Pakistan, 1996

On behalf of 130 million

Pakistanis, please accept, Sir, greetings on assuming the

presidency of this session of the General Assembly.

I come to address the Assembly in the twilight of the

twentieth century, where we seem to be, in the words of

Charles Dickens, at “the best of times” and at “the worst of

times”. A century now comes to a close which witnessed

two world wars, a Holocaust, hunger, hopelessness and the

spectre of nuclear annihilation.

But there is another twentieth century that we should

remember. The candle flickers on a century that brought

mankind a technological and information revolution

beyond our wildest dreams; a century of breakthroughs in

medicine and health, in communication, in energy, in

transportation and in agriculture; a century that witnessed

the triumph of liberty over authoritarianism, the triumph

of the free market over government control. One historian

has called the twentieth century the age of extremes.

Tested time and again, the world survived.

I come before this Assembly, at this time of

transition from one century to the next — from the

second millennium to the third — to speak of history, of

justice and of morality. Today, the United Nations stands

at the crossroads, not just of the calendar, but of the

direction of the community of nations.

We confront three simultaneous challenges. The first

one is the proliferation of conflicts, disputes and tensions

among and within nations, and the accompanying rise of

national, ethnic and religious prejudice, intolerance and

arrogance. The second challenge is the persistent spread

of poverty. The third challenge is the growing sense of

alienation, the loss of people’s hope and confidence that

the world’s Governments will address successfully the

multifaceted problems inherent in the new technological

era. The manner in which we address these problems will

determine the quality of life that we bequeath our

children.

We remain deeply concerned at the conflicts and

disputes in many parts of the world — in Bosnia, in

Chechnya and in Azerbaijan. Our confidence in our ability

to resolve conflicts has been visibly shaken after the

experiences of Somalia, Afghanistan, Azerbaijan, Tajikistan,

Liberia, Rwanda and Burundi.

We hope that the Middle East peace process,

welcomed by the world, will not be reversed and that all

parties will honour their obligations under the agreements

signed.

The success of the Dayton Agreement and the

restoration of peace and justice in Bosnia and Herzegovina

will be an acid test of the world community’s will to

prevent aggression and genocide in the future.

Yet there is another place on Earth where there is a

test of strength between the principles of law and freedom

and the force of aggression and foreign occupation. After

the creation of the United Nations, the people of Jammu

and Kashmir were among the first to have their right to

self-determination recognized by the Security Council. I

should like to quote the words of the Security Council

itself:

“the final disposition of the State of Jammu and

Kashmir will be made 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.” (Security Council

resolution 122 (1957), second preambular paragraph)

After 50 years, the Kashmiri people still await the

fulfilment of this resolution, of this commitment, of this

promise.

The great African-American poet Langston Hughes

asked fundamental questions about liberty. He asked:

“What happens to a dream deferred?

Does it dry up

like a raisin in the sun?

Or fester like a sore —

And then run? (...)

Maybe it just sags

like a heavy load.

Or does it explode?”

In 1989, as the winds of freedom swept across the

globe, blowing away dictatorship, domination and

occupation, a new generation of Kashmiris rose to demand

their right to self-determination, a right that had passed

from father to son, from mother to daughter — a torch

rekindled from generation to generation. To suppress the

brave Kashmiri youth, India sent in 600,000 military and

paramilitary forces. The tools of murder, torture, rape,

persecution, arson, incarceration and assassination

attempts were ruthlessly used. But as the Nobel Peace

Laureate Martin Luther King said,

“Freedom is never voluntarily given by the

oppressor. It must be demanded by the oppressed.”

Forty thousand Kashmiris have given their lives in

opposing this oppression during the last seven years

alone. India has recruited and trained renegades to subvert

the Kashmiri movement, to create dissension and to

tarnish the image of the struggle for freedom. Under

mounting international pressure, India sought this

September to divert world opinion by organizing a sham

election. Those very people who claim to be front-runners

in the elections cannot even enter the valley without

armed escorts, much less muster popular support.

