PRESS CONFERENCE BY NEW PERMANENT REPRESENTATIVE OF PAKISTAN

PRESS CONFERENCE BY NEW PERMANENT REPRESENTATIVE OF PAKISTAN

The root cause of the confrontation between India and Pakistan was Kashmir, Munir Akram, the new Permanent Representative of Pakistan to the United Nations, told correspondents at a Headquarters press conference this afternoon.  In the course of the press conference, Mr. Akram made it clear that Pakistan had never subscribed to a "no-first use" policy regarding nuclear weapons.

Briefing the press on tensions between the two countries, he said that since 1948, the United Nations had adopted several resolutions which prescribed that the future of Kashmir should be decided by its people through a free and fair plebiscite conducted under United Nations auspices.  That pledge had not been fulfilled and had resulted in the present situation.

India, he said, had sent over 700,000 troops into Indian-occupied Kashmir -– an area the size of Belgium.  Seventy thousand Kashmiris had died, thousands more had been maimed and incarcerated.  India had also used “renegades” to perpetrate the most heinous violations of human rights against the Kashmiri people.  Unable to crush the freedom struggle, India had resorted to depicting the struggle as terrorism.  That was simply not true.  Also, the Kashmiri struggle was an indigenous one.  If there had been an outside presence, it had been a very small one. 

The two attacks last year, on the Kashmiri Legislative Assembly on

31 October and on the Indian Parliament on 13 December, were incidents utilized by India to revive its allegations that Pakistan was a sponsor of terrorism, he stated.  When the attack of 14 May took place on an Indian cantonment in Srinagar, India once again revived its allegations, threatened war against Pakistan and taken several military moves to escalate the tension, including moving ships from the Bay of Bengal to the Arabian Sea.  

Pakistan, he said, had responded to calls from the international community not to escalate the situation and had said it would not initiate a war with India.  However, Pakistan had made it clear that if a war was thrust upon it, if India did commit aggression against Pakistan, it would respond with its full might.  He was hopeful that good sense and sanity would prevail and that India would not resort to the use of force against Pakistan.  However, if it was attacked, Pakistan was ready to respond. 

Asked if he would welcome a more effective impartial monitoring of the Line of Control (LOC) than what had been performed so far by the United Nations Military Observer Group for India and Pakistan (UNMOGIP), Mr. Akram said that his Government had proposed a strengthening of UNMOGIP.  The current number of

35 observers had to be substantially augmented to effectively monitor the LOC.  India had rejected that proposal.  Pakistan had also suggested that some other impartial mechanism be found to monitor the LOC.

India, he added, had alleged that there were people coming across the LOC.  India had 150,000 troops along the LOC -- an 850-kilometre line.  There were three layers of troops along that line as well as mines and fences.  If people were

getting through those defences, India had to ask itself how people were able to get through.  It was in no way a proxy war.  It was a war being fought by the Kashmiri people inside Kashmir. 

Replying to a question on what might constitute an act of aggression by India, he said that any action by India across the border, any aerial attack on Pakistani territory and its assets, and any action to economically strangle Pakistan would be viewed as such and would be responded to by Pakistan.

As far as nuclear weapons were concerned, the fact was that both countries possessed such weapons, he said.  While that should instill restraint on both sides, it did not seem to do so on the Indian side. 

Regarding nuclear weapons, he stated that Pakistan had never subscribed to a “no-first use” policy.  What it did subscribe to was “no-first use of force”.  The Charter prohibited the use of force and India should be committed to the non-use of force.  India should not have a license to kill with conventional weapons while Pakistan’s hands were tied regarding other means to defend itself. 

Pakistan had to rely on the means it possessed to deter Indian aggression, he continued.  It would not “neutralize” that deterrence by any doctrine of no-first use.  Believing that both sides should commit themselves to the non-use of force, Pakistan had offered a non-aggression pact to India, which India had rejected.  If India reserved the right to use conventional weapons, how could Pakistan –- a weaker power -– be expected to rule out all means of deterrence?

On the possibility for dialogue, he stated that Pakistan had always sought dialogue for all of its problems with India, including Kashmir.  A dialogue had taken place over a year ago in Agra, India, between the two sides.  Unfortunately, the agreement reached in Agra to launch a structured process of talks was scuttled at the last minute by the Indian side. 

As to what Pakistan expected from the Security Council, he said that the Council had a responsibility for addressing the Kashmir dispute for two reasons.  First, its resolutions had prescribed the modalities for the solution of the problem.  Second, all the parties had the responsibility to implement the Council’s resolutions.  Furthermore, the Secretary-General and other Member States also had obligations to promote the implementation of those resolutions. 

Secondly, he said, whenever there was a threat of the use of force against a Member State and a threat to international peace and security, there was an obligation for the Council to address that situation. 

Asked why he remained optimistic, he replied that no one in the international community wanted to see a war between India and Pakistan, and that had been conveyed to India.  Therefore, any Indian action would be contrary to the wishes of the international community.  Also, India knew that a war would be costly.  Pakistan was neither an Afghanistan nor a Palestinian Authority.  It was a major military power with the capability to defend itself.  Knowing that, he said, he hoped India would not bring the “blight of war” to the subcontinent.

With regard to President Putin’s offer to mediate talks between the two sides, Mr. Akram said that Pakistan had responded positively to that offer.  If India accepted the offer, his Government would welcome the opportunity for a dialogue. 

The solution was clear, he noted.  First, verify Indian allegations of cross-border infiltrations and then de-escalate and demobilize the troops along the border.  Once that was achieved, then the rest of the problem could be addressed -– the Indian repression inside occupied-Kashmir on the one hand and the insurgency on the other.  It had to be a mutual process.  Pakistan could not accept one-sided concessions imposed on it by the use of force or the threat of the use of force. 

Wouldn’t Pakistan’s recent missile tests only fuel current tensions? asked a correspondent.  Mr. Akram noted that India had also tested missiles in recent months.  No one had said anything about that.  Why was it that when Pakistan tested, it was seen as raising tensions?   

* *** *