70. May I, first of all, offer my congratulations to the President on his unanimous election to preside over this session of the General Assembly. This election demonstrates the Assembly’s confidence in his personal qualities of wisdom and impartiality, as well as its regard for his country. The contribution of Latin America to the evolution of the United Nations and its jurisprudence has been significant. I have no doubt that his term of office will add lustre to this tradition.
71. I would also take this occasion to pay our tribute to His Excellency Mr. Coneliu Manescu, the Foreign Minister of Romania, for the ability and consummate skill with which he presided over the deliberations of the twenty-second session of the General Assembly.
72. This year has been significant in the history of disarmament negotiations and a landmark in the effort to prevent the further spread of nuclear weapons. The conclusion of the Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons, the General Assembly’s commendation of it and the subscription to it by more than eighty States have been events of historic importance.
73. Pakistan voted in favour of the General Assembly resolution commending the Treaty [2373 (XXII)] and has fully endorsed its objectives. In doing so, we made it clear that the value of the Treaty would depend upon the extent of the adherence that it would command. I hardly need to labour the point that the Treaty will possess little appeal, and exert less weight, if the near-nuclear States do not subscribe to it. Moreover, it has been obvious — and the point has been acknowledged by the prime authors of the instrument — that the Treaty is but the first step towards the non-proliferation of nuclear weapons. By itself, its strength and durability will be reduced if it is not supplemented by other measures which are equally integral to the process of achieving a non-proliferation régime.
74. It was to explore the avenues along which these measures can be undertaken that, pursuant to the relevant resolutions of the General Assembly, a Conference of Non-Nuclear-Weapon States was held in Geneva, from 29 August to 28 September. Ninety-six States, including four of the nuclear Powers, were present. The report of the Conference [A/7277] will be duly presented to the Assembly and I have no doubt that the implementation of
its recommendations will be included as an item on our agenda. Since, however, I had the privilege of presiding over the Conference, I may take this opportunity of surveying briefly the results it achieved.
75. The Conference adopted fourteen resolutions and a declaration [ibid., pp.3-19].
76. On the subject of co-operation in the field of the peaceful uses of nuclear energy, the Conference recommended the preparation of a full report on contributions of nuclear technology to the economic and scientific advancement of the developing countries. It has been proposed to examine the creation of a special nuclear fund to provide loans and grants for nuclear projects in developing countries. Moreover, the General Assembly has been requested to consider the establishment of a nuclear technology development programme for the benefit of developing countries within the United Nations Development Programme. The Conference has also recommended a study by IAEA to facilitate the exchange of scientific and technical information and on ways of increasing funds available for technical assistance. It has also been suggested that the nuclear-weapon States advise IAEA at regular intervals on the possibility of declassifying scientific and technical information. Nuclear-weapon States have been urged to ensure the supply of fissionable materials for peaceful nuclear programmes of the non-nuclear-weapon States. A
recommendation has been made that IAEA broaden the representation of its Board of Governors so as to reflect the principle of equitable geographical distribution and the views of a broad spectrum of developing countries.
77. On the question of effective measures for the prevention of further proliferation of nuclear weapons, the cessation of the nuclear arms race at an early date, and nuclear disarmament, the Conference recommended bilateral discussions at an early date between the United States and the Soviet Union on the limitation and reduction of offensive strategic nuclear-weapon delivery systems and systems of defence against ballistic missiles. It also urged the adoption of collateral measures in the field of nuclear disarmament, including the conclusion of a comprehensive test-ban treaty as a matter of high priority. In order to prevent the further proliferation of nuclear weapons, the Conference has urged the acceptance of the IAEA system of safeguards as may be evolved from time to time by all the non-nuclear-weapon States which would provide against diversion of source or special fissionable materials from peaceful to military purposes. Lastly, it has recommended that the IAEA safeguards system should be simplified and made economical and effective.
78. On the question how best to assure the security of non-nuclear-weapon States, the Conference recommended that the non-nuclear States study the possibility of establishing by treaty the military denuclearization of their zones, provided that political and security conditions permit.
79. The Declaration of the Conference [ibid., p.17] sets forth succinctly the general purport and tenor of the main resolutions adopted and also the view of the Conference on the question of security.
