Assembly · General Debate, Session 15 (1960)
“Then, while one does not want to speak for other countries who more or less follow the same policy, speaking for ourselves, our peoples are never able to accept the idea of exclusive good and exclusive evil. There are no individuals, no nations, no groups of people who can say that their policies, their actions, their thoughts, their commitments, or whatever they are, are exclusively one thing or the other. In this changing world of ours it is always necessary to have observation and examination of the opponents’ proposals. There is always a chance that the opponent may be right, and if he is right and you reject him out of hand, you lose his contribution. Therefore, we will not contribute our strength, for what it is worth — it is worth very little in economic or military terms — for the promotion of world factions.”
1960-09-24 · UN General Assembly · General Debate, Session 15 (1960)
“We do not regard military alliances between Member States of the United Nations outside the Charter, and as against another group of nations as sanctioned by Article 51 of the Charter. 104. But at the same time, we have not carried on a campaign against it. As the world stands at present, these systems have come into existence and we hope that with the evolution of proposals for disarmament and collective security they will begin to disappear even though little by little. Therefore, our position in this regard is what is dictated by the Charter; the policy of the good neighbour, the policy that we try to practice in our own country by our democratic institutions, tolerance for differences of opinion.”
1960-09-24 · UN General Assembly · General Debate, Session 15 (1960)
“We are happy to think that, while at one time being non-aligned was regarded — as I have been told so many times — as sitting on the fence, or pronouncing a curse on both houses, or trying to canvass assistance from both sides, that day has fortunately disappeared. Today in the world, even in the United States of America, the Soviet Union or European countries, there is a greater appreciation of the integrity of purpose involved in this; and even of the political profit and the profit of the world that might arise from, independent countries exercising their policies independently. This is not a counsel of anarchy, or a counsel against co-operation between peoples.”
1960-09-24 · UN General Assembly · General Debate, Session 15 (1960)
“We want it understood that we do not welcome this appellation of neutral, or neutralist, whatever it means. It means that, if we even accept the appellation, first of all we would accept the freezing of the cold war or the power blocs, which we do not want to see in the world. In this world we cannot continue to live in peace and security, or even survive, unless the great countries of Europe and America come together, not necessarily with an identity of thinking, but with tolerance and co-operation and lay down their arms. This is not possible if there are only two sides and they are ranged against each other, each canvassing against the other. If they are successful in their enlistment effort there may well be no areas in the world that are not precommitted to forceful action. This is a tragic state of affairs. 103.”
1960-09-24 · UN General Assembly · General Debate, Session 15 (1960)
“We should be open to persuasion, because if we are not open to persuasion we should never be able to persuade anybody else. 102. Therefore, our position is that we are uncommitted in regard to sides. We do not belong to one camp or another. That does not mean that where these issues are involved to which I have referred we would simply sit on the fence and not take sides. What is more, this uncommittedness is not an attempt to escape international responsibilities. My own country, in regard to the situation that arose later in Korea — or even during the Korean war — in Indo-China, in the Lebanon, in the Gaza Strip, and now in the Congo (Leopoldville), is heavily committed, committed far beyond our capacity. We committed ourselves because we think it is in the interests of peace at this time.”
1960-09-24 · UN General Assembly · General Debate, Session 15 (1960)
“Secondly, we believe that in the circumstances, where the balance of power in the world unfortunately rests on what Sir Winston Churchill called "the balance of horror", it is good for nations, and not only for the nations of Asia — and while I take up no position of telling other nations what to do, the greater the increase of the area of peace in the world, the greater the non-committedness, the more that the so-called committed nations have to canvass for the moral support of others, the greater are the chances of peace. No country which relies upon power or negotiation from strength should be able to take any other country for granted. That is, we should be able to decide, either in our wisdom or otherwise., as to what is good for ourselves in the world.”
