By Inder Jit
(Released on 29 December 1977)
Quiet has once again descended over the historic and imposing headquarters of the United Nations in New York. The 32nd Session of the General Assembly, which began on September 20, has concluded. Delegations from 149 member states are now on their way back home at the end of a session which was both memorable and lively. Not everything that one had hoped for came to pass. Indeed, there was much left to be desired in more ways than one. Nevertheless, the Session will also be remembered for many credits.
Vital issues of war and peace were debated once again and various resolutions voted — but with a difference. Unlike in the previous sessions, the discussions did not lead to any great bitterness or tension. In fact, the session was generally free of confrontation, even if controversies remained and each side tried hard to achieve its ends.
What is more, the session saw the United Nations diplomacy acquire a new, pragmatic dimension in its quest for lasting peace. The door was wisely left open time and again for outside initiatives to be taken within the framework of the United Nations objectives. Search for a meaningful basis for peace and security in the trouble-torn Middle East, for instance, was carried on outside the United Nations, as dramatized by President Sadat’s visit to Jerusalem.
Not unexpectedly, it generated both heat and controversy at the United Nations. Significantly, there was no confrontation. There is now a widespread understanding at the United Nations that durable peace in the Middle East cannot be realized until the question of Palestine is amicably resolved. Indeed, Israel’s latest proposals on this question show that Prime Minister Begin has begun to pay serious attention to the root of this problem in the Middle East.
President Sadat’s initiative may have given the impression that the United Nations had been unable to do anything in the matter. But such an impression would be contrary to facts. Israel, it has to be remembered, was created in 1947 by the partition of Palestine under a General Assembly resolution. But its boundaries have yet to be finally settled, and so also the future of the rest of Palestine outside Israel. Thus the United Nations has still to finish the job it undertook when it partitioned Palestine and created Israel. Otherwise, the very existence of Israel would continue to be questioned and there would be little hope of a lasting peace settlement.
Several familiar issues were spotlighted once again. Prominent among these was the vital issue of disarmament. Much was understandably repeated and some new points were also made. But the focus was mainly on the special disarmament session of the General Assembly due to be held in in May and June next year. A preparatory committee is now working on a draft for the Declaration on Disarmament, which will set out the objectives, intermediate targets and a time frame with a set of priorities for a detailed programme of action. The latter is expected to include a Treaty on the Prohibition of Nuclear Weapons Test and reduction of Military budget and diversion of resources thus released to development.
Considerable time and attention was also devoted to two other major issues Human Rights and the New International Economic Order. India and the other countries of the third world scored a significant victory when they successfully defeated a renewed western effort to create at this Session a post of a United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights to monitor the performance of various countries in regard to human rights. The third world took the view that the existing Human Rights Commission should first look into the entire question of human rights and put forward proposals which would enable the international community to look into not merely the political rights as emphasized by the West, but also the economic and social rights.
What of the U.N.? Is it any more effective than it was? The United Nations is slowly but surely getting stronger notwithstanding cynical comments here and there. Even the criticism of ineffectiveness is seen by these experts as carrying within it seeds of future growth and progress.
On the economic front, however, the third world suffered a defeat in its efforts to push ahead on the question of establishing the new International Economic Order. After the Paris dialogue, the third world expected the United Nations to get the West to move on to more serious negotiations on a wide-ranging and more representative basis. But the developed Western countries apparently found it difficult to make concessions for the present neither in terms of liberalization of trade or in the rescheduling of debts or in the transfer of real resources. Even in regard to the Common Fund for Committees, the negotiations in Geneva have ended in failure, further reflecting the sad plight of the Western economies.
Consequently, the third world was constrained to recognize that no progress could now be made on substantive negotiations and decided instead to concentrate on organizational questions for the time being. It succeeded in establishing a new Committee comprising the entire U.N. Membership to monitor the negotiations taking place on all economic fronts and try to influence them in the direction of the New International Economic Order. In addition, the third world extracted from the developed countries on other organizational concession appointment at the United Nations Headquarters of a Director General for Development and Economic Co-operation who will function as an economic deputy to the Secretary General, MR. Waldheim.
How did India and its delegation fare? The March revolution gave India a big boost and greatly enhanced its image among all members of the United Nations, especially the third world countries who were particularly happy to see the world’s largest democracy survive the onslaught of dictatorial forces and uphold once again basic human freedoms and values. Interest in India thus revived and its voice was again heard at the UN with great interest and respect. This was reflected as much in the appreciation at the United Nations of Mr. Atal Behari Vajpayee’s powerful speech in eloquent Hindi, as in the key role which India and its Ambassador at the UN Mr. Rikhi Jaipal, played in getting the Security Council as its President for November to decide unanimously on a Mandatory Arms Embargo against South Africa. Not many know that it was the Indian draft resolution which was finally adopted by the Security Council.
The session saw the United Nations diplomacy acquire a new, pragmatic dimension in its quest for lasting peace. The door was wisely left open time and again for outside initiatives to be taken within the framework of the United Nations objectives. Search for a meaningful basis for peace and security in trouble-torn Middle East, for instance, was carried on outside the United Nations, as dramatized by President Sadat’s visit to Jerusalem.
India’s image was furthermore enhanced by the manner in which the delegation vigorously pursued a policy of genuine non-alignment, judging various issues strictly on merit and in accordance with the United Nations Charter.
What of the U.N.? Is it any more effective than it was? Opinion among a cross-section of veterans that I talked to in the popular delegates lounge appeared to be agreed on one point: The United Nations is slowly but surely getting stronger notwithstanding cynical comments here and there. Even the criticism of ineffectiveness is seen by these experts as carrying within it seeds of future growth and progress. World opinion is increasingly coming to accept the United Nations as a meaningful forum as reflected in the pressing request last month by the International Pilots Association for some UN initiative and action against hijacking. As Ambassador Jamil Baroody of Saudi Arabia who has represented his country at the UN since 1945, told me: “Without the UN, the world would have been greatly worse off. We would have had more tension, more conflicts and perhaps even a war by now”. The United Nations is clearly here to stay and has a role to play. It is, indeed, humanity’s only hope to lasting peace and a just world order. — INFA