80. In regard to the implementation of the Conference decisions, the General Assembly has been invited to consider, at its present session, “the best ways and means for the implementation of the decisions taker by the Conference” and to consider, at a subsequent session, the question of convening a second conference of non-nuclear-weapon States.
81. On the question of security of non-nuclear-weapon States against the nuclear threat, the discussions of the Conference were inconclusive. However, the Declaration of the Conference, which was unanimously adopted, stresses the necessity of further steps for an early solution of the question of security assurances in the nuclear era.
82. In my closing statement to the Conference of Non-Nuclear-Weapon States, I suggested that we need not feel discouraged on account of the fact that in respect of measures to assure their security, the discussions of the Conference were inconclusive. The question of security, as the history of disarmament negotiations shows, is very complex. The Conference was not meant to traverse the whole range of this problem. Nor did it embark upon the attempt to evolve a single formula for the total security of all countries. But the Conference did focus attention on the problem of security of non-nuclear-weapon States against the nuclear threat and the need to provide such assurance of this security as would operate independently of all other arrangements, national or regional.
83. It will now be the task of the General Assembly and the other appropriate United Nations forums to pursue the search for effective and binding guarantees to non-nuclear-weapon States which renounce the manufacture or acquisition otherwise of nuclear weapons.
84. I shall now turn to the international situation.
85. A cruel war continues to ravage Viet-Nam and rebuke the world’s conscience. The hope that the people of Viet-Nam, who have not known peace for more than a generation, would be allowed to determine their future without outside interference, on the basis of the Geneva Accords of 1954, has not so far been realized.
86. The crux is what initial steps should be taken to reach agreement to open the way for the implementation of the Geneva Accords? It is to this crucial question that the Paris talks must find a speedy answer.
87. The situation in the Middle East continues to pose a grave threat to world peace. Every day that passes adds further proof — if proof were needed — of the fact that the source of the problem is the denial of justice and fundamental rights to the Arabs of Palestine.
88. It has been Pakistan’s stand since 1948 that the indigenous population of Palestine is entitled to the same right of self-determination that other populations formerly under mandate or trusteeship have exercised. Any appraisal of the present situation in the Middle East which would ignore this paramount consideration would not only be against the law of the United Nations; it would also be lacking in both balance and realism.
89. This element of balance needs to be restored to the approach of the United Nations to the Arab-Israeli issue. The want of this element has been accentuated by the fact that, after Israel’s massive attack against its Arab neighbours in 1967, the Security Council failed to follow the precedent consistently maintained in similar situations before. The precedent was to call for a cease-fire coupled with the withdrawal of the respective forces. The Council’s failure in this respect was only partly redeemed by resolution 242(1967) of 22 November 1967. I say “partly” because conflicting interpretations were put on that resolution which served only to underline its ambiguities and weaken its impact.
90. However, in the present situation it is obvious that what is required is a full implementation of that resolution in letter and in spirit. The Assembly must take note of the fact that the Governments of Jordan and the United Arab Republic have clearly signified, more than once, their willingness to implement this resolution. It must also take note of the fact that no such indication has been forthcoming from Israel.
91. Indeed, time and again, Israel makes moves calculated to consolidate its occupation of Arab territories in violation of the principle enunciated in Security Council resolutions 242(1967) and 252(1968) which emphasize and reaffirm the inadmissibility ‘of the acquisition of territory by military conquest and therefore rule out territorial expansion. Unless the permanent members of the Security Council show a united resolve to make Israel withdraw from the occupied territories, there can be no progress towards a peaceful settlement. We are told that continued peace is essential for allowing the parties time to work out the settlement. We agree, but the question is: What happens if the time element is used, not for working out a settlement, but for creating and consolidating conditions that would obstruct it permanently? What happens if 1 million uprooted Palestinians see no hope except in a desperate resistance?
