PM IN ADDRESS TO UN OFFERS
INDIA NON-AGGRESSION PACTUnited Nations -- Prime Minister Nawaz Sharif September 22 offered New Delhi to negotiate a "treaty on non-aggression between India and Pakistan."
In his first-ever 25-minute address to the United Nations General Assembly, the Prime Minister said a just settlement of the Jammu and Kahsmir dispute and progress on the issue of peace and security would usher in an era of amity and progress in South Asia.
Before a galaxy of world leaders, the Prime Minister said: "I offer today from this rostrum to open negotiations on a treaty of non-aggression between Pakistan and India."
He said his government would persevere in the dialogue with India for the sake of the people of South Asia. He expressed the hope that India could be persuaded to take certain positive to create a climate conducive for talks including a halt in its campaign of repression against the people of Kashmir; withdrawal of those Indian troops that are engaged in internal repression in Kashmir; and evolution of a mechanism to take into account the wishes of the Kashmiri people mandated by the Security Council in a final political settlement.
He said since 1974 Pakistan had pursued its proposal for a nuclear-free zone in South Asia. "On the other hand, India has taken successive steps to escalate its nuclear and missile capabilities." He asked what does India meant when it repeatedly asserted that its nuclear option was "open?" And in the absence of any assurances to the contrary, he said, Pakistan would have to assume the worst. "India's nuclear capable Prithvi missile is being serially produced," he reminded the General Assembly."These missiles", he said "specifically targeted Pakistan. They have been moved adjacent to our border. This creates a hair-trigger security environment."
"The development," he said, "and possible deployment of the missile, and India's planned acquisition of theater missile defense systems, will further aggravate this tense security environment." He said the development would evoke the natural response from Pakistan to safeguard and augment its security and deterrence capability. "India must be persuaded to reverse its missile program," he said.
The Prime Minister said to preserve peace and stability in South Asia and beyond, "we propose that Pakistan and India should reach an agreement for mutual and equal restraint in the nuclear and ballistic fields." He proposed "a similar arrangement for mutual and equitable restraint on conventional weapons which ensures equal security to both Pakistan and India."
The Prime Minister said there were a number of areas in which India and Pakistan could cooperate for mutual benefit. "Trade liberalization can take place on an equitable basis. Significant foreign investment can be drawn to the region. In the expectation that the Pakistan-India dialogue will have made a heartrending advance by next year, my government intends to hold a regional economic summit in 1998," he explained.
The Prime Minister said it was his government which had taken the initiative and resumed the stalled dialogue with India. He remarked unfortunately that the last and third round of the Foreign Secretary - level talks had not succeeded.
He emphasized that Kashmir was a disputed territory whose accession to either Pakistan or India was to be determined through a UN - supervised plebiscite, and reminded that under the Simla Accord of 1972, India agreed to "a final settlement" of the Jammu and Kashmir dispute with Pakistan.
"The existence of the Kashmir dispute cannot be denied. The right of self-determination is sacrosanct. It has repeatedly been affirmed by the United Nations. The people of Kashmir are justified in asking why this pledge to the international community by India has not been honored as yet. The Security Council cannot be selective in the implementation of its resolutions," the Prime Minister stated.
The Prime Minister opposed expansion of the UN Security Council observing that "it is ironical that the countries which practiced democracy at home and advocate it abroad should create a new aristocracy of states." He said any decision on Security Council reforms that was not backed by a consensus of all UN member states would erode the credibility and undermine the legitimacy of the Council as well as the United Nations. The UN charter, he pointed out, rejected hegemony.
Join the GlobalSecurity.org mailing list