This is what the world’s media had to say. The Arab

News of 8 September 1996 reported that its correspondent

visited Baramula that morning and saw the entire town

deserted. Not a single person was visible on the streets,

which were being heavily patrolled. The New York Times

of 7 September 1996 reported that while India hopes that

the elections will blunt the guerrillas’ appeal, there are

many in Srinagar who say New Delhi is chasing an

illusion. The Economic Times, an Indian publication, of

17 September 1996 reported that a number of booths in

Anantnag and Pulwama recorded single-digit voting, even

as late as 3 p.m. The Statesman, another Indian

publication, reported on 22 September 1996 that Srinagar

put up a stiff resistance to elections that day, and that

polling was held in a curfew-like atmosphere on deserted

streets. According to the Voice of America’s broadcast of

27 September 1996, United States Senator Tom Harkin

said that these elections were fraudulent and would not be

considered to reflect the legitimate aspirations of the

Kashmiri masses.

The Chairman of the Kashmir All Parties Hurriyat

Conference, Mir Umar Farooq, declared that such

elections cannot be a substitute for the Kashmiris’ right to

self-determination.

The United Nations Security Council declared in

resolution 122 (1957) that the organization of such

elections does not “constitute a disposition of the State”

2

(resolution 122 (1957), operative para. 1) in terms of the

plebiscite to be held under the auspices of the United

Nations. This was confirmed by a recent study by the

International Commission of Jurists.

I should like India to remember the words of the

Frenchman André Breton, who said:

“There is nothing with which it is so dangerous to

take liberties as liberty itself.”

So I stand before the United Nations General

Assembly and urge “to thine own self be true”, to thine

own Charter be true; and to thine own resolutions be true.

India may argue that the Security Council resolutions

that guaranteed a plebiscite to Jammu and Kashmir are old,

but there is no statute of limitations on United Nations

resolutions. Occupation, repression and annexation cannot

nullify the actions of the Security Council itself. The

resolutions of this body cannot be applied selectively only

when politically expedient.

Pakistan calls on the United Nations to implement its

own Security Council resolutions 47 (1948), 51 (1948), 80

(1950), 96 (1951), 98 (1952) and 122 (1957) — seven

specific and binding resolutions guaranteeing self-

determination to the people of Jammu and Kashmir.

Kashmir is the core issue that divides India and

Pakistan. I had proposed a meaningful dialogue to the new

Indian Prime Minister on his assumption of office, and was

encouraged by his positive response. Unfortunately, the new

Government persisted with the strategy of a sham election

in occupied Jammu and Kashmir.

The Kashmir dispute has led to four direct or indirect

wars between India and Pakistan between 1947 and 1971.

India has the third-largest army in the world today, almost

all of which is deployed against my country Pakistan.

South Asia lacks a regional security system. We in

Pakistan have made several proposals for conventional arms

control: first, the negotiation of a mutually agreed ratio of

forces; secondly, measures to prevent the possibility of a

surprise attack; and thirdly, the adoption of agreed

principles for conventional arms control in South Asia.

Over the past 30 years, Pakistan has formulated a

series of proposals to contain proliferation of nuclear and

missile technology in South Asia. All along, India argued

that it opposed bilateral or regional measures and would

accept only a global non-proliferation policy. The

Comprehensive Nuclear-Test-Ban Treaty is exactly the

kind of global measure for non-proliferation and

disarmament that India had been championing for 40

years. Yet, unfortunately, India chose to veto the Treaty

in the Geneva Conference on Disarmament, and it

opposed the Treaty at the United Nations General

Assembly just last month. So now the world can see the

reality.

Let me state that just as we are prepared to sign any

and all nuclear treaties if India simultaneously signs with

us, any step in nuclear escalation by our neighbour will

find a response from us to preserve our national security.

I should like to take this opportunity to propose to

this Assembly that it endorse the convening of a

multilateral dialogue for peace and security in South Asia,

with the participation not only of Pakistan and India, but

of the five permanent members of the Security Council

and other major Powers, such as Germany and Japan.

This multilateral conference could cover three critical

areas: first, the resolution of the Kashmir dispute and

other bilateral problems between India and Pakistan;

secondly, the promotion of conventional arms control and

confidence-building measures; and thirdly, measures to

promote nuclear restraint and avert the danger of a

nuclear-arms race in South Asia. I believe that such

multilateral talks offer a framework for genuine

negotiations that can lead to a resolution of disputes, avert

the nuclear threat and promote prosperity in South Asia.

I hope this proposal will receive the support of this

Assembly and of India.

A clear distinction has been made by the United

Nations between terrorism and the legitimate struggle for

national liberation. We in Pakistan will always be at the

forefront of the effort to combat terrorism because we

have frequently been victims of these crimes from across

our own borders. This year alone we faced a series of

cross-border terrorist attacks, but, by the grace of God,

we were successful in arresting different rings of cross-

border terrorists.

