S/PV.1614 Security Council

I consider that the observations just made by the representative of Somalia are relevant. This is the same Present: The question that we have been discussing for a number of meetings of the Council. Of course, new documents come in as the debate proceeds, but I believe it would be a good thing to have a general title such as that suggested by the representative of Somalia. Of course we could consider whether some other title would be better, but I think the idea is an excellent one and should be accepted. % Repub%c,. Uii%- of Sovie,tSociahst &blics,’ United -..- . ..__ -. Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland and United States of America. .-f- &&-L Provisional agenda (S/Agenda/l 614) 1. Adoption of the agenda.

I agree with the suggestion made by the representative of Somalia, supported by the representative of France; and if we are to use a title in our agenda my proposal is that it should be “The situation in the subcontinent of India and Pakistan”. 2. Letter dated 12 December 1971 from the Permanent Representative of the United States of America to the United Nations addressed to the President of the Security Council (S/ 10444).

May I ask the representative of Somalia whether he has any particular suggestion as regards the title or qualification of the agenda? Adoption of the agenda

The provisional agenda for the present meeting is before the Council in document S/ Agenda/l614. If I hear no objection I shall take it that the agenda is adopted.

I would suggest that the question be entitled: “The situation in the India/Pakistan subcontinent”. 2. I CaII upon the representative of Somalia on a point of order.

As there is no further suggestion or comment on this, I shall regard the present suggestion as accepted.’

I raise a point of order in connexion with the question under debate. So far, although we have been debating the situation on the Indian subcontinent-or the India-Pakistan subcontinent-this has not been reflected in the agenda. For instance, on 4 December (1606th meeting], we had the item inscribed as “Letter dated 4 December 1971 from the Permanent Representatives of Argentina, Belgium, Burundi . . .” and so on [S/lO41l]. On 5 December (1607th meeting] we had that same letter on the agenda, together with the report of the Secretary-General [S/10410 and Add.11, and another report by the Secretary-General [S/10412]. On 12 December (1611th meeting] we had the item again, but this time it was related to a letter dated 12 December from the Permanent Representative of the United States of America to the President of the Security Council [S/1 04441. 7Yhe agenda, as amended, was adopted. The situation in the India/Pakistan subcontinent

The Council will now resume its consideration of the item on the agenda. 11. I now call on the representative of the United Kingdom on a point of order.

Before we deal with the formal procedure might I make a suggestion. As all members of the Council will know, we have before US a draft resolution by the Italian and Japanese delegations [S/104.51], but there is also a draft resolution which is being worked on by my French colleague and myself. Intensive consultations are going on at the present time and I do not see that they will necessarily be completed by this evening. So, might I suggest that we adjourn until tomor- 4. I think it would be convenient for our debate if we could now try to reach agreement on a title for this question; and since every one of us has referred to “the situation in the Indian subcontinent” or “the situation in &re B&a-Pakistan subcontinent” we should now give this title to our debate. 1 The amended provisional agenda was circulated under the symbol S/Agenda/l614/Rev.l. 14. We must consider the gravity of the situation in that subcontinent. We must bear in mind that many cities are now under the devastation of gunfire. Masses of people are being slaughtered, are being sacrificed, and therefore we must keep that in mind. We have to have a conception of time: We have also to bear the responsibility that we have towards them, towards the people of the world, and we have to proceed with our consultations in a serious way. The meeting must be resumed as soon as possible.

May I know from the representative of China what he means when he talks about the resumption-we have resumed the meeting-but is it his suggestion that we should rise now for a while, go for further consultations and then come back again? I have the impression that the representative of China is asking us to resume the meeting. We have already resumed our meeting. Is he suggesting that we should have a short adjournment within which we can hold further consultations, because when we are meeting it becomes difficult to hold further consultations? Is he asking for an adjournment for a specific period to hold further consultations and then for a resumption of the meeting?

If I remember correctly, the representative of the United Kingdom made a statement that consultations are being held at the present time and he also proposed that the meeting should be resumed tomorrow-that is his proposal. I wonder whether that understanding is correct? Can the representative of the United Kingdom clarify this point for us?

Yes, I did propose an adjournment until tomorrow because, with great respect, our consultations are being continued very urgently but I really very much doubt that they will be able to be completed this evening because there are a number of extremely difficult points at issue. Representatives will have to get instructions from their home Governments and I believe it is very important that as far as the next resolution that this Council tries to pass is concerned, we should be able to achieve unanimity, or be able to pass a resolution, and therefore it is very important that we should do our work; an extra delay of an hour or two, or even eight hours, would be worth while, to avoid further disagreement.