92. The annexation of the Holy City of Jerusalem is one of the most important manifestations of this conflict. The unique and special importance of Jerusalem for three world religions has been repeatedly affirmed by the United Nations. The General Assembly has twice unanimously called upon Israel to refrain from annexing the Holy City. This call was reinforced by Security Council resolution 252(1968) adopted on 21 May 1968, which reaffirmed that acquisition of territory by military conquest is inadmissible and deplored Israel’s failure to comply with the General Assembly’s resolutions. Yet Israel’s response to those categorical demands of the Organization has been one of defiance. This is not only an affront to the conscience of the world, but is also a grave threat to the peace.
93. The Moslem world embracing over 500 million people will never accept that control of their holy places should pass to non-Moslem hands. Let no one make a mistake about the depth of their feelings on that score.
94. I take this opportunity of stating that Pakistan whole-heartedly endorses the demand of the Conference of the Organization of African Unity held last month in Algiers for the withdrawal of Israeli forces from the occupied territories. We appeal to this twenty-third General Assembly to add the great weight of its own voice to this call. If the prospects of a just and lasting peace in the Middle East are not to suffer irreparable damage, if this Organization is not to acquiesce in the acquisition of territory by war, if the world is to be spared another conflagration in that area, Israel must be made to vacate the territories occupied by it during last year’s hostilities.
95. In regard to the situation in the Czechoslovak Socialist Republic, my Government made its position clear in the Security Council in August. We note that further negotiations between the parties to this end are proceeding and that the five Socialist States are pledged to withdraw their forces from Czechoslovakia.
96. Mindful of the purposes and the principles of the Charter of the United Nations, Pakistan firmly believes that the people of the Czechoslovak Socialist Republic are entitled, no less than any other people, and regardless of their social system, to exercise their sovereign rights and to enjoy freedom from the fear of threat or use of force. It therefore follows that the armed forces of the Socialist States need to be withdrawn from Czechoslovakia at the earliest possible moment.
97. In our own region also, there are issues which continue to disturb the peace and welfare of populations numbering more than 600 million people. I refer to the relations between India and Pakistan. It should be obvious from the experience of the last twenty-one years that.these relations will remain impaired unless there is a just and honourable settlement of the dispute concerning the State of Jammu and Kashmir.
98. Pakistan seeks nothing more of India than that India should fulfil the pledge which it solemnly gave to Pakistan, to the people of Kashmir and to the Security Council that it would let the people of Kashmir decide their own future by means of a plebiscite to be held under United Nations auspices. We seek nothing more than that India should co-operate in a settlement of the Kashmir dispute which would be in harmony with the principles of the international agreement concluded between India and Pakistan when they jointly accepted the resolutions of 1948 and 1949 of the United Nations Committee for India and Pakistan. We seek nothing more than that India should refrain from a unilateral repudiation of an international agreement.
99. This is not the occasion for me to recapitulate the history of the last twenty-one years. Suffice it to say that the war in September 1965 was stopped only when the Security Council adopted resolution 211(1965) of 20 September 1965, which contemplated a settlement of the problem — that is, the Kashmir problem — underlying the conflict. In that resolution the Council committed itself to assist in the settlement. The cease-fire was followed by a mutual withdrawal of forces, when, by issuing the Tashkent Declaration, the two countries solemnly pledged themselves to settle all disputes by peaceful means.
100. In the two and a half years which have since elapsed, Pakistan has repeatedly invited India to enter into meaningful negotiations on the Jammu and Kashmir dispute. India has persistently refused to accept this invitation. Instead, the India leaders have now taken to asserting that the State of Jammu and Kashmir is an integral part of India and that India’s sovereignty over Kashmir is not negotiable.
101. As a peace-loving country, Pakistan is anxious to solve this dispute with India in a peaceful manner and is prepared to enter into negotiations with India on how best to allow the people of Jammu and Kashmir to exercise their right of self-determination, in which they could decide either to accede to India or to join Pakistan.