However, I should like to take this opportunity to

express deep concern, on behalf of one billion peace-

loving Muslims, at the propaganda from certain quarters.

Some quarters are trying to present terrorism as peculiar

to the followers of Islam; this is wrong. There is no place

in Islam for acts of terrorism. However, let us

acknowledge that in the post-cold-war period we are

witnessing the rise of extremist fringe groups in the East

3

and in the West. Whether it be Hindu fundamentalism,

Islamic militancy, Judaic extremism, Le Pen’s racism in

France, or the Oklahoma bombing in America, a number of

youth are turning to acts of violence. We who believe in

the policies of moderation, accommodation and tolerance

must unite against this new threat of violence and terror.

International mechanisms and systems to check the agents

of terror need strengthening, and we must condemn

terrorists and extremists with one voice, irrespective of their

race, religion or creed.

Pakistan is the second-largest Muslim country in the

world. It is a democracy, and the Government I lead is

determined to turn Pakistan into a fortress of enlightenment,

emancipation and social advancement. This is no easy task

given our recent history. The Afghan war led to the

proliferation of arms and militancy in our region, and to the

rise of ethnic, sectarian and separatist forces in the country.

It spawned a drug culture and failed to equip our youth for

employment in the modern world.

Today we face, along with other countries of the

world, the dangers of debt, deficit and demography. I am

proud to say that we in Pakistan have brought down our

population growth rate from 3.1 per cent to 2.9 per cent.

We hope to reduce it further, to 2.6 per cent. In the last

three years, we have brought down our deficit by three

points, and a billion dollars of debt has been retired.

However, the cost has been heavy.

Each year we have had to present a harsh budget to

pull our country out of the quicksand of debt, deficit and

demography. This year alone, out of new budgetary

measures of PRs. 40 billion, PRs. 22 billion went to debt

servicing. The example of Pakistan shows why increasing

numbers of the world’s population live in poverty and

squalor, without access to clean drinking water, sanitation,

schools or hospitals.

These bleak realities of debt servicing breed a despair

and frustration that often manifest as random violence and

terrorism. Despite this grinding poverty, the aspirations of

the marginalized keep rising due to the communications

revolution sweeping the world.

The world needs to devise a system under which

Governments adopting international standards of trade and

human values get proportionate relief in their debt.

Shrinking aid flows have forced countries such as Pakistan

to borrow capital at commercial interest rates. Indeed, debt

servicing now accounts for 47 per cent of our budget. The

negative impact of such reverse transfers needs to be

redressed.

Similarly, it is time to renew and implement the

pledge of the developed nations to devote at least 0.7 per

cent of their gross national products for assistance to the

developing countries. Even this target has now dwindled

to a level of 0.3 per cent of the gross national product of

the developed world.

We in Pakistan, committed to the dream of our

founding fathers, have chosen the path of a federal

parliamentary democracy wedded to the concept of social

equality. Under a democratic Government, Pakistan has

played a responsible role in combating terrorism and

narcotics, promoting the rights of women and children,

and working on non-proliferation issues such as the

Comprehensive Nuclear-Test-Ban Treaty. We have done

this while confronting the forces of ethnicity,

sectarianism, separatism and militancy that were tearing

at our social fabric. Those who sought to undermine our

country’s unity by undermining peace in our port city of

Karachi have been defeated.

We have a clear agenda as we move towards the

twenty-first century: a Pakistan dedicated to the rule of

law and to safeguarding the rights of its women, children

and minorities; a Pakistan providing equal opportunity for

the advancement of its citizens by investing in health and

in education; a Pakistan that has already attracted over

$22 billion in investment pledges.

I speak to you, Mr. President, in the twilight of a

century that awaits the dawn of a fresh one. As I speak,

I dream of a third millennium in which the gap between

rich and poor evaporates; in which illiteracy, hunger,

malnutrition and disease are at long last conquered; in

which every child is planned, wanted, nurtured and

supported; and in which the birth of a girl is welcomed

with the same joy as that of a boy. I dream of a

millennium of tolerance and pluralism, in which people

respect other people, nations respect other nations, and

religions respect other religions.

That is the third millennium I see for my country

and others — for all children. Let the United Nations be

the infrastructure for making this dream into a reality.