1 should like to say that we are all aware of the situation, but we are all also aware of the need to continue

I wanted to speak a moment ago. perhapr :: is not so appropriate right now, but I wanted to say thy 1 fully share fie concern expressed by our colleague fro”” China. TO be sure we are all very anxious to move uhe& swiftly and all delegations here are working very hard 2: this present time, but a premature meeting might not ykJ$ the expected results. I therefore think we should ~WZ a flexible as possible. We could suspend the present rneetii~ I do not think we could reasonably meet before &zr. evening, perhaps not even before tomorrow. However, $< after our consultations it seemed feasible to have a rncyrts~~ this evening, then the President could immediately COIIY~~~ the Council. Thus I do not think it is necessary now ;: schedule a time either for this evening or tomorrow, %s could say that we are suspending the meeting and then lip>? President could convene the Council again as soon 01 possible, as suggested by the representative of China. I: could be this evening or at the latest tomorrow morning,

My delegation fully shares the corto&:? expressed by the representative of China. We believe thy the Council must act, and act very soon, to try to rewhz the tragic crisis in the Asian subcontinent. NevertheIcs;s. ,L: the present stage of our work it is necessary to purse consultations, not only among all members of the Coun;;. but also between the two parties most directly corlcenwd 2; this clash, India and Pakistan. I think we need time &-,T these consultations to yield fruitful results. Experience trpi shown that when the Council adjourns its meeting for a &?* hours, guided by the very noble desire to conclude its *r-oar as soon as possible, the results are not always the E because an exhaustive consideration of the matter C;LI)E,* take place in a very short period of time; moreover, n &oo~ interval does not make it possible to receive instrurtisra~ Z would therefore appeal to the representative of China XT,: tell him that I share his views, but I appeal to him 11olt I: oppose the suggestion made by the representative of &+ United Kingdom. I think we can make very good use of E& few remaining hours of today then perhaps at a meeitti; tomorrow we might be able to reach the solution which “1 required. The hours which remain today-and they arc: I”+:: so many, I might say parenthetically-will have t* & devoted to the intensified consultations that are wcew~ For this reason my delegation does not beIievc that ++Q: should have a debate on this matter here and rs~ti Therefore, I support the suggestion made by tire represergti. tive of the United Kingdom that we should have a nteenir:; tomorrow morning and that we devote the rest of to&y !,$I these very necessary consultations.

1 should IIke fr:, support the very pertinent suggestion, or proposal, thnf # ~5

I should merely like to speak of the urgency of the situation. You will recall that this Council decided last evening, after considerable debate, to adjourn until 3 o’clock this afternoon to enable consultations to take place. My delegation is grateful for the fact that those consultations are going on and a great deal of dedicated work is being put into the question of finding a solution and a draft resolution on which we can all agree. However, while we are consulting, let me remind the Council, if I may use an American phrase, that there is “a war going on”. People are dying, there is shooting and bombing and innocent women and children are being killed along’with the soldiers and other civilians while we consult. My delegation is prepared to sit hem now or to rise to enable further consultations and to meet again as soon as possible, whether it is this evening or tomorrow, but we feel that there is urgency in the situation and we would be prepared to come as soon as others can: after the consultations. We would hope that that could be as early as this evening.

I do not think I have to reiterate the sense of urgency with which our delegation has always viewed this very serious problem. We have been acting on that basis all the time and, therefore, we share completely the feelings of anxiety which have been expressed by so many speakers, beginning with the representative of China. 28. My feeling is that we should not now establish any hour when we meet. I think the best thing is that we go on with our consultations which, as far as my delegation is concerned, have been very serious and important negotiations. We are deeply involved in those negotiations, and I am sure that the delegations of the United Kingdom and France are equally involved in very serious negotiations. If we can succeed in a few hours, all the better. I think the best proposal was made by the representative of France; it leaves you free, Mr, President, to convene the meeting at the earliest possible moment. If it can be in two hours, all the better. We could meet at any time provided that we know you are empowered to convene the meeting as soon as you know there is something we can do.

We share, as we have often said, the concern and the impatience once again expressed here by the representative of China and by other representatives. We also feel that we should set about our work without delay in order to fuld a solution to the problem which is of concern to US. I also propose with the representative of France that we sllould continue our consultations and perhaps meet this evening, if we can reach concrete results.

A proposal was put forward that this meeting of the Council be adjourned and that the Council reconvene either at short notice or, at the latest, tomorrow morning, the time in between being utilized for further consultations. We have heard short statements from members of the Council. Unless there are further statements to be made, I propose to adjourn the meeting for three hours, to meet again at 8 o’clock tonight.

The representative of Argentina remarked that there are only a few hours left of our working day in New York, but a few hours for those poor victims of aerial bombardment and shelling is a lifetime of misery. For this reason, my delegation, naturally, is not entirely happy about having to postpone this problem day after day without any kind of constructive proposal coming out to justify such postponements.

We are all showing concern about the matter under consideration, we all realize the urgency of the question and there appears to be complete agreement among us. 31. The second point on which, in my opinion, there is unanimity is the necessity and the desirability of continuing consultations. Here again there would seem to be no opposition. We all agree with this. 25. If the representatives of France and the United Kingdom-who, after all, have still to make plain their position or whatever proposal they may have-can indicate to us that they share a sense of optimism about coming to tire Council tomorrow with a formula, the Council certainly would be justified in agreeing to the adjournment, but if tliey cannot promise us any prospect of a settlement or solution and we find tomorrow that we go on with the sale old procedure of postponing again for 24 hours, we would be abdicating our responsibilities. If we do adjourn, tight I suggest that perhaps the representatives of India or 32. The third point on which a general approach seems to be crystallizing concerns the interrelationship between consultations and the time of convening a Council meeting. If we succeed in reaching positive results in the process of consultations in an hour, the meeting could be convened in an hour’s time; if we do so in three hours, the meeting

My delegation will agree reluctantly to another adjournment of this Council. But before adjourning, I should like to make sure that neither of the parties to the conflict wishes to take the floor. That might be ascertained before we adjourn. If they wish to take the floor, we should allow it. If not, we can adjourn.

