Logo DBNL
On Growth (1974)

On Growth

(1974)–Willem Oltmans–rechtenstatus Auteursrechtelijk beschermd

Vorige Volgende

1. U Thant

U Thant, the Asian diplomat and statesman who stood at the helm of the United Nations in New York, first in 1961 as acting secretary-general and from 1962 to 1970 as secretary-general, was born in 1909 in Pantanaw, Burma. He studied education at University College in Rangoon and became dean of the high school in Pantanaw from 1931 till 1942. After occupying various government posts, he became secretary to Prime Minister U Nu of Burma from 1949 to 1953. Before being chosen to head the world organization in New York, Dr. Thant served five years as permanent representative of Burma to the United Nations.

Dr. Thant, when you left the United Nations, you spoke upon your retirement, from where you stood, during the '70s the world would have to redirect the drift of events or face the disintegration of civilization, in other words, you want the world to do something effective now.

 

I made that statement in 1969 at one of the seminars conducted in one of the halls of the General Assembly of the United Nations. I felt convinced at that time, and I still feel more convinced than before, that if the international community does not concentrate its attention on the global problems, including of course the economic problems, then the human community has only ten more years left. Because I feel very strongly that the disparity between the rich and the poor countries is getting wider and wider; and this, in my view, is more explosive in the

long run than the division of the world based on political ideologies. I come from a less-developed country, as everybody knows, and I am fully conscious of the magnitude of the problems confronted by these poor countries. If the developed countries do not take into consideration this aspect of the problem, I am afraid that the human community as a whole will suffer. Both the rich countries and the poor countries have to think of these problems together, and work together.

 

I heard Mrs. Indira Gandhi say in Stockholm,1 poverty is the worst polluter of all.

 

Yes, I agree with her entirely. Poverty, disease and illiteracy, if I may say so. These are the cancers of mankind today. I think it is time now for the more affluent countries, the wealthier northern half of the world, to realize the full significance of this titanic problem.

 

You spoke of four factors, would you like to elaborate?

 

Well, in my view, there are four factors which are responsible for the crisis situations we are witnessing today. The first is the division of the world based on political ideologies. The second is the division of the world based on economic disparity, i.e., the difference between the north and the south, between the haves and the have-nots. In my view this division of the world is much more significant, much more important, and in the long run much more explosive, as I said a moment ago, than the division of the world based on political ideologies. The third factor is the division of the world related to the remnants of colonialism. This is also a very great factor in dividing the world, dividing the human community today. The fourth, but not the least important factor, is the division of the world based on color of the skin; in other words, the racial segregation or apartheid, as the United Nations termed it, in regard to the situation in South Africa. This discrimination on the basis of color is also a very distressing factor facing the human community today.

These are the four major factors which we have to deal with. Everybody knows that as far as the political ideologies are concerned, I am for democracy. I have been advocating democratic processes in my own country, and then as ambassador to the UN, and as Secretary-General.2 This is my personal credo. But my conviction in the superiority of democratic processes does not blind me to the knowledge that there are

hundreds of millions of people who disagree with me. I think that the division of the world based on different political ideologies is a passing phase, because all political ideologies have to coexist for a long, long time to come.

What I am most concerned about is the division of the world based on economic discrepancies. Since the end of World War II, as everybody knows, the rich countries are getting richer, the poor countries are getting poorer, and the gulf is still widening. We have to try to narrow the gap. This was one of the main purposes of the United Nations in launching the first development decade in 1961, when I took charge of the secretary-generalship of the UN. The international community launched the second development decade last year. The primary purpose is to narrow the gulf between the rich and the poor countries. Unless this problem is tackled in right earnest, with full consciousness of the gravity of the problem, particularly by the rich countries, I am not very optimistic about the future of the human situation.

 

The Limits to Growth study,3 sponsored by the Club of Rome4 and carried out by the computers in MIT,5 very much warned mankind that there is a limit to resources, a limit to economic growth and a limit to expansion. They advocate more equilibrium and more, exactly what you said, give-and-take, much closer cooperation and interdependence between the continents for the future.

 

Yes, this is the fundamental basis on which the human community has to start: the spirit of give-and-take, especially the spirit of understanding on the part of the rich countries. The United Nations and its family of agencies have suggested a contribution of one percent of the gross national product on the part of the developed countries to the developing countries. This has not been met, as you know. Far from meeting this, some rich countries did not pay any attention to this. However, in this connection, I must say that most of the Scandinavian countries, as well as Canada and the Netherlands, if I am to pick and choose a few, are very conscious of the importance of this problem.

