Posted on 02/28/2005 1:36:19 AM PST by CarrotAndStick
WASHINGTON, Feb 27: The United States believed that an overwhelming majority of UN members were against the division of Pakistan in 1971 but Russian vetoes prevented the world body from playing any role in the crisis.
This assessment is included in a set of classified documents the US State Department released this week to the media on US relations with the United Nations from 1969 to 1972.
Summing up the UN role during the 1971 crisis, the US permanent mission at the United Nations informs the State Department: "On Dec 7, the UN General Assembly, acting under the Uniting for Peace procedure, recommended by an overwhelming majority a cease fire and withdrawal of troops to their own territories and the creation of conditions for voluntary return of refugees." These were Bengali refugees who had fled to the Indian state of West Bengal after the 1971 military action in former East Pakistan.
As many as 104 member states voted for the resolution, 10, including India and the former Soviet Union, voted against it and 11 abstained. "The vote showed the strong sentiment in the United Nations against the use of military force to divide a member state," the US mission observes.
In a separate memo assessing the proceedings of the 26th General Assembly which dealt with the 1971 crisis, the US permanent mission writes: "The overwhelming majority (voted) for a resolution calling for a cease fire and withdrawal of troops in the Indo-Pakistan war (but) the Security Council was prevented from acting by Soviet vetoes."
Despite the world body's failure to enforce a cease fire, the US mission says that "in the India-Pakistan crisis, the General Assembly showed its utility. Early attempts by Secretary General U. Thant to persuade the permanent members of the Security Council to address the crisis over East Pakistan had foundered mainly on Soviet objections."
The memo points out that in December 1971, following the outbreak of hostilities, the US had brought the dispute before the Security Council but repeated Soviet vetoes blocked action.
"The Security Council belatedly adopted a resolution endorsing a cease fire and pointing toward withdrawal of troops, political accommodation, and humanitarian relief under UN auspices," says the internal memo.
In an earlier memo sent to the US permanent mission at the UN on Sept 3, 1971, the State Department predicts that the 26th UNGA could well be "a turbulent one" and the situation in Pakistan, "fraught with danger of conflict, could also lead to heated debates."
The memorandum suggests that the then US Secretary of State William Pierce Rogers "should give major emphasis to South Asia" in his address to the 26th General Assembly, underlining the dangers of war in the area, and especially focusing "attention on the humanitarian problem in India and East Pakistan".
"The secretary should underline the UN role of leadership in dealing with these problems and should provide vigorous support to the secretary-general's appeal for contributions and support from the world community," the memo says.
The memo urged Mr Rogers to include the following points in his speech: a) the threat to peace poses dangers not only to India and Pakistan but to the world community, b) the threat of famine in East Pakistan and the problem posed by the influx of refugees into India must also concern the international community, c) the international community, and India and Pakistan, have a responsibility for ensuring the peace, for averting famine and relieving human misery, d) we look to the UN to continue asserting vigorous leadership and coordination of efforts to deal with the food situation in East Pakistan and refugee relief in India.
We intend continuing our support for these efforts, e) we recognize that the political problems in Pakistan must be resolved by the Pakistanis themselves, f) we trust both India and Pakistan will avoid actions which can increase tensions and will also be alert to the opportunities for dealing with the refugee problem so as to reduce tensions.
Mr Rogers, who died at the age of 87 four years ago, delivered his speech on Oct 4, 1971, focusing on the points suggested by his aides. Another State Department memo, written after the speech, says that both Indian and Pakistani representatives (Agha Shahi) commented that the speech was clear and balanced.
"Naturally Indians would have preferred greater stress on political settlement in East Pakistan and Pakistanis less, but in general their reactions were decidedly favourable."
By giving Stingers to the Mujahideen, we made the world of aviation THAT much more dangerous
Quite rightly put -- India's not going to budge until the US forces pakistan to close down it's jihadi camps
Even during her putatively "democratic" reign, she was an authoritarian, whose policies were detested by huge pluralities among the more disenfranchised groups living within India.