102. Inside the State of Jammu and Kashmir discontent is increasing, and the people of the State, under the leadership of Sheikh Abdullah, are agitating for their legitimate right of self-determination. Already violence has taken place, but Sheikh Abdullah has thrown his weight against this. How long will he be able to control the people? How long will the people be able to contain their anger? An explosion could take place at any time which would endanger peace once again. The position now being adopted by the Government of India in respect of Jammu and Kashmir is a colonialist position. It is suppressing the people of Jammu and Kashmir by force and by the exercise of might denying them their right to freedom. Where there is repression there will be revolt. Where there is subjugation there will be a fight for freedom. The era of colonialism is over. It is now clear to all, except to those who have deliberately shut their eyes, that the people of Jammu and Kashmir do not wish to be a part of India. This is borne by all objective evidence from the State. In the by-elections to the so-called Legislative Assembly held in August in Srinagar, 95 per cent of the electorate responded to the call of Sheikh Abdullah and boycotted the polls. The Government of Pakistan is pledged to support the right of self-determination of the people of Jammu and Kashmir, and this pledge we shall fulfil, come what may.
103. The Security Council has been seized of this dispute since 1948, and in September 1965 it renewed its pledge that it would take up the matter after the cease-fire had been implemented and the withdrawal of forces completed. I would remind the Security Council, particularly the permanent members, of this commitment, especially as India has not responded to Pakistan’s offer of bilateral negotiations for the settlement of the dispute.
104. Should such a response be forthcoming from India, a new chapter would be opened in the troubled history of South Asia. The scarce resources of the two countries that at present are being squandered on an arms race would be spent on projects of welfare and peace.
105. The climate of relations between Pakistan and India has also been affected adversely by the treatment meted out to the Muslim minority in India by the majority community.
106. !t is with considerable sorrow and reluctance that I turn to this subject, which nevertheless is appropriate both as to time and place. This is the International Year for Human Rights. It is from this forum that the Universal Declaration of Human Rights was proclaimed and where the Covenants of Human Rights took shape.
107. There also exists an agreement between Pakistan and India, known as the Liaquat-Nehru Pact of 1950, which was registered with the United Nations Secretariat under Article 102 of the Charter. It provides for the safeguarding of the life and property of the minorities in the two countries as the joint concern of the two Governments.
108. It is, however, with anguish that we in Pakistan have observed that the anti-Muslim riots have become a regular feature of life in India. Some prominent Indian leaders have publicly acknowledged that incidents of communal violence against Muslims in India have shown an upward trend in recent years. In these riots thousands of Muslim men, women and even children have been killed, their properties looted and their homes destroyed and other brutalities perpetrated which are too horrible to recount. In the first six months of this year the Indian press has reported twenty-eight major riots in various parts of India which resulted in large-scale killing of Muslims and loss of their property. What is more regrettable is that many of these riots are carefully organized by certain elements in Indian political life. It is generally admitted, and even by the Government of India, that local officers have not taken effective measures to prevent riots or to stop them in time before serious damage has been done, nor is punishment meted out to those who are guilty. Some Indian observers have pointed out that not a single prosecution has succeeded in riot cases although thousands have been killed.
109. Pakistan sincerely hopes that India, as a subscriber to the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and as a party to the Liaquat-Nehru Pact, would fulfil its obligations and deal resolutely and effectively with the forces of religious intolerance so that 50 million of its own citizens of Muslim faith are assured their fundamental and constitutional right to life, liberty and freedom from fear. My Government expects the Government of India to take energetic and effective measures in discharging its elementary duty towards its own nationals, because if these killings and persecutions of Muslims continue, a serious situation would be created between the two countries and my Government may have to seek recourse to whatever international procedures are appropriate.
110. Another matter of serious concern in India-Pakistan relations is the construction of a barrage, known as the Farraka Barrage, on the international river, the Ganges, at a site eleven miles upstream from the border of the eastern part of Pakistan. This project, which was begun by India in 1960, in spite of Pakistan’s protests, is scheduled for completion by 1970.
111. The barrage has been characterized in the 1965-1966 Indian budget as a project of “strategic and international importance” and is designed to divert the waters of the mainstream of the river Ganges through a canal to another channel flowing entirely through India. The project is estimated by impartial experts to be fraught with the danger of grave injury to the economy of East Pakistan and to the régime of the rivers of that province. In the dry season, that is, March to May, the mainstream of the Ganges River, after the intake of the Farraka Barrage, will become so low in its course through East Pakistan that hundreds of thousands of acres of land will lose their water supply and become waste land. Shortage of water will lead to the silting of the river channel, thereby increasing flood hazards, besides other multiple harmful effects.
