|
|
Mr. President,
It was not my intention to intervene again in our discussion, but I believe that
the regional problems to which Sir Jeremy Greenstock just referred have intruded
and oblige me to respond to my colleague from India.
My friend from India referred to what he called the Indian state of Jammu and
Kashmir. The United Nations recognizes Jammu and Kashmir as disputed territory.
The maps of the United Nations clearly indicate the line of demarcation the
ceasefire line between Indian-occupied Kashmir and Azad Kashmir, which is free
Kashmir. The Security Council resolutions on Kashmir, calling for a United
Nations-supervised plebiscite to enable the people of Jammu and Kashmir to
exercise their right to self-determination, remain to be implemented.
At this moment in history, when we have seen a war waged for the purpose of
securing the implementation of Security Council resolutions, the people of Jammu
and Kashmir and the people of Pakistan ask the Security Council to adopt a
standard that is uniform and does not discriminate against them, because they
have awaited their freedom and self-determination for 50 years under Indian
occupation. It is an occupation of several hundred thousand Indian
troops occupying a country the size of Belgium. There is one Indian soldier for
every four Kashmiri males. And my colleague from India can speak only about acts
of terrorism. It is a pity that he referred to, as he said, 75,000 Indian
citizens killed in Kashmir. Those were Kashmiris more than 80,000 Kashmiris
killed by Indian occupation forces. That is well documented, and my delegation
is prepared to circulate those documents for the information of Council members.
In the context of terrorism, the representative of India referred to an incident
that occurred a few days ago in Indian-occupied Kashmir in which 24 innocent
people were massacred. Pakistan has vigorously condemned that terrorist
incident. As usual, India has held one country to quote my colleague from
India responsible for the situation. We submit that this is a case of the pot
calling the kettle black. In such situations, as I said this morning, it is
always better to resort to impartial investigations and to impartial inquiry
before making allegations against another State, because allegations of that
nature can very often lead to the rise of tensions and to threats to
international peace and security.
We say that there must be an investigation, because in March 2000, just as
President Clinton was visiting India, 35 Sikh villagers were massacred in
Kashmir. The New Delhi Government blamed guess who. But at the time, there was
an inquiry conducted by two independent organizations, called Movement Against
State Repression and the Punjab Human Rights Organization, and, after a thorough
investigation, both of them concluded that it was Indian forces that had carried
out the massacre. A separate investigation conducted by an international human
rights organization came to the same conclusion.
India seeks to portray the Kashmiri movement as a terrorist movement in order to
delegitimize the struggle for freedom and self-determination. That is the
central and core reality in Kashmir. Therefore, Pakistan has asked that this
latest massacre should be investigated. We have suggested that the investigation
could be carried out by non-governmental organizations such as Amnesty
International. Today, since my colleague from India has raised this matter in
the Security Council, I should like to ask him if he would be prepared to accept
an independent United Nations inquiry into this incident. I hope he will respond
positively. If India is convinced that external forces are responsible for such
acts of terrorism, let it say yes. Pakistan is prepared for such an
investigation. We know that our hands are clean, our conscience is clear and our
cause for the sake of the freedom of Kashmir is just.
I thank You.