1960-09-24 · UN General Assembly · General Debate, Session 15 (1960)
“There can no more be positive neutrality than there can be a vegetarian tiger. 100. Therefore, our position is that we are an un-aligned and uncommitted nation in relation to the cold war. That is to say, in relation to the great international issues, we think it is good for sovereign nations. In conformity with international law and with their own historic backgrounds, to protect into international relations their own internal policies in regard to toleration, democracy and neighbourliness. And the Charter provides the guidelines that are required. 101. It is not necessary for us to belong to this school or to that school and to sacrifice our convictions, for it is our convictions that have led us to non-alignment in this way.”
1960-09-24 · UN General Assembly · General Debate, Session 15 (1960)
“We refuse to accept responsibility for the appellation "neutralist", which is purely a newspaper invention, originally produced as an epithet by people who did not like our policy. We are not neutral in regard to war or peace. We are not neutral in regard to domination by imperialist or other countries. We are not neutral with regard to ethical values. We are not neutral with regard to the greatest economic and social problems that may arise. Neutrality is a concept that arises only in war. If we are neutrals, the Soviet Union and the United States are belligerents — and I do not think they want to plead guilty to that! We are not neutral or neutralist, positive or otherwise. We would take part, we would participate, we would express our views. Even that expression "positive neutrality" is a contradiction in terms.”
1960-09-24 · UN General Assembly · General Debate, Session 15 (1960)
“That is, when we try to change this system it is not sufficient for us to be logical, it is not sufficient for us to approach the task with the aim of tearing things down; we must rather respect the principle of unanimity, that union of hearts and minds that is required so to fashion the Organization as to breathe the breath of life into it, so that it can respond to the needs for it, whether they be economic, political, matters of security or otherwise. This is the submission that my delegation would like to make. 99. Next, though it may seem somewhat removed from the United Nations, my delegation feels it necessary for my country, even if it may be regarded as, perhaps, special pleading, to give some exposition, some expression of view, as to our own approach in these matters. We are not a neutral country.”
1960-09-24 · UN General Assembly · General Debate, Session 15 (1960)
“Field Marshal Smuts, who was one of the formulators of the Charter and who is quite a good authority for us to quote, said, in his concluding address at San Francisco: "Unless the spirit to operate it is there, the best plan or machine may fail. ... It is for our peace-loving peoples to see that this great peace plan is backed with all their energy, all their hearts, and all their souls." 98.”
1960-09-24 · UN General Assembly · General Debate, Session 15 (1960)
“My country has been a consistent opponent of any amendment of the Charter without getting agreement among the great Powers, because it can lead only to cold-war controversy otherwise. Agreement, unanimity, of the great Powers Is required to expand the organs of the United Nations. But in the same circumstances, I am sure that the great Powers, whether they belong to the East, to the West or to Europe, would recognize that the Security Council lives in a political vacuum that is unconnected with the realities of the modern world and, what is more, will create in the Assembly a caste system of nations that may get into the sanctum sanctorum, and nations that may not. And this applies equally to other organs of the United Nations which we shall be discussing in special committees. 97.”
1960-09-24 · UN General Assembly · General Debate, Session 15 (1960)
“Now, joining the Security Council does not mean being invited to social parties. It means distribution of responsibilities; it means that large and small countries in different parts of the world must all feel the sense of "belongingness”. Otherwise the Security Council functions in one compartment, the Assembly functions in a separate compartment, and the Secretary-General and other organs function in other compartments. This to a certain extent is inevitable, but it becomes accentuated. 96. Therefore, looking at these purely geographical and physical facts, the necessity becomes apparent for finding ways and means of dealing with this problem calling for an amendment of the Charter.”
1960-09-24 · UN General Assembly · General Debate, Session 15 (1960)
“If it were desired to give membership on the Security Council to the Commonwealth group, we would be there, in the present state of membership, once in twenty-four years, and from the end of next year, India would be in the Security Council once in forty or forty-six years. An African country under this system, unless the Asians and Africans came to some arrangement among themselves, would not be there at all; but even if some arrangement were reached, they would be there only once in seventy or eighty years. That is to say, if a two-year term is to be distributed among all. Perhaps this is not a completely fair way of describing the situation, because not every country may want membership; but in any event, it takes a very long time — some ten to thirty years — before a given country can be on the Security Council. 95.”
