Indira GandhiMadam chairman, fellow heads of government, Sonny RamphalMr Secretary General, I am honoured to be asked to speak at the opening session of this conference.
May I follow you in welcoming those countries who have joined the Commonwealth since our last meeting, their membership gives us great pleasure and we look forward to our exchanges with them.
Madam chairman, earlier this month many distinguished foreign visitors joined us in London to honour the memory of a great statesman, Lord Mountbatten. When we assembled around the fine statue which now looks out over the horseguards parade we recalled his service to the great nation who are our hosts today and his contribution to the birth of independent India. Were he here today he would be the first to honour your own father. Madam chairman, Pandit Nehru—pioneer of independent India, pioneer of the Commonwealth.
Without his vision, without his genius, it is very doubtful whether we would be meeting here today in this very special gathering of nations, and had his family not carried on his tradition. If you yourself, Madam chairman, had not determined to lead India along the path of democracy, our Commonwealth would be a very different organisation. Great goals are reached by a clear and unshakeable commitment to what is right and what is true, it is that practical idealism which inspired the foundation of the Commonwealth and which is the guiding thread of our deliberations today.
At a time of severe world recession we need to take counsel together.
Peoples of every country want a higher standard of living, and for some the need is desperate. And many of us suffer the tragedy of unemployment and want work for those who are without it. It is tempting to think that because the demand for goods and services the world over is insatiable, and because factories stand idle-there ought to be some grand design, some magic formula which would transform world trade and satisfy the aspirations of those we represent. In our complex and untidy world. No such tidy solution exists, either internationally or at home. Part of the problem within each of our own countries is to run our economies in such a way that producers respond to the needs of consumers and governments provide a framework of sound finance. And part of the task between countries is to keep open the channels of trade. The means of exchange and the flow of capital, so that producers in one country may find work by selling to consumers in another. The problems that afflict us are complex and their causes vary: —Sharp increases in the price of oil —Changing patterns of trade as new industrial countries. And new products and new services emerge —Growth of population and demographic change —Technological advance —Mounting expectations because each sees how others live. [end p1]
It is against this background that we shall be discussing the reports on protectionism, on living within one world and “towards a new bretton woods” .
I do not believe that the creation of new international institutions will solve our difficulties. After all, we already have many that we didn't have at the time of Bretton Woods. Nor can we revert to a fixed exchange rate. Countries run their economies in such different ways that fixed exchange rates would not stick.
But our existing institutions, the IMF, the World Bank and GATT, can be further adapted and developed in the spirit which inspired the founders of Bretton Woods.
And we can each run our own economies prudently and with regard to the effect of our action on others—for example high interest rates have created further difficulties for us all. We need to restore the sense of multilateral economic co-operation.
I believe that this approach will enable us to make genuine progress by the time we meet again, namely by managing our own national economies well and by strengthening both the authority and the scope for action of the international institutions. A second theme of our discussion this week will be the world political situation.
We meet, madam chairman, in disturbed times. And when times are troubled it is the relationship between East and West which commands particular attention. For there the consequences of misunderstanding or miscalculation could be profoundly dangerous for the whole world.
There is a need today to lower tension and remove misunderstandings increased contact does not of itself guarantee results, much less quick results. But it can ward off the worst dangers and for that reason alone is worth pursuing.
The United Kingdom will work for a better East/West relationship in search of a safer world. And perhaps Commonwealth heads of government can this week lend their weight and authority to that same quest. But East/West tensions are the world—and they are centuries away from being the oldest. Indeed, since the second world war there have been over 140 conflicts with the loss of ten million lives. In many of them reconciliation is impeded by age-old divisions. The need for tolerance has never been greater. We cannot solve all these problems in one generation-but we can try to make progress. Because we can't do everything, we mustn't do nothing. Our efforts must be sustained.
We do not create a secure world if only parts of it enjoy stability.
Small nations need security just as much as the big and powerful.
We must ask ourselves how best we can support countries that wish to remain free.
Over the years, we in Europe and north America have learnt the values of collective effort to increase our security.
I do not suggest we want to see the proliferation of military pacts [end p2] around the globe. Far from it. But we do need more mutual cooperation, perhaps on a regional basis, for greater security.
Madam chairman, where in these disturbed times does the Commonwealth stand?
At a previous meeting in Singapore in January, 1971, heads of government adopted a declaration of principles which has great relevance to the matters I have referred to today. In economic matters that declaration spoke of: —Its aim “to achieve the freest possible flow of international trade on terms fair and equitable to all” —And “to encourage the flow of adequate resources, including governmental and private resources, to the developing countries” . It said, too, that the external security of each member state is a matter of concern to all members of the Commonwealth. And the aim—the fundamental aim—of the Commonwealth?
Is that not also to be found in the declaration? I quote:
“We believe in the liberty of the individual, in equal rights for all citizens regardless of race, colour, creed or political belief and in their inalienable right to participate by means of free and democratic political processes in framing the society in which they live. We therefore strive (it continued) to promote in each of our countries those representative institutions and guarantees for personal freedom under the law that are our common heritage.”
That is what we agreed but twelve years ago, at the last of of conferences held in Asia. Where better to reaffirm that aim than here in New Delhi.
In India—the largest democracy in the world, a democracy tried and tested by severe problems, but a democracy that has survived and triumphed to the great benefit of its citizens and to the benefit of all the peoples in the world to whom freedom and justice are the essence of life itself.