The Soviet delegation is always actively in favour of inviting to a meeting of the Council parties, delegations and even individual representatives whose statements may be of use, so that the Council may hear them. We have absolutely no objections to the proposal by the distinguished representative of Somalia that an invitation should be issued forthwith to the representative of India and the representative of Pakistan and that they should be given an opportunity to express their views. But this may have an effect on the time available for our consultations. If each of them speaks for an hour, that will take two hours. It is not impossible that after their statements someone will require to speak in exercise of the right of reply, and we shall in practical terms commence a meeting. In such a way our understanding on the continuation of consultations will be rendered invalid. Would that really be desirable?

I support the proposal made by the representative of Somalia to invite the representatives of Pakistan and India to participate in our discussion. As for the consultation, perhaps, Mr. President, you could set a time limit on statements by the representatives of Pakistan and India.

My delegation believes that silence can also contribute to expediting proceedings. Therefore, in view of the extreme gravity of the situation, we decided to remain silent, in the hope that a settlement would be reached as soon as possible. It now appears that matters are not proceeding as we would have desired, and so, in the light of the various proposals which have been put forward, I do not think we can say that there is any unanimity. Hence it might be useful, Sir, if in exercising your authority as :

Mr. President, I should like to put a veIy simple question with regard to this matter: Do the representatives of India and Pakistan want to speak at this afternoon’s meeting? If they have not requested the floor I think it would be natural to conclude that they do not intend to speak this afternoon. If you do not have the names of India and Pakistan on your list of speakers, and if the representatives of those countries do not ask for the floor, I think it would be logical to conclude that they do not intend to take the floor at this particular meeting.

I do not know, Mr. President, whether you want to answer the Polish representative’s question as to whetber or not they are inscribed. Have they been?

They have not yet been inscribed,

In that case, Mr. President, under rule 33 of our provisional rules of procedure, may I put forward a formal motion to suspend the meeting until such time as you are satisfied that consultations have proceeded to such a degree that we are able to reach agreement and can have a fruitful meeting.

I have considered the various proposals made, and I am of the opinion that the meeting should be adjourned and that the Council should reconvene tonight. If there is no objection to this suggestion I shall adjourn the meeting and allow reasonable time to re-convene the Council. But if I hear further objection, then I shall put the proposal for suspension to the vote, as suggested by the representative of the United Kingdom. I make this suggestion to allow for compromise, because some are asking for adjournment until tomorrow morning, while others are asking for suspension until tonight. I would prefer to have some flexibility and to notify representatives when it is time for a meeting tonight.

What would happen if this evening we were to fmd that the consultations-which are very difficult because positions are still very far apart-had not achieved positive results? I do not think there is much point in tentatively scheduling a meeting for this evening. With all due respect, Mr. President, I would say that it seems to be, if not the unanimous opinion, at least the majority view in the Council, that we should not set a time for the next meeting, that we should leave things up to the consultations. If the consultations yield positive results, then, of course, all members of the Council will be most anxious to meet. But let us not set a time for an evening meeting, because we do not yet know whether the consultations will yield fruitful results between now and then. If unfortunately this evening the consultations yield nothing concrete, then it is obvious that we shall have to meet tomorrow Abstentions: Burundi, China, Sierra Leone, Somalia. The motion was adopted by 11 votes to none, with 4 abstentions. The meeting was suspended at 4.55 p.m.; it was resumed on Wednesday, 15 December, at 12.10 p.m,

The resumed 1614th meeting of the Security Council is called to order. This meeting of the Security Council was suspended yesterday afternoon for the purpose of consultations following the adoption of a motion to that effect made by the representative of the United Kingdom.

I did not see any justification for the representative of the United Kingdom to move for a suspension of this meeting for the purpose of proceeding with consultations. If members are going to hold consultations, naturally they are going to consult with the two main parties to the conflict. Now, if either of those two parties wishes to take the floor at this stage, of course, such consultations would be of no avail. What I am asking you, Mr. President, is to ascertain from those two parties whether they wish to speak. If not, then let us adjourn. But, surely, this very elementary right cannot be abrogated or refused for the purpose of consultation. 51. Members of the Council will recall that the agenda for this meeting was modified before its adoption yesterday afternoon, and the formulation of the agenda now under consideration is to be found in document S/Agenda/ 1614/Rev.l. 52. The Council will now resume its consideration of the item on its agenda.