1960-09-24 · UN General Assembly · General Debate, Session 15 (1960)
“However, the Middle East had one seat and the Commonwealth had one seat, and the Commonwealth at that time had one Asian Member, namely, India. So Asia had practically no representation, but the Middle East — meaning, I suppose, mainly the Arab countries — had one representative. Latin America had two, and it has two and it will have two. 93. Africa at that time had no representation on the Security Council, except for Egypt, which is in Africa but which was included, once again by some strange geography, in the Middle East. 94. But our present position is this. Take India, for example.”
1960-09-24 · UN General Assembly · General Debate, Session 15 (1960)
“Eastern Europe has one representative for its ten Member States, whereas at the time of joining it had one representative for only six Member States. When we come to Asia and Africa, we get even more bizarre conclusions. The whole of Asia was at first provided with no representative. Asia was, as it were, distributed between what is called the Middle East and the Commonwealth — and I am sorry to say, for myself I do not understand this area which is called the "Middle East". It depends on where you are looking from. In my part of the world the Middle East would be somewhere in the Pacific. We must not take the view that all political meridians and longitudes are necessarily measured from Greenwich.”
1960-09-24 · UN General Assembly · General Debate, Session 15 (1960)
“Our country then and now, as expressed by the Prime Minister, has always been of the opinion that, logical or otherwise, it is necessary for the United Nations to be based upon unanimity of the great Powers, because they represent the objective facts of the world, and no great nation can, merely by a majority vote, be asked to exercise security functions or accept security decisions. Therefore, we are not in the least quarrelling with the position of the great Powers in the Security Council. That is not the purpose of this. 92. But let us take the position as it is today. Western Europe has two representatives for its nineteen Member States, whereas when it had ten Member States it had also two representatives.”
1960-09-24 · UN General Assembly · General Debate, Session 15 (1960)
“In this case we lost one Member, as far as numerical calculations are concerned, when Egypt and Syria, as a result of a plebiscite held in both countries in 1958, became the United Arab Republic. But other Members were added, and within a few years they became fourteen, and today they number twenty-two. 89. From Western Europe there were ten Members, which afterwards became nine. Today there are nineteen. 90. From Eastern Europe there were six original Members, and the present number is ten. 91. So that we find in all these cases membership has multiplied by three to six or seven times. This must certainly create problems in regard to organization, and we get some rather bizarre conclusions if we take, for instance, the Security Council.”
1960-09-24 · UN General Assembly · General Debate, Session 15 (1960)
“The defeated Powers at that time were not present as members. The last parts of the colonial empires — countries like our own — were still sitting on the doorstep, participating and not participating. Therefore, it was in the minds of those people that these things should be changed. 86. From those generalities we now come to the present situation. If we take each of the organs of the United Nations and put them into relation with the countries concerned, we find that the original membership from Africa was four, whereas the present membership is twenty-six. The membership from Africa, therefore, has increased between six and seven times. 87. The membership from the Americas has remained stationary: there were twenty-two Members at that time and there are twenty-two Members at present. 88. From Asia there were nine Members.”
1960-09-24 · UN General Assembly · General Debate, Session 15 (1960)
“"The special conference may be held at a date and place to be fixed by a two-thirds vote of the General Assembly with the concurrence of any seven members of the Security Council, It is also provided that, in case the conference is not held before the tenth annual meeting of the Assembly following the entry into force of the Charter, the proposal to call such a conference is to be placed on the agenda of that meeting of the Assembly and a conference may be called by a simple majority of the Assembly with the concurrence of any seven members of the Security Council." 85. As the Assembly will note, we have taken all these steps. My purpose in reading this extract was to bring out that it was in the minds of those people, who were conscious of their great idealism and competence, that one-half of the world was not there.”
