Basic HTML Version
March-April L972
lo take action it migbt feel neccssary in
Vietnam to protect American troops.
You could say the same about every
major power. Every major power has
situations where
it
presents to tbe
United Nations a "bands-off, this-is–
oot-your-business" attitude.
Q.
The United Nations then can do
little unless the nacions involved allow
it to act?
A.
Yes. Take for examp!e the situ–
ation of the Indian subcontinent. There
was a series of meetings and a series of
resolutions were put forward . And tbese
resolutions were vetoed by one or the
otber and no resolution received a
majority. So there could not be agree–
ment. Finally, a resolution was passed
on the night of the tv.•enty-first of
December. How? They got the decision
because it was reasonable and acceptable
to India and Pakistan. Therefore there
was no opposition to ít. In other words,
it was a consensus resolution. It was not
an enforcement resolution. So, in the
absence of an enforcement aspect, the
best that you could hope for is what you
can construe to be a consensus
machin·
ery
rather than an enforcement
machin–
ei'J'·
Q.
This seems very limited in terms
of real power.
A.
The coosensus role is not to be
despised. It is not an unímportant role.
It is not as important a role as the
enforcement machinery, but in the
absence on the part of the power of the
membership, big or small, to give more
authority to the United Nations, the
consensus role is the Jowest common
denominator that we can have.
Q.
Can you see a greater role for
the United Nations in the future?
A.
We can only hope that over a
period of time this role will become a
little stronger, and that there might be
.1
greater possibility of bringing the
people together. With a little pushing,
that is now possible. So this role might
grow.
Q..
Do you feel that the United Na–
tions should have more power, let's
say, to enforce peace?
A.
I want to say that under the
The
PLAIN TRUTH
L3
United Notions
C.
V. Narasimhan
present circumstances, in the reality of
the world today, it is not possible.
What is possible is what the United
Nations is now doing. Over a period of
time, we might have a sítuation where
more power is being given to the
United Nations in other spheres. This
kind of development might over a
period of time give the United Natioos
more enforcement authority. This would
not necessarily be in situations involv–
ing war and peace, but in situations
involving a common advantage to man–
kind. From that you might be able to
proceed to war and peace situations. But
this I see as something evolutionary and
not as something revolutionary.
Q.
Do you feel that the United Na–
tions will have more of this type of
power in say five, ten or twenty years?
A.
I believe that within the oext ten
years you will see a very great increase
in the role of the United Nations in
these areas: the area of environment,
for example, and in the area of helping
to reduce the population explosion and
its impact, and so on. These are areas
which are very important. And I am
not saying that this is an alibí in regard
to the comparative ineffectiveness of the
United Nations in the política! field.
But in the long run, the United Nations
ís probably going to play a much more
useful role in fields such as the
environment, ecology, conservation of
resources, prevention of pollution, re–
duction of population growth and areas
like that. These have tr<:mendous
implications for the entire human cace.
But these are other than specific inter–
national situations, in the continent of
the Middle East or in Southeast Asia, or
in future trouble spots.
Q.
Do you feel that the United Na–
tions will, let's say over a period of
ten years, increase
its
role
in
education
and economics?