Under rule 33 of the provisional rules of procedure I cannot prevent the representative of the United Kingdom from invoking that procedure, but I might again appeal to all members, for the purposes of compromise, that we agree to suspend the meeting and re-convene tonight as soon as notice is given by me. I promise that I shall be taking part in the consultations and that, sooner or later, we will know at what specific time we are to re-convene. If it becomes apparent that no agreement has been reached, I will still re-convene the meeting with a view to adjourning until tomorrow morning, if that is agreeable. 53. Members of the Council will recall that at a previous meeting 11606th meeting] the Council had decided to invite the representatives of India and Pakistan to participate, without the right to vote, in the debate on the problem currently under discussion in the Council. In accordance with that decision, and with the consent of the Council, I would invite the representatives of India and Pakistan to take their seats at the Council table. At the invitation of the President, Mr. Swaran Singh (India) and Mr. Z. A. Bhutto (Pakistan) took places at the Council table.

I made a formal proposal under rule 33. Perhaps the easiest thing would be for the Council to vote on it straight away; it should be decided without debate.

The Council had also decided at a previous meeting [1607th meeting] to extend invitations to the representatives of Tunisia and Saudi Arabia to partici-. pate in the debate, without the right to vote. Accordingly, and with the consent of the Council, I invite those representatives to take the places reserved for them in the Council chamber, with the understanding that they will be invited to take places at the Council table when it is their turn to address the Council,

I would request the representative of the United Kingdom formally to repeat his proposal so that I may take it as a motion under rule 33.

Mr. President, I propose that the meeting be suspended for the purpose of consultations, to be reconvened by you at such time as you are satisfied that sufficient progress has been made in the process of consultations so that agreement is likely to be reached. At the invitation of the President, Mr. R Dr&s (Tunisia) and Mr. % M, Baroody (Saudi Arabia) took the places reserved for them in the Council chamber.

We are meeting again this morning to resume our discussion of the item relating to the deteriorating situation on the India-Pakistan subcontinent. The Council has already held some seven meetings on this question, during the course of which it has considered a dozen draft resolutions. Some of those drafts were not pressed to the vote, but others, which were pressed to the vote, failed to be adopted. Only one draft resolution was

The Security Council will now vote on the motion made by the representative of the United Kingdom. A vote was taken by show of hands. In favour: Argentina, Belgium, France, Italy, Japan, Nicaragua, Poland, Syrian Arab Republic, Union of Soviet 56. Meanwhile, the situation on the subcontinent is deteriorating, and innocent lives are being lost. I would therefore appeal to the Security Council, which under the Charter has the primary responsibility for the maintenance of international peace and security, to come to a decision. It has already taken considerable time, while the situation demands urgent action by the Council. I would, therefore, reiterate my appeal for a positive decision by the Council as soon as possible-I would hope at this meeting. 57. I call now on the Deputy Prime Minister and Foreign Minister of Pakistan, who wishes to make an urgent statement. At this time he is the only speaker whose name is inscribed on my list.