1960-09-24 · UN General Assembly · General Debate, Session 15 (1960)
“The report reads: "Taking cognizance of the facts that the Charter being prepared at San Francisco could not be perfect and that the delegates could not foresee all eventual developments in international affairs, Commission! recommends for inclusion in the Charter provisions for a special conference on the revision of the Charter... .”
1960-09-24 · UN General Assembly · General Debate, Session 15 (1960)
“Changing world conditions will require readjustments, but they will be readjustments of peace and not of war." 83. I think that both the first part and the second part are important. The most important document in this context at San Francisco was the report of Commission I presided over by the famous Belgian jurist, Mr. Rolin, which had as its rapporteur a colleague of ours at this session of the Assembly, Mr. Delgado of the Philippines. 84. This Commission, under the presidency of Mr. Rolin, made the following report at a meeting presided over by a former Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs of the United Kingdom, Lord Halifax. This is not an individual's opinion, it is the report of the Commission appointed for this purpose.”
1960-09-24 · UN General Assembly · General Debate, Session 15 (1960)
“Needs have changed through the vast expansion of the economic functions, the security functions, the peace functions and other functions of the United Nations. From being an Organization with about fifty Members, we have become an Organization with about one hundred Members. There are very few parts of the world which are outside this Organization. As we look back to San Francisco, we find that even those who formulated the Charter were conscious of this. The President of the United States, Mr. Truman, who was taking a leading part at that time, said: "This Charter, like our own Constitution, will be expanded and Improved as time goes on. No one claims that it is now a final or a perfect instrument. It has not been poured into a fixed mould.”
1960-09-24 · UN General Assembly · General Debate, Session 15 (1960)
“We have to take account of the aspirations, the hopes, the demands of people, and, what is more, we must realize that the knowledge that conditions which are not suitable can be changed by human effort, and that humanity has the right to demand the giving of co-operative assistance, has become a conscious part of our thinking. 82. As I have said, the United Nations was founded so many years ago and is the successor to so many previous efforts. But at no time did anyone think, and certainly not at the time when the Charter was formulated, that the last word had been said, that institutions are unchangeable, and that the Charter was to be a steel frame from which there would be no escape when it was necessary to respond to modem needs.”
1960-09-24 · UN General Assembly · General Debate, Session 15 (1960)
“Today, therefore, though we are dealing with a world which has shrunk because of methods of communication, we are dealing at the same time with an expanded and expanding world. Both the political liberation of peoples and the advance of technology have created a situation in which progress has to be fast, progress can be fast and of considerable dimensions. 81. I mentioned a little while ago the difference between the evolution of the former dependent areas and the evolution of the Western world, and I want to say that, in this matter, time is not with us.”
1960-09-24 · UN General Assembly · General Debate, Session 15 (1960)
“The time is soon coming when no country in the world will be able to say; "We know everything and we do not want to learn from anybody else.” That is how my delegation looks at this colonial problem. 80. I now come to the question of the United Nations. The Secretary-General said this morning that much has been said here, one way or the other. It is not my purpose to follow that line of argument. But we have to remember that the United Nations was founded some fifteen years ago, when the greater part of the world was politically, economically and socially not competent. In other words, the political dimensions of the world, the social dimensions of the world, have become larger, as I said a while ago, with the liberation of countries and peoples and with the advance of human ideas.”
1960-09-24 · UN General Assembly · General Debate, Session 15 (1960)
“I hope that in this matter my delegation has put forward suggestions that are not of a destructive but of a constructive character. However free politically certain territories may be, particularly small territories in backward conditions of industrial, technical and economic development, that political freedom cannot be sustained unless they can hold their own, socially, morally, economically and otherwise. That is why we have suggested this system whereby each country can make its own humble contribution, measured by its capacity to pay, with the aid being distributed to all without exception, Even a powerful country, if it requires some assistance to fill a certain lacuna, must be free to draw from that pool.”
