|
2nd candidate:
Gentlemen, with due apology to my friend who spoke first, I would like to point out the glaring fact rather the most unpleasant fact, which my friend failed to touch upon while expressing his views on the efficacy of the world Forum, known as the United Nations.
In my opinion, the U.N.O. like its predecessor, the League of Nations, has been more a farce than a reality. It has not served any of the missions for which it was brought into being after the collapse of the League of Nations. May I ask what it has done in connection with the Indo-Pakistan dispute over Kashmir? Again, may I ask what the U.N. has done to solve the 19-years old Berlin Problem? It is due tot his issue that the entire continent of Europe has been made a battlefield for the last 19 years. It is due to this problem, and only this problem, that the world has been tormented by the fear of cold war. What has the U.N. done in solving the greatest problem of our age, i.e., of complete and general disarmament? The Moscow Partial Nuclear Test-Ban Pact has indeed been signed, but it does not and shall not stop nuclear testing, especially, the underground nuclear tests. Disarmament conferences have been “a much ado about nothing.” Complexity of world situation has gone from bad to worse. The United Nations Organizations has been really a farce.
3rd candidate: Gentlemen, I am also concurrent with my friend who spoke just now and my views are almost identical with those of my friend, especially on the point that the U.N.O. has failed-and failed miserably to transform its ideal into practice. It has not been able to offer any relief to the nuclear-war-terrorized world. The U.N.O., as a matter of fact, has been more or less an arena where mental gymnastics of the two rival Power Blocs have been witnessed, I am with my learned friend, i.e., speaker No. 2, when he opines that the U.N.O. has been nothing but a bundle of self-contradictions. It has absolutely nothing to call original, genuine of realistic. It is the same old institution, i.e., the League of Nations which had been defrauding the people for a number of years and at last brought about the Second World War.
I would certainly say that the U.N.O. is simply a symbol, having no realistic and concrete mission; I am afraid I may not be forced to describe it as a “farce” as my friend has just now described it.
4th candidate: Gentlemen, I have watched the speeches of the last two debaters and also reflected upon their arguments, which they displayed. But I regret that both of them had been sentimentally buttressed and that both took up a perverted dogmatic line in their arguments. To say that the 24-years old U.N.O. with a total membership of 138 nations is simply a farce is something like self-negation of self-betrayal. Again I challenge, fairly boldly, their remarks that U.N.O. is dead. I would ay rather shout loudly and at the top of my voice-the United Nations is as vital and significant as any other institution on the earth can be.
My learned friends have said that the U.N.O. has not performed any useful accomplishment in maintaining world peace. May I remind them the splendidly glorious work which it has done in the Congo? Has it not solved the problem of West Iran, which otherwise might have caused a war between Indonesia and the Netherlands? Has it not solved the Palestine problem? Did not the late U.N. Secretary-General U Thant, intervene in the Cuban missile episode which was going to envelop the world with a full-fledged nuclear war? And it will not be out of place if I say that the Moscow East-West Partial Test Ban Treaty is a document of history originated from the efforts of the United Nations, gentlemen, how can one say, then, that the U.N.O. is simply a symbol or a face?
5th candidate: Gentlemen I do not entirely agree with my learned friend who has just furnished his arguments in favor of the effectiveness and efficacy of the United Nations Organization as a world-forum for maintaining world peace. My friend has been over-optimistic in his estimate about the U.N.O. and its accomplishments or achievements.
Indeed, in the Congo the U.N.O. did splendidly, especially in its military operation against the reactionary elements of Katanga. But you must know that the Congo is a small country and it has no military power like that of Russia, China, or the United States. It is very easy to deal with a weak and militarily impotent country like Congo or Israel, but cant eh U.N.O. deal with a similar problem with the Soviet Union or China?
In order to be effective in its decision and operation, the United Nations must maintain a powerful and strong force at its disposal. Moreover it must also have an accord for unanimity among its members. The two powerful member blocs, the United States and U.S.S.R. are not at all co-operating with the United Nations and the organization is too weak to censure either of these two Powers.
6th candidate: Gentlemen, I would like to use the historic quotation from the writings of Joseph Addison, i.e. “much can be said on both sides.” The United Nations has its two account-sheets of debit and credit, as regards its achievements and failures. But I shall be the last man to form a pessimistic view abut the future of this world-forum__ the beacon of hope for frustrated and war-terrorized humanity today.
Particularly with the heavier weight of non-aligned states, which have recently joined its membership, the United Nations has evolved a new outlook. Out of its total membership of 138, 57 are from non-aligned Afro-Asian countries. So the voting weighty at the U.N.O. is with these non-aligned countries. The Anglo-American or NATO bloc and the Soviet bloc are numerically inferior to the non-aligned bloc. With the accumulation of majority of votes by the non-aligned nations the picture of the U.N.O. has undergone a radical change.
Gentlemen, the United Nations is the only hope of peace and peaceful co-existence in the world. We should never even imagine its decay. May the U.N.O. live long!
|