We have met here today at a grave moment in the history of my country, and I would request the Council kindly to forbear with me and to hear the truth, the bitter truth. I know the United Nations. I know the Security Council. I have participated here in the past. The time has come when, as far as Pakistan is concerned, we shall have to speak the truth, whether members of the Council like it or not. We were hoping that the Security Council, mindful of its responsibilities for the maintenance of world peace and justice, would have acted according to principle and brought an end to a naked, brutal aggression against my people. For this reason I left my country. I was needed by the people of Pakistan, and when I was leaving Pakistan I was in a divided mind whether to go to the Security Council to represent the cause of my country, to represent the cause of a people that had been subjected to aggression, or to remain with my people, by their side, while they were being subjected to attack and violence. However, I felt that it was imperative for me to come here and to seek justice from the Security Council. But I must say, whether the members like it or not, that the Security Council has denied my country that justice. From the moment I arrived we have been caught by dilatory tactics. 59. It will be recalled that when the Indian Foreign Minister spoke and I spoke after him I said that filibustering was taking place. That was my immediate observation. The Security Council, I am afraid, has excelled in the art of filibustering, not only on substance but also on procedural matters. With some cynicism I watched yesterday a full hour of the Security Council’s, time wasted on whether the members of the Council would be ready to meet at 9.30 a.m. or whether bed and breakfast required that they should meet at 11 a.m. 60. The representative of Somalia referred to the population of East Pakistan as 56 million, but later on he corrected himself to say that the population of Bengal-of Muslim Bengal-was 76 million. If he had waited for a few more days he need not have corrected himself because 61. The Security Council has failed miserably, shamefully, “The Charter of the United Nations”, “the San Francisco Conference”, “international peace and justice”-these are the words we heard in our youth, and we were inspired by the concept of the United Nations, maintaining international peace and justice and security. President Woodrow Wilson said that he fought the First World War to end wars for all time. The League of Nations came into being, and then the United Nations after it. What has the United Nations done? I know of the farce and the fraud of the United Nations. They come here and say, “Excellence, Excellence, comment allez-vous? ” and al1 that. “A very good speech-you have spoken very well, trh bien.” We have heard all these things. The United Nations resembles fashion houses in trying to hide ugly realities and draping ungainly figures in alluring apparel. The concealment of realities is common to both, the ugly realities cannot be hidden. You do not need a Secretary-General. You need a chief executioner. 62. Let us face the stark truth. I have got no stakes left for the moment. That is why I am speaking the truth from my heart. For four days we have been deliberating here. For four days the Security Council has procrastinated. Why? Because the object was for Dacca to fall. That was the object. It was quite clear to me from the beginning. So what if Dacca falls? Cities and countries have fallen before. They have come under foreign occupation. China was under foreign occupation for years. Other countries have been under foreign occupation. Frarlce was under foreign occupation. Western Europe was under foreign occupation. So what if Dacca falls? So what if the whole of East Pakistan falls? So what if the whole of West Pakistan falls? So what if our State is obliterated? We will build a new Pakistan. We will build a better Pakistan. We will build a greater Pakistan. 63. The Security Council has acted short-sightedly by acquiescing in these dilatory tactics. You have reached a 64. But the Indians are so short-sighted. Mr. President, you referred to the “distinguished” Foreign Minister of India. If he can be the Foreign Minister of India I could have been the Prime Minister of united India. But I would much rather be a janitor in a free country. I am proud to belong to a free country, even if it is sought to obliterate it. How‘ is he distinguished, when his hands are full of blood, when his heart is full of venom? But you know they did not have vision. The partition of India took place because they did not have vision. Now also they are lacking in vision. They talk about their ancient civilization and the mystique of India and all that. But they do not have vision at all. If I had been in his place, I should have acted differently. I extended a hand of friendship to him the other day. He should have seen what I meant. I am not talking as a puppet. I am talking as the authentic leader of the people of West Pakistan, who elected me at the polls in a more impressive victory than the victory that Mujibur Rahman received in East Pakistan, and he should have taken cognizance of that. But he did not take cognizance of it. We could have opened a new page, a new chapter in our relations. 68. We were told about the realities, to accept the realities. What are the realities? Realities keep changing, Mr. Permanent Representative of the Soviet Union. The reality was that the Nazi forces were outside the gates of MOSCOW. But you fought valiantly, you fought bravely and the world saluted the Soviet Union for having resisted the realities which it was sought to impose on it. The reality was that China was under the occupation of Japan, that Manchuria was taken-half of China. That was the reality. Since the Opium War, China has seen reality. The reality for France was that it was under occupation. But there were great men like President de Gaulle who left France and they fought across the seas. Ethiopia was under Fascist domination. But the Ethiopians fought. The Emperor of Ethiopia left his country and sought asylum in Britain. Ethiopia is free today. The realities that matter are those that are not a temporary phenomenon, which are rooted in historic principles. The principle is that Pakistan is an independent sovereign State, which came into being because of the volition of its people. That is the basic reality which has existed for 24 years. Pakistan would not have been dismembered like this if it had not been attacked by another country. This is not an internal movement. We have been subjected to attack by a militarily powerful neighbour. Who says that the new reality arose out of free will? Had there been the exercise