1960-09-24 · UN General Assembly · General Debate, Session 15 (1960)
“If others do not like what they may regard as unpleasant methods, it is open to them to avoid the necessity for those who are dependent to employ such methods. Subject people, I say, have the right to use every method to liberate themselves. But a wise world would avoid the necessity of violent conflict, because violence leads to further violence, and hatred and fear, all of which endanger world progress and peace. 78. We also would not like to see in the world a situation in which an empire which has been responsible for the rule of large numbers of people, sometimes not for decades or for generations but perhaps for a century or more, finds that, when it departs, there are no people to take over. There can be no greater criticism of imperial rule than that 79.”
1960-09-24 · UN General Assembly · General Debate, Session 15 (1960)
“We should therefore like to stress the economic aspect of the problem of dependent peoples, which can no longer be a matter of political acrimony and argument alone. The greater part of the world has become free — the Fourth Committee, I suppose, will soon be out of business, and we will be glad when that is so — and we must address ourselves to these problems of food, of education, of sanitation, of administrative ability, the problem of the employment of leisure, the advancement of the production of raw materials and the solution of the problem of markets in such a way that humanity as a whole will be developed, 76. This is one of the submissions that my delegation would like to make in regard to this problem. 77. I think that a subject people are entitled to use every method to liberate themselves.”
1960-09-24 · UN General Assembly · General Debate, Session 15 (1960)
“The time has therefore come to make a request for an effort on a very large and ambitious scale, particularly to the more advanced countries, the United States and the Soviet Union — the national income of the United States and the Soviet Union together is getting on for $800 thousand million — to submit themselves to a United Nations levy, collected by the United Nations and administered by a special organization established for that particular purpose, so that there can be no question of unconscious trends in the thinking of that administration creating situations which are not acceptable, so that a new system will develop whereby some of the problems we have been talking about, involving the incapacity of the Organization to respond to newer situations, would also disappear. 75.”
1960-09-24 · UN General Assembly · General Debate, Session 15 (1960)
“We the nations of the world should convert ourselves into a really co-operative organization for this purpose, in which each country, whether giver or taker, would not be exclusively a giver or taker. As the world develops, it will become necessary for the developed countries also to have the advantage of the experience of others. Problems of the availability and procurement of raw materials and of markets, the necessity for the advanced countries to be able to keep up their production apparatus in the face of the competition of newer countries, both in raw materials and in finished goods — all these problems will come up. 74.”
1960-09-24 · UN General Assembly · General Debate, Session 15 (1960)
“The national income of the world is probably somewhere between $1,200 thousand million and $1,500 thousand million. If the United Nations is able to obtain agreement from the nations to submit themselves to a United Nations levy, it would be not merely for what are called under-developed countries. The under-developed countries would be participants in the levy scheme, but naturally not in the same proportions, as the more developed ones, because of their much lower standards. However, they must come into it and, side by side with the others, create international pools of technicians and experts. It should be not a one-way flow of traffic. So far as our country is concerned, there is even now both the receiving and giving of aid. But these are multilateral or bilateral arrangements.”
1960-09-24 · UN General Assembly · General Debate, Session 15 (1960)
“We must consider whether, while there must be bilateral or multilateral or other specific arrangements and while the United Nations itself can take credit for a great deal in this direction, the time has come for the United Nations to take note of either the expressed or the unexpressed views of the former dependent peoples of Africa and Asia that this development has to be a co-operative effort, in which those people which benefit by it have equal pride; in other words, from each according to his ability — it is a good Christian maxim — and to each according to his needs! 73. It should be made possible for the United Nations to make a levy — a percentage of national income of countries, related to their capacity to pay — which would probably produce, although I would not like to go into figures, a very large quantum of money.”
1960-09-24 · UN General Assembly · General Debate, Session 15 (1960)
“Unless there is a rise in standards of living, unless there is industrial advancement and, what is more, a consciousness of political equality, social equality and dignity, the world is not likely to go forward. 71. I deliberately wish to exclude from these observations this morning mention of any particular countries, either dependent or dominating countries, and merely to refer to the problem as such. 72.”
1960-09-24 · UN General Assembly · General Debate, Session 15 (1960)