112. In order to find a just and amicable solution to this problem, Pakistan has, ever since the project was formulated, proposed to India bilateral discussions at the technical as well as political levels with a view to arriving at agreement on the basis of the recognized rules of international law on the equitable sharing of the waters of international rivers and the right of upper and lower riparians. Seventeen years of effort have resulted in nothing more than five meeting at the technical level. Political discussions with a view to a settlement have yet to take place.
113. My Government is strongly of the view that the time has come for substantive negotiations and that the matter brooks no further delay. The Government of Pakistan is ready to enter into such negotiations with the Government of India. If this is not acceptable to the Indian Government, we are ready to have recourse to any of the other methods of pacific settlement of disputes mentioned in Article 33 of the United Nations Charter, namely, enquiry, mediation, conciliation, arbitration, judicial settlement, reference to regional agencies or arrangements or other peaceful means
of their own choice by India and Pakistan.
114. In 1960, Pakistan and India were able to reach an agreement on the equitable apportionment of the waters of the Indus River Basin through the good offices of the International Bank for Reconstruction and Development. We see no reason why an equitable sharing of the waters of the Ganges River should also not be worked out with the fruitful co-operation of the same international agency.
115. I sincerely hope that this matter will be settled on an amicable basis and that Pakistan will not have to knock at the doors of international forums for a settlement. India’s stand that the lower riparian has no say in the disposal of the water resources of an international river is untenable. If it goes unchallenged, it would mean the establishment of a new precedent contrary to international law. Its repercussions would extend beyond the region of the Indo-Pakistan subcontinent. This matter should, therefore, be of first importance to all States which have international rivers flowing through their territories.
116. We are happy to welcome Swaziland as the 125th Member of the United Nations. Its accession to independence and sovereignty represents yet another step in the process of decolonization, a task which still remains unfinished. These vestiges that remain are the hard core colonial areas in southern parts of Africa, comprising the Territories of Angola, Mozambique, Namibia and Rhodesia.
117. In regard to the question of Namibia, the issues which are involved are simple and straightforward. They relate to the inalienable right of the people of Namibia to self-determination and independence. It is the realization of this right which is being thwarted by South Africa in defiance of General Assembly resolution 2145(XXI) and subsequent resolutions of the General Assembly on Namibia.
118. This is the essence of the challenge which South Africa has posed to the world Organization. It is this challenge which must be resolutely met by the United Nations. As far as my delegation is concerned, we will be prepared to support recourse to Chapter VII measures by the Security Council when it takes up the question of Namibia for consideration in pursuance of any recommendations that may be made by the General Assembly.
119. The situation in Rhodesia continues to cause anxiety. As a result of the unilateral declaration of independence by Mr. Smith, an essential element of which is the partnership between colonialism and racism, the life, security and welfare of the people of Zimbabwe is in jeopardy. The world community is naturally concerned with this situation.
120. By its resolution 232(1966), the Security Council rightly determined that the situation in Rhodesia constitutes a threat to international peace and security and, inter alia, decided that all Member States should impose selective mandatory sanctions. As is well known, these selective mandatory sanctions have not succeeded. Consequently, the Security Council adopted resolution 253(1968), which represents the latest determined effort of the international community to impose comprehensive mandatory sanctions against the illegal régime in Rhodesia.
121. We are deeply concerned over the deteriorating situation in Rhodesia. What agitates the world community is more than the total collapse of the rule of law or the utter denial of human rights in Rhodesia. There are no doubt explosive elements in the situation. Its danger lies in its being a situation where the alliance of racism and colonialism has launched an offensive against the United Nations, against the Charter and against forces working
towards a just and stable order in Africa.
122. The root cause of the ferment in southern Africa can be traced to the policies of apartheid followed by South Africa. Had it not been for this policy and its ramifications, the process of decolonization and freedom that liberated Asia and many parts of Africa would have also included southern Africa. The cancer of apartheid is spreading to Namibia and the land of Zimbabwe. It is our hope that the unanimity with which the policy of apartheid is condemned will also characterize the action which the world Organization must take to put an end to that odious system.