of free will, India would not have attacked Pakistan; India would not have invaded my country to impose its will backed by a handful of secessionists. If India talks about the will of the people of East Pakistan and claims that it had to attack Pakistan in order to impose the will of the people of East Pakistan, then what has it done about Kashmir? East Pakistan is an integral part of Pakistan. Kashmir is a disputed territory. Why does India then not permit it to exercise its will? 65. As I said, if the French and the Germans can come to terms, why cannot India and Pakistan come to terms? If the Turks and the Greeks can still talk sensibly as civilized people over Cyprus, why cannot India and Pakistan do likewise? If the Soviet Union and the United States can open a new page in their history, if China and the United States can open a new page in their history, why can we not usher in a new era in our relations? We could have done so. But as was said about the 1967 Arab-Israeli war, the military victory of Israel made it more difficult for Israel and the Arabs to reach a settlement. If you want to subjugate Pakistan militarily, you will find it more difficult to bring peace. I say that the choice for us is either to accept living in the same subcontinent co-operating for peace and progress, or to be implacable enemies of each other for ever. 69. But yesterday I saw how the Security Council was pandering to India. Even the great Powers are pandering to India, saying to us “Do not misunderstand”, “Would YOU please let us know”, “Would you please answer the following questions”, “I am not insisting on those questions, but if you do not mind”. India is intoxicated today with its military successes. In 1967 I told the present Permanent Representative of India that we wanted to have good relations, I am not speaking from a position of weakness. I told him in 1967 that we wanted good relations between the two countries-but based on principles, based on justice, based on equity, not based on exploitation and domination, because relations on the basis of exploitation and domination cannot be a lasting solution. What we want 66. The Permanent Representative of the Soviet Union does not like my reference to the Roman Empire. I do not know what objection he has to it, unless he sees some similarity between his empire and the Roman Empire. I do not really see why he had any objection to that. But I shall again refer to the Roman Empire, and I hope that the Permanent Representative of the Soviet Union will have no objection to it, because we want to have good relations with the Soviet Union and we want to open a new chapter with the Soviet Union because we are neighbours. I go back to the Roman Empire and I say what Cato said to the Romans, “Cat,hage must be destroyed.” If India thinks that it is g&g to subjugate Pakistan, Eastern Pakistan as well as Western Pakistan-because we are one people, we are 70. This has been the worst form of aggression, of naked aggression. Even Poland was not invaded by Germany in this fashion. Even in that case there were some pretences, some excuses that were made. Here the excuse was, “We have refugees, so we must invade another country.” We said, “We are prepared to take those refugees back.” If we had said, “We are not prepared to take them back”, then you could have said, “Well, you will be sunk.” 71. India’s population rises by 13 million a year. The number of refugees was alleged to be 9 million, 10 million; according to our estimate, there were 5 million. But that is not important, figures are not important. The point is that we were prepared to take them back. If India’s population can expand by 13 million a year, then with all the aid and assistance that India was getting for the refugees, it could have held on for a short period until the civilian Government came into Pakistan to negotiate the return of the refugees. I told the United States Ambassador in Pakistan that once a civilian government came into being in Pakistan, I was prepared to go to the refugee camps myself to talk to them. But they pre-empted it all, because the refugee problem was used as a pretext to dismember my country. The refugee problem was used as a pretext, an ugly, crude pretext, a shameful pretext to invade my country, to invade East Pakistan. 72. The great Powers will forgive me. I have addressed them in this moment of anguish, and they should understand. The great Powers, or the super-Powers-the super-duperPowers, the razzling-dazzling Powers-the super-Powers have imposed their super-will for the moment. But I am thankful to the people and the Government of the United States, among the super-Powers, for the position it has taken. The people of the United States to some extent have been misled by massive Indian propaganda. While we had no paraphernalia of popular administration and government in Pakistan, there was a political vacuum. The Indians took advantage of that political vacuum and they spread out fast to project their point of view. As a result, American public opinion, and public opinion in Great Britain and France and other countries, was influenced, Unfortunately, nothing was said of the massacres that took place between 1 March and 25 March. 73. NO doubt there were mistakes on our side. I said yesterday that mistakes were made, and that the Permanent Representative of the Soviet Union said that I had admitted mistakes. Well, that is not a sign of weakness, is it? Do we not all make mistakes? Are India and the Soviet Union the only two countries that have never made mistakes? I have made mistakes personally. But mistakes do not mean that my country must be destroyed, that my country must be dismembered. That is not the consequence of mistakes of 74. So you will see now: this is not the end of the road; this is the beginning of the road; this is not the end of the chapter; a new chapter has begun, a new page has been written in international relations. This is gunboat diplomacy in its worst form. It makes the Hitlerite aggression pale into insignificance, because Hitlerite aggression was not accepted by the world. If the world is going to endorse this aggression, it will mean a new and most unfortunate chapter in international relations. A new chapter may have begun in India and Pakistan, but please do not start a new, dreadful, chapter in international relations. For us, it is a hand-to-hand, day-to-day, minute-to-minute fight. But do not do that to the rest of the world. Please do not permit this kind of naked, shameful, barbaric aggression to hold sway. 75. In the old days great warriors swept over the world -Genghis Khan, Subutai Khan, Alexander, Caesar, coming down to the great Napoleon. But this is worse, this is much worse than all that was done by the great conquerors of the world in the past. If the United Nations becomes a party to this kind of conquest, it will be much worse than aI that has been done in the past. You will be turning the medium-sized and the small countries into the harlots of the world. You cannot do that. It is against civilized concepts, it is against all the rules of civilization and of international morality and justice. 