The fact that she was murdered by two extremely close family friends should tell you something about how ordinary Indians viewed her.
They were not family friends who murdered Indira, they were here bodyguards.
here=her
The IDF were able to force the surrender of Palestinian terrorists who had taken the Church of the Nativity hostage, without adding to the destruction already inflicted by the Fatah gangsters who had seized control of it.
The seminal event of Indira Gandhi's domestic agenda was not a display of strong-willed leadership, so much as it was a confirmation of the fact that her primary method of negotiation was the application of brute force.
Guess what!!Most Indians(including the youth) in India want a leader of the Indira Genre who doesn't take **** from anyone,be it the Pakistanis,Lefties or hindu fundamentalism.
>>>> Kissinger chose short term gains at the expense of creating long-term headaches -- by cozying up to Pakiland and the Chicoms, he forced the republic of India to cozy up to China's other giant neighbor -- the USSR.
No, India was already cozied up to the USSR by then. But again, please don't trouble me with India's internal problems during the Cold War. The communists were busy murdering 100 million people all over the planet We had many, many, many more serious issues to worry about besides India's internal issues. I'm sorry you're not happy with America's decisions regarding India's indecision, but you were too busy to be troubled with global freedom. We on the other hand, were financing and dying all over the planet to save it from communism.
You should keep in mind that most Americans were very much against Great Britain's colonialism in India. The Anglosphere was not monolithic on that issue. But after WWII, and after independence, India had a clear choice. Behind the scenes, I'm sure that Americans were working to pressure Britain to honor India's nonviolence protests.
Once and for all, it chose wrong in holding the entire west responsible for the 17th century errors of Britain. India chose to side with the Gulags. It chose to side with the death camps. It chose to side with collectivist tyranny beyond human imagination. There is simply no way to exculpate India for its gross error in non-allignment, and its drift toward the Soviet union.
It's time to forgive and move forward, however. India has to earn its place on the world scene by reaching out beyond its borders and helping the west to defend freedom. India has to draw itself out of selfish introspection and become a global force for freedom instead of simply a Machiavellian entity seeking its own advantage.
It can happen. You personally are responsible for seeing it to fruition. I can't do it. My people are fighting for their lives and the lives and freedom of everyone on the planet. We're already doing our part. When will you?
The IDF were able to force the surrender of Palestinian terrorists who had taken the Church of the Nativity hostage, without adding to the destruction already inflicted by the Fatah gangsters who had seized control of it.
Comparing one situation with another is outright idiocy. Please dont get me started on American human rights abuse in Iraq or that of Isreali army in Palestine. One or two incidents that ended well means nothing.
The seminal event of Indira Gandhi's domestic agenda was not a display of strong-willed leadership, so much as it was a confirmation of the fact that her primary method of negotiation was the application of brute force.
Definitely not. I have to disagree with you there. It is because of her strong-willed leadership that Bangladesh exists and Kashmir is still with us. It was because of her that India today is able to protect herself with military might and do not have to rely on "passive resistance". And it was she who gave India her first nuclear test notwithstanding world opinion going against her. And it she who chose not to negotiate with terrorists and paid the price for that with her life but she stands vindicated in sofar as her stand against terrorism is concerned. India has learned a hard lesson that you cannot have dialog or negotiation with terrorists. Her "socialist" policies may not always be the correct choice for India but nevertheless in difficult times SHE is the leader that I would like to have for India.
So you think what America is doing in Iraq is abusive? You think what Israel does on the strategic West Bank, in Gaza where the Egyptians have rolled through to grasp at their throats, and Jerusalem - which is their own traditional capital city, is inhumane?
Do tell us more. We'd love to hear all about it.
Yep buddy, dont deny there havent been any human rights abuses by Americans army Iraq or by Isreali army in Palestine or else you would be lying. Wanna hear more? Hear it from your own press. The argument here is not about human righta abuses, the point is that when you point fingers at others you mustn't forget that a few fingers are pointing back at you. If Indian government committed a few human rights violations then so did every body else and much more than what we did.
You're equivocating.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.