• Military

• WMD Menu                           

• Introduction
• Systems
• Facilities
• Agencies
• Operations
• Countries
• Hot Documents
• News
• Reports
• Policy
• Budget
• Congress
• Links

• Intelligence
• Homeland Security
• Space

PAKISTAN MISSION TO THE

UNITED NATIONS, NEW YORK

Statement by the Permanent Representative of Pakistan to the United Nations in the Security Council's debate on 6 June 1998, on the nuclear tests conducted by India and Pakistan.

---

Pakistan has kept the UN Secretary General and the Security Council fully informed, at all stages, of the developments pertaining to the current grave security crisis in South Asia.

Indeed, to some extent, it was the dereliction of its responsibilities by the Security Council that emboldened India to implement its hegemonic and aggressive designs, by crossing the nuclear threshold, threatening the use of nuclear weapons against Pakistan, and resorting to nuclear blackmail to impose a military solution on Kashmir.

We informed the Council about India's provocative actions and unambiguous expression of intent to commit aggression against Pakistan.  Unfortunately, the Council did not pay heed to the impending breach of peace.

Faced with these ominous developments resulting from India's deliberate and calculated actions to alter the strategic equation, Pakistan was left with no choice but to exercise its nuclear option in its supreme national interest, to restore the strategic balance and to preserve peace.

For almost fifty years, Pakistan repeatedly drew attention of the United Nations to the Indian illegal occupation of Jammu and Kashmir.  We demanded the implementation of the Council's own resolutions.  We sought to draw attention of the international community to the Indian brutal campaign to deny to the Kashmiri people their inalienable right to self-determination, as provided for in the Council's resolutions.

We repeatedly drew attention of the Secretary General and this Council to the extremely volatile situation in Kashmir, resulting from grave violations of the Line of Control by Indian troops.  We urged the Secretary General and this Council to take cognizance of this situation and even proposed the strengthening of the present United Nations Military Observer Group in India and Pakistan (UNMOGIP).

We regret to note that the Council paid no attention, whatsoever, to Pakistan's repeated warning and requests.  Today again, the central issue which has bedeviled relations between India and Pakistan and is at the source of all conflicts and tensions in South Asia, is being ignored.

Now that the Council is seized of the volatile situation in South Asia, we note with regret that the approach that is being adopted is once again devoid of realism.  Nonproliferation cannot be pursued by creating or acquiescing in situation of a security void.  This has been and continues to be a major failure on the part of all those who have sought to promote the goal of non-proliferation.  It is obviously counter-productive to bank once again on a uni-dimensional approach to non-proliferation based on selective sanctions, pressures and intimidation.

The Council has contented itself to deal with the non-proliferation aspects.  Nonproliferation is no longer an issue in South Asia.  South Asia, which we had wanted to be a nuclear weapon free zone, is today nuclearized, thanks to the encouragement and acquiescence of major powers.  There is a real danger of nuclear conflict.  Proliferation, regrettably has taken place.  No amount of sermonizing and lamentations can rectify or reverse this unfortunate development.

If this Council really wishes to have any role in containing the crisis and preventing the situation from deteriorating further, it must adopt a pragmatic and realistic approach.

We are convinced that a comprehensive approach to the issues of peace, security, confidence building, conventional imbalance, and conventional and nuclear arms control, is the only realistic way, whereby this Council and the international community could contribute to defusing the security crisis in South Asia which has endangered global peace and stability.

Mr. President, the Resolution which has emerged from the consultations is deficient in several aspects.

Let me first deal with the procedure.  Under Article 31 of the Charter, "Any member of the United Nations which is not a member of the Security Council may participate, without vote, in the discussion of any question brought before the Security Council, whenever the latter considers that the interests of that Member are specially affected".  We deeply regret that the Council has disregarded this Charter provision by not giving us an opportunity to participate in the discussions on this Resolution.

The attitude of the Council can, in short be described as, "My mind is made up; please do not confuse me with facts".

While I would be pointing out the substantive inadequacies, let me make a more general point.

I wish to state for the record and for posterity that the adoption of this Resolution will further marginalize the role of the Security Council, not only in dealing effectively with the security crisis in South Asia but on global security issues as a whole.

The approach that the Security Council has adopted is not only again devoid of realism but also of legality and morality.

I wonder whether the Security Council is not about to ignite an extremely short fuse that will destruct the entire global security order as is envisioned in the UN Charter.

Now let me deal with salient aspects of this Resolution which I believe fall in the following three categories:

a) Non-Proliferation;
b) The security problem in South Asia; and
c) The role of the Council

As far as the non-proliferation aspects of this Resolution are concerned, we cannot help but comment on the extremely short sighted approach that the Council has chosen to pursue.

This Resolution is not an expression of global concern about the failure of nonproliferation and ways and means to deal with this serious issue.  It is in fact a transparent exercise in self-assurance by the official Nuclear-5 to seek legitimacy for their possession of lethal arsenals of weapons of mass destruction.