76. The United States Government was criticized for supporting the position of Pakistan. What crime has the United States Government committed? It has taken the position identical to that of the whole world on the India-Pakistan conflict. That position was supported by 105 countries-it was 104 officially, but it was really 105 because one representative did not know how to press the right button. That was the voice of the world. It was an international referendum. You talk about the election of 1970. Well, I am proud of the election of 1970 because my party emerged as the strongest party in West Pakistan. But here was an international election, and India flouted it, With such an attitude towards international opinion, how can India pretend to be sensitive to a national election in another country? The same India that refuses to hold a referendum in Kashmir? 77. The Permanent Representative of the Soviet Union talked about realities. Mr. Permanent Representative of the Soviet Union, look at this reality. I know that you are the leader of a great country. You behave like one. The way you throw out your chest, the way you thump the table, you do not talk like Comrade Malik; you talk like Tsar Malik. I am glad you are smiling, because I am not; my heart is bleeding. We want to be friends, but this is not the way to be friends when my country is decimated, it is sought to destroy it, to wipe it out. 78. And why should China and the United States be criticized when the whole world is for Pakistan? You 82. Britain and France have abstained in order to play a role. I said the other day, with all due respect to those two great Powers, that they have really exhausted their position in trying to play a role, because now the only role they can play is to accept a shameless fait accompli. Britain and France abstained, and that abstention has cost us dearly, Gallic logic and Anglo-Saxon experience, whatever it is, have cost us dearly. If Britain and France had put their powerful weight behind the international community rather than sitting on the fence, the issue might have been different. There is no such animal as a neutral animal. You take positions. In that respect we admire the Soviet Union; it took a position, a wrong position, but it took a position. YOU have to take a position on these matters. You have to either be on the side of justice or on the side of injustice; you have to be either on the side of the aggressor or of the victim. There is no third road, It is a black and white situation in these matters; there is no grey involved. You are either for right or you are for wrong; you are either for justice or for injustice; you are either for aggression or for the victim. If the United Kingdom and France had earlier on put their full weight behind the verdict of the international community, I think that we would not have reached this position. But Great Britain and France want to come back into the subcontinent, as Clive and Dupleix, in a different role, the role of peacemaker. They want a foot here and they want a foot there. I know that British interests in East Pakistan required this kind of opportunistic role because in East Pakistan they have their tea estates. They want the jute of East Pakistan. So that is why they sat on the fence. And I am most sorrowful for France because with France we had developed very good relations, extremely good relations. But they took this position. And now, today, neither Britain nor France can play a role because their resolution has been overtaken by events. There is a lot of goodwill for France in Pakistan, and they will not get the same goodwill in East Pakistan because in East Pakistan already the clock is now moving in another direction. Every day that the Indian army of occupation stays there it will be a grim reminder for Muslim Bengal that they are under Hindu occupation, and you will see the result of it. You will see how it will turn out. IlOt.. 79. SO the United States has taken a correct and moral position. Thomas Jefferson once said: “I have sworn eternal hostility against any form of tyranny practised over the mind of man.” This is a vast form of tyranny practised over the mind of man and over the body of man. So the United States has adhered to its tradition. And if some misguided Senators were here, some young, misguided Senators who have been overtaken by Indian propaganda-and if the Permanent Representative of the United States were not from Texas-I would have told those young Senators that I am setting up the headquarters for a republic of Texas and making the former President of the United States, Lyndon Johnson, the chjef of that republic, in order to spread the cult of Bangla Desh everywhere. Why can Texas not be free? Let there be a republic of Texas. I did not buy Bengal as Alaska was bought by the United States. We did not pay money to get our territory. We did not pay dollars to acquire territory. The people of the United States should appreciate the position taken by their Government. Muslim Bengal was a part of Pakistan of its free will, not through money. We did not buy it as Alaska was purchased. Why do the people of the United States not see that? 83. Let them stay-why not? Let them stay, let them swagger around, If they want to take East Pakistan, let them stay as an army of occupation. They are an army of occupation; how can they be called liberators? They will stay, and they will see how the clock is going to move in a different direction. 80. We are beholden and thankful to the great People’s Republic of China. We shall always remain thankful for the position it has taken. It has taken a position based on principles of justice. And I thank the third world for having supported a just cause, a right cause. 84. Finally, I am not a rat. I have never ratted in my life. I have faced assassination attempts, I have faced imprisonments, I have always confronted a crisis. Today I am not ratting, but I am leaving your Security Council. I find it disgraceful to my person and to my country to remain here a moment longer than is necessary. I am not boycotting. 8 1, ~~~ h he Security Council we have been frustrated by a .,oto. Let ,US build a monument to the veto, a big monument to the veto. Let us build a monument to the 8.5. The PRESIDENT: I invite the representative of Tunisia to take a seat at the Council table and to make his statement.