 

As a Dutchman, I would like to point out that Holland reached 0.78, that means the highest percentage of the gross national product in aid, while it is amazing that the United States next to Italy is the lowest, when this nation is by far the richest.6

Well, I don't want to comment on this per se, but I mentioned the Netherlands particularly because of my close study of the Netherlands' policy regarding economic aid. I must take this opportunity of expressing my appreciation to the government of the Netherlands for its understanding and the spirit of cooperation with the United Nations and the agencies in this particular respect.

 

In Stockholm only a hundred million dollars were proposed as an allocation to the human environment studies and fighting, the preservation of human environment for the next five years. Now, in view of the fantastic amounts of billions of dollars that still go in armaments, isn't a hundred million dollars very low in relation to the needs to preserve the environment?

 

Well, to this question I think Maurice Strong would be in a better position than I am to answer. But when you speak of a hundred million or X million dollars, we have to think in terms of relative priorities. Just to illustrate my point. All the participants in the Indochina war last year, according to figures available to me, were spending in the Vietnam war for one day, an equivalent to what has been spent for the United Nations for one year. This means, if the Vietnam war were to go on for another year, the expenditure incurred by all participants in that war would be equivalent to the expenditure of operating the United Nations at the present level of expenditure for another 365 years. We have to think of all expenses in relative terms. I am sure Maurice Strong7 will feel that a hundred million dollars for five years to cope with such a gigantic task is a very low figure.

If we think of the tremendous expenses incurred by many countries on armaments, then we will realize how much economic aspects of human development have been ignored or bypassed. That is one illustration of the need for priorities on the expenditures regarding war and peace. When I say ‘peace,’ I mean both peace building and peace keeping. Of course the UN has been involved in both aspects of peace; one is peace building, another is peace keeping. This narrowing the gulf between the north and the south is one aspect of peace building. Without this essential prerequisite, there will be no peace. In other words, without social justice, not only in national societies but also in the international scene, there will be no peace. This is an important basis on which enduring peace can be built. This is the number-one problem facing humanity today.

Was it not frustrating in your life experience that you could not bring peace to some areas where [there was] consistent strife like the Near East or Southeast Asia?

 

Yes. I must say that in my ten years as Secretary-General of the United Nations, there have been moments of frustration as well as moments of gratification: a plus and minus. I am now devoting my whole time to writing my memoirs. But the book will not be memoirs in the strict sense of the term. It will be my reflections and analysis and evaluation of the international scene in the last decade. I am projecting myself, my personal credo and my personal philosophy, into this book.

Of course the situation in the Middle East is a case for frustration. The Vietnam war is a case for very extreme frustration on my part. The question of war in Vietnam was not brought before the General Assembly or the Security Council, for reasons known to everybody; but death and destruction and devastation of the country is unparalleled in human history. This war could have been ended earlier, in my view. There were many cases of missed opportunities, which were not seized by the parties concerned. I am going to disclose some of these important developments in my book.

As far as the Middle East is concerned, my concept and my approach to the problem is known to everybody in the United Nations.

My view of the international problems is necessarily different from the viewpoint of the member states concerned. My view may be likened to that of the view of the man from the bridge. The purpose of the UN after all is to build bridges. I regard myself as a man standing in the middle of the bridge. My view of the international situation may well be different from either end of the bridge. My assessment of the problems and my understanding of the nature of these problems may well be different from the understanding or the approach of the member states concerned.

Secondly, I am a very strong believer in the UN, as you know. The UN is the last best hope for mankind. The United Nations, like all human organizations, whether national, regional or international, must have some ground rules. The Security Council is the main organ which is responsible for the maintenance of international peace and security. When the Security Council adopts a resolution on any question, and particularly when that resolution is adopted unanimously, including the five permanent members of the Security Council, then this particular resolution must be implemented. This is the basis of my approach.

For the sake of argument, if my own country, Burma, is involved in an international dispute, and if that dispute is brought before the United Nations, and if the Security Council takes up this question, and if the Security Council decides one way or another involving some actions on the part of my government, then the government of Burma must comply with that resolution. If the government of Burma refuses to comply with the decision of the Security Council, particularly the unanimous decision of the Security Council, then as far as I am concerned, I will be on the side of the UN, not on the side of my own country.


Vorige Volgende