The Nuclear-5 draw comfort and questionable legitimacy from the Non-Proliferation Treaty.  Pakistan had never questioned this dubious distinction that they draw from the NPT.  Today we are obliged perforce to reconsider our position.

For the first time, this sacrosanct institution is being used, today, to confer legitimacy upon the Nuclear-Five.  It is, therefore, not what is contained in this Resolution, but what is implied, which needs to be seen in its proper legal, strategic and political perspective.

For the first time, the Security Council is being asked to play a role in enforcing non-proliferation.  This is contrary to the letter and spirit of the various international instruments and treaties on this subject.

Nuclear non-proliferation is the obverse side of nuclear disarmament.  Nuclear nonproliferation cannot be promoted in the absence of corresponding progress towards nuclear disarmament.

The Nuclear-5 have continued to use the NPT for a two-fold purpose: to legitimize their own possession of huge nuclear arsenals and the right to retain them in perpetuity; and as a blunt instrument to curb further proliferation.

It is indeed evident that the Resolution "welcomes" the commitment of the Nuclear Five to Article VI of the NPT.  There could be no more poignant travesty of facts.

Treaty provisions cannot be enforced on non-parties.  Treaty obligations can only be assumed on a voluntary basis.  Any attempt at imposition of treaty obligations on non- parties is, by its very nature, unequal and unsustainable.

How would the Council deal with the issue so aptly raised by the decision of IC on the illegitimacy of nuclear weapons?  How would the Council deal with the question of nonproliferation?  How would the Council deal with the inter-linked issues of nuclear disarmament and non-proliferation?  The Council has given its verdict.  Nuclear disarmament is apparently in safe hands ! Nuclear non-proliferation is the only real issue.

The Non-Aligned Movement has consistently held that there is no justification for the maintenance of nuclear arsenals, or for concepts of international security based on a policy of nuclear deterrence.

The Non-Aligned Movement has also categorically pronounced itself on the present situation, whereby nuclear weapon states insist that nuclear weapons provide unique security benefits, and continue to make feverish efforts to monopolize them.  The NonAligned Movement has said that this is a highly discriminatory and untenable approach, and one that cannot be sustained.

The Non-Aligned Movement's ministerial meeting in Cartagena recently affirmed the importance of the adoption of an action plan for the total elimination of all nuclear weapons within a time-bound framework, as well as the need for negotiating and implementing universal, non-discriminatory disarmament measures, and mutually agreed confidence-building measures.

If the Council is, today, really concerned about non-proliferation, then the resolution that it has adopted does less than full justice to the predominant views of the Non-Aligned Movement, including of those who are parties to the NPT.

Let me once again clarify that the issue for Pakistan is one of security, and not of status.

Pakistan has demonstrated its nuclear weapon capability.  We have officially stated that the nuclear devices tested on 28 and 30 May 1998 correspond to weapons configuration compatible with delivery systems.

We have already stated that South Asia has been nuclearized.  We have been compelled to join the process of nuclearization by India's decision to weaponize and induct nuclear weapons.

We have been obliged to do so for our self-defence and to restore the strategic balance in South Asia.

It is India that has claimed status as the sixth nuclear weapon state.  Does the Council, by its lop-sided approach, desire that we also claim status as a nuclear weapon state, and thus contribute to shredding to bits the myths about the legitimacy or otherwise of nuclear weapons?

Moreover, the resolution does not take into account the fact that besides India and Pakistan, there are other states, non-parties to the NPT, which possess nuclear weapons and have so acknowledged.

We do not want to complicate the issue.  The issue is simple and straight forward.  It is about the security crisis in South Asia.  We do not want to dilute the focus, and enter into academic arguments about non-proliferation and nuclear disarmament.

We also do not want to link extraneous issues which only serve to detract from the main issue, that is the security crisis in South Asia, which has endangered global peace and stability.

So, Mr. President, a highly skewed and self-defeating approach has been taken by the Security Council in trying to handle non-proliferation, which is strictly not within its competence.

The future of non-proliferation cannot be assured by setting aside its very legal and moral basis.  This is exactly what is being done today by this Council.  It is evident, therefore, that what is at stake is not the future of non-proliferation, but the exclusive privileges and status that the Nuclear-5 arrogate to monopolize, caring little about the wider aspects.

I, therefore, dread to say that the Council is about to embark on a totally unrealistic and self-defeating course as far as the future of non-proliferation and nuclear disarmament
is concerned.

Mr. President, Pakistan has been subjected to double discrimination.  At the regional level, we are discriminated because of a failure by the Security Council to make a distinction between an action and reaction, between a provocation and a response, between a cause and its effect.

Pakistan has acquired its nuclear capability only in reaction to India's steady development of its nuclear weapons programme.  We cannot be asked to give up the right to defend our country against any external threat emanating from conventional or weapons of mass destruction.  Pakistan reserves the right to maintain the ability to deter aggression by conventional weapons or non-conventional means.

We are also suffering a discrimination at the global level by the Nuclear-5 states, who claim for themselves the right to acquire and retain weapons of mass destruction against each other, or against non-nuclear weapon states, and thus threaten the rest of the world.