This is certainly a very moving moment. On a number of occasions, ever since 5 December, I have taken the floor both in the Security Council and in the General Assembly. On behalf of my Government I have stressed the gravity of the situation in the Indo-Pakistan subcontinent. Like other delegates, I have issued urgent appeals for decisions to be adopted to put an end to hostilities, to human suffering, and I have appealed for a start on the process of withdrawal of occupying forces on both sides. Peace and respect for the territorial integrity of the countries involved are the necessary conditions for the settlement of disputes and regrettable situations arising from the complexity of problems and from the errors of men. 87. We have the greatest respect for the leaders of India; we recognize and appreciate the support given to us by India and Pakistan during the difficult hours of our fight for independence. Our great desire is to see them, countries which are friends and brothers, settling their disputes and reaching the necessary modus vivendi for those two countries. 88. We are sorry to see both of them making mistakes which have very serious consequences, and in particular the mistake of wishing to impose by force a settlement to a problem which is, in the final analysis, an internal one. Would India agree to have an army from any country occupy the state of Kerala or Assam if for political reasons, or reasons of security, the central Government of India were to decide to replace an elected government with an appointed government? Has this already happened? In any case, my Government is opposed to any intervention by a third party in the internal affairs of a State. This is contrary to the Charter. 89. Here I should like to read a communique which was published a few days ago by the Tunisian Government, after the meeting of the Council of Ministers: “The Tunisian Council of Ministers has decided to support Pakistan in the legitimate defence of its territory and sovereignty. The Council deplores any foreign interference in the internal affairs of Pakistan, The Council hopes that a settlement of the conflict will be found as soon as possible in accordance with justice and the ideals of the international community.” 90. On this occasion I wish to quote a statement just made by the Foreign Minister of Tunisia, endorsing the support of my country for Pakistan and regretting that Pakistani 91. The Tunisian position is in accordance with the Charter and in accordance with the General Assembly resolution of 7 December [2793 (XXV.)]. While we support Pakistan in the legitimate defence of its territory and sovereignty, we are not unaware of the fact that there is a regrettable situation which for India, which is a friend of ours and with whom we have always had the best of relations, caused great concern because of the infIux of millions of refugees from East Pakistan. But this should never have given rise to military action which is contrary to the spirit and the letter of the Charter. Before using military force, even if one were convinced of being right, would it not have been better to use United Nations machinery to settle the disputes? 92. Unfortunately, we forget. We have now forgotten the fate of the refugees, human misery, suffering and frustration, mourning and desolation. War only increases mourning and destruction. How many victims and how many horrors have been committed in the name of liberation imposed by armed force? Who would therefore wish to recognize a Government that sets itself up under the bombing of occupation forces, which can be maintained only by the tanks of the occupier? Can we speak of democracy when the very right to life and peace is being contested? 93. My delegation, at the very beginning of our debate, on Sunday, 5 December [I 607th meeting/, in accordance with Article 40 of the Charter, proposed that the Council take a transitional decision, that is, that it order a cease-fire, and continue its discussions to reach a decision on the substance of the problem. When there is a conflict, when there is fighting, when there is war, the first duty of the international community is to order a cease-fire. 94. This proposal subsequently appeared in a draft resolution put forward by a number of Powers [S/10425] and then withdrawn. As no decision was reached on the first day, the situation worsened. I do not, however, seek to fii responsibility. The General Assembly voted by a majority of 104 votes in favour of a draft resolution, complete or partial implementation of which could have Ied to a cessation of hostilities and the beginning of the process of eyacuation and of the peaceful settlement of the dispute. I wonder whether or not the proposal adopted by the General Assembly has since been communicated to the Security Council. 95. Now what are we waiting for? For all of East Pakistan to be occupied? For Bangla Desh to be proclaimed a new and independent State? For the Charter to be completely violated? And for a State Member of the United Nations to be dismembered? I seriously doubt that the Indian leaders really aim at this objective. I seriously doubt that the international community would like to be associated with 97. We understand, of course, that the population of East Pakistan is anxious to have a regime which will ensure its freedom and prosperity and, if it is determined to exercise its democratic rights, no force can prevent it from doing so. But it must exercise its rights within the over-all framework of Pakistan which can, if it finds it necessary one day, accept widely varied formulae on State organization. Before the problem is settled between the Pakistanis themselves, it is inadmissible that foreign interference of any kind should lead us here in the United Nations to recognize de facto situations. Tunisia believes in the ideals of the Charter, in human rights, in the right of peoples to self-determination, and we will not fail to study the situation in accordance with these criteria, in the hope that Pakistan will be able to collect itself in order to settle these problems, and that India, demonstrating deep understanding of the interests of both the parties, will make its task easier by transcending the errors of the past. But more than ever before our primary duty, the duty of the Security Council, the duty of the United Nations, is to put an end to hostilities and the occupation, and to establish the necessary climate of peace for the settlement of complicated problems which exist in that area. 96. On behalf of a small country worried about the serious consequences the worsening situation in the Indo-Pakistan subcontinent may have for the peace of the world, I should like to plead a lost cause, but a just one, the cause of peace, the cause of the Charter, the cause of the United Nations itself. I reiterate my appeal to one and all to heed the voice of reason. In my statement on 5 December I said that India and Pakistan are brothers, that we must help resolve their difficulties. Only in peace and mutual respect will they find the path of dialogue and understanding. May the voice of reason be heeded. This is but the expression of a wish. The facts are sad indeed. For 10 days now many meetings have taken place. There have been declared or hidden vetoes of the major Powers, obstructing the system. The nonpermanent members of the Council are powerless. The Members of the Organization are perhaps irritated and frustrated, waiting for what is impossible while the irreparable is actually taking place in the field. Pakistan resists. India is getting bogged down in an adventure which will be added to its great concerns. The population of East The meeting rose on Wednesday, 15 December, at I.20 pm. HOW TO OBTAIN UNITED NATIONS PUBLICATIONS United Nations publication8 may be obtained from bookstores and distributor8 throughout the world. Consult your bookstore or write to: United Nations, Sales Section, New York or Geneva. COMMENT SE PROCURER LES PUBLICATIONS DES NATIONS UNIES Les publications des Nations Unies sont en vente dans les librairies et les agences depositaires du monde entier. Informez-vous aupres de votre libraire ou adressez-vous a : Nations Unies, Section des ventes, New York ou Geneve. ICAK, IIOJIYVMTb N3AAHMR OPl’AHN3Al&HH OB’bEASfHEHHbIX HAII(EIH Hs~~a~as Oprannsaquu 06%eminermbrx HaquR MO)~(HO xynnrb a HHWXH~~X M&I‘&- BNMLU w a.remcmax BO ncex paRoxax unpa. Hasonure cnpamtn 06 asAannax n BarneM KHUXCKHOM M~PB.~HH~ am mswwe no aqmcy : Oprauasaqua 06%enwsiemibrx Hanun, Cesunn no nponaxce nsAamfR, HISO-F~O~K wnw SICeHem. COMO CONSEGUIR PUBLICACIONES DE LAS NACIONES UNIDAS Las publicaciones de las Naciones Unidas e&in en venta en librerfas y casaa distribuidoras en todas partes de1 mundo. Cons&e a su librero o dirfjase a: Naciones Unidas, Section de Ventas, Nueva York o Ginebra. Litho in United Nations, New York Price: $U.S. 1.00 (or equivalent in other currencies) 82245-October 1974-2,050