123. The denial of the right of self-determination to the people of Angola and Mozambique is another manifestation of the lengthening axis of racism and colonialism in the subcontinent of southern Africa. This partnership is threatening the foundations of peace and justice in that region and may well spark a racial conflagration with untold consequences for the whole world.
124. The Decade of Development, which is about to end, has fallen far below our expectations of achievement. The hope that the rich countries will devote 1 per cent of their national income to assist developing countries remains unfulfilled. Foreign aid is lagging far behind this promised level and is actually declining in relation to the ability of donor nations to provide.
125. The developing countries have been slipping steadily backward in relation to the economically developed countries. The per capita income in the latter has been rising by $60 a year as compared to $2 per head in the former. At the same time, the annual burden of debt of the developing countries is beginning to assume unmanageable proportions — it rose from $10 billion to $45 billion in the last decade. While this crippling burden increases, the capacity of the developing countries to repay their debts is decreasing because of the adverse terms of trade.
126. The first United Nations Conference on Trade and Development was convened to draw attention to the need for giving equal, if not greater, importance to the trade of developing countries, particularly in manufactures, than to aid. The second session of UNCTAD held this year provided an opportunity of reviewing the achievements of the present and hopes for the future.
127. Before the second session Conference began, the developing countries had hoped that constructive action would be taken to devise a system of general preferences, to approve a scheme of supplementary financing, to improve the quantum and the terms of aid and to provide access both for agricultural as well as other products of the developing countries. It was also thought possible to lower trade barriers on the pattern of the Kennedy round which had primarily benefited only the developed countries. The second session did not achieve these goals.
128. At the recent session of the Economic and Social Council, the Secretary-General emphasized the fact that expectations of the developing countries from the second session of UNCTAD had not been excessive or unrealistic. What was lacking was the political will on the part of the advanced countries to enhance the trade and development prospects of the developing countries.
129. Our disappointment must not be permitted to deter us in planning for the future. The second session of UNCTAD was not entirely unproductive. The acceptance, in principle, of a generalized system of non-discriminatory and non-reciprocal preferences and the agreement that the developed countries would, by a date not yet agreed upon, transfer annually 1 per cent of their Gross National Product to the developing countries, are two of its hopeful results.
130. The implementation of these agreements could show the way for future progress and contribute to the success of the second Development Decade to which the United Nations family of organizations is now attaching primary importance.
131. The Secretary-General has drawn this Assembly’s attention in the introduction to this annual report to a hopeful development in the race between food and population. The record food crops during the last year have encouraged the belief that the developing countries may be, in the words of the Secretary-General, "on the verge of an agricultural revolution that may prove decisive for mankind” [A/7201/Add.1, para. 69]. In other words, in order that this belief may be transformed into reality, the developing countries will have to allocate energy and resources on a continuing basis to the improvement of farming practices and the evolution of human attitudes. Plans for agricultural development will have to go hand in hand with family-planning programmes.
132. It remains our hope that the role of the United Nations in bringing about this revolution and in closing the widening gap between the rich and the poor will be strengthened if the developed countries demonstrate the political will to play the part expected of them.
133. Over the years all Members States have been acutely conscious of the need to strengthen the role of the United Nations and its machinery in order to make it a more effective instrument for the maintenance of international peace and security, and for achieving the goals of disarmament, decolonization and economic development. Year after year, we zealously proclaim our dedication to these ends and pledge renewed efforts for their achievement.
134. The causes that have made our progress so painfully slow are undoubtedly many and complex. However, if there is one single cause which stands out in all its sharpness and clarity and which is within our power to remove, it is the continued denial to the People’s Republic of China of its rightful place in the United Nations and all other international organizations. No formula for the security of non-nuclear-weapon States against the nuclear threat can be fully credible without recognition of China’s place as a nuclear-weapon Power. Not a single step can be taken in the direction of prohibiting the use of nuclear and thermo-nuclear weapons without the fullest participation of China in the deliberations of the United Nations aimed at outlawing such weapons.
135. The goal of general and complete disarmament will remain as distant as ever if the opportunity is denied to China of making its indispensable contribution to bringing it within the bounds of practical possibility. Peace and stability in Asia, and indeed in the world, cannot be assured without due recognition of the role of the People’s Republic of China as a great Power.