This discrimination, at the global level, is epitomized by the possession of over 30,000 nuclear weapons in the hands of the Nuclear-5 states, which they claim they will retain indefinitely while taking coercive measures to prevent any other state from acquiring similar capability, even in the legitimate exercise of the right of self-defence.

This is totally unjust and unacceptable.

While the Security Council adopts this unjust decision, we are confident that the international community, the majority of the membership of the United Nations General Assembly, will reject this unfair and unequal decision, and uphold its demand for general and complete nuclear disarmament in the shortest period of time by the Nuclear-Five States.

Mr. President,

The resolution before the Council presumes to deal with the security aspects of the situation in South Asia.  Here again, the Council is ensuring that it would, in fact, have at best a disinterested spectator's role.

What are the immediate issues in the context of the situation in South Asia?  We would have expected that the Council would seek to address earnestly and reasonably the following:

a) Reducing the risk of a nuclear conflict.

b) Promoting nuclear restraint and stabilization measures between Pakistan and India.

c) Defusing the volatile situation in Jammu and Kashmir, especially along the Line of Control.

Unfortunately, the Security Council is once again abnegating its responsibility under the UN Charter for the maintenance of international peace and security by adopting a totally unpragmatic and unrealistic approach.

This Resolution urges India and Pakistan to exercise maximum restraint and to avoid threatening military movements, cross-border violations or other provocations in order to prevent an aggravation of the situation.  This Resolution also urges India and Pakistan to resume the dialogue between them on all matters pertaining to peace and security and encourages them to find mutually acceptable solutions to address the root causes of tension.

The mere mentioning of the root cause, Kashmir, is not enough.  We regret that even the important element contained in the P-5 Ministerial Communique, of their readiness to assist India and Pakistan in promoting reconciliation and cooperation has been omitted from this Resolution.

It is evident that by adopting this approach the Council is in fact acknowledging its failure to address the critical elements of the situation.

In short, the Council wants Pakistan and India settle the issues bedeviling their relations by themselves.

If Pakistan and India could have sorted out these problems by themselves, today South Asia would not have been nuclearized.

What you, Mr. President, are asking us today, in short, amounts to an appeal to two nuclear weapon states to settle their differences on the basis of the de-facto situation.  This de-facto situation is based on complex factors underlying the power balance in strategic and conventional terms.

In fact, what you are asking us today is to remain embarked on a disastrous course. You are asking us today to cross new thresholds in nuclear and ballistic system escalation.

You are asking us today to set aside the UN Charter, and international law, and to base our conduct on the imperatives of maintaining a strategic balance, whatever the cost.

You have once again ignored the fact that the direct cause of aggravation of the security situation in South Asia was the unilateral altering by India of the delicate strategic balance that had maintained peace in South Asia for the past two decades.

We cannot read any other message in your Resolution. You have once again abandoned your responsibility by asking us to find mutually acceptable solution.

I say this more in sorrow than in anger, for the implications of this approach would be far and wide.

Not only would it oblige the countries of South Asia, but also 180 member states of the United Nations, to draw their own conclusions about the pathetic state of the UN and the global security order, which is premised to serve the strategic interests of the official Nuclear-Five.

Mr. President, I regret to say that Pakistan is disappointed.  We had pinned our hopes on the UN for more than 50 years.  We were confident that it would be able to usher a new era,  free from the scourge of war for our succeeding generations.  What we have witnessed instead is a tale of missed opportunities, abdication of responsibilities, and selective and discriminatory application of the Charter.  This track record does not rill anybody with pride.  Nor does it conform to the ideals of its founding fathers, or to the principles of democracy.

Let me, however, hasten to add that we would still continue to base our conduct and actions on the noble principles of the UN Charter.  The vision of the UN Charter would, I hope, one day bring the dawn of a new era.  This would come about if the nations of the world would become true adherents to the principles and purposes of the Charter.

The Government and the people of Pakistan have faith in the inherent goodness of humankind.  We place great value on the collective civilizational accomplishments of the human race, and the eventual triumph of morality.  It is in view of these sublime sentiments that we have taken the liberty, today, to make a critical analysis of the shortcomings of the Security Council, that have only contributed to the spread of chaos and anarchy in various parts of the world.

Mr. President,

Pakistan will continue to comply with its obligations under the UN Charter and international law.

We would continue to seek a just resolution of the Jammu and Kashmir dispute, in accordance with Security Council resolutions.  May 1, at this stage, remind the Council of its own resolutions on Jammu and Kashmir, which explicitly provide for the final disposition of the State of Jammu and Kashmir, in accordance with the will of the people expressed through the democratic method of a free and impartial plebiscite, conducted under the auspices of the United Nations.

The Prime Minister of Pakistan has already stated, as I would like to reiterate that Pakistan is ready to enter into talks with India on all matters of mutual concern including a Non-Aggression Pact, on the basis of a just, equitable, and expeditious settlement of the Jammu and Kashmir dispute.

I thank you, Mr. President.