| |
China at the U.N.Consideration of “Bangla Desh’s” Application for U.N. Membership Opposed[This unsigned article is reprinted from Peking Review, #33, Aug. 18, 1972, pp. 12-13.] THE United Nations Security Council held a meeting on August 10 afternoon to discuss the question of consideration of “Bangla Desh’s” application for the United Nations membership. In view of the difference of views, the council voted on whether or not the question was to be included in the agenda. Chinese representative voted against it and the representatives of Guinea, Somalia and the Sudan did not participate in the voting. The President of the Council declared at the end of the meeting that “Bangla Desh’s” application will be referred to the Committee on the Admission of New Members. Following is the full text of the Chinese Representative Huang Hua’s speech: The Chinese Delegation firmly opposes the Security Council’s consideration of “Bangla Desh’s” application for membership in the United Nations under the present circumstances. The reason is quite obvious. 1. In the opinion of the Chinese Delegation, the application of “Bangla Desh” for membership in the United Nations should in no way be considered in deviation from the relevant resolutions adopted by the United Nations General Assembly and the Security Council last year. As is known to all, on November 21 last year, the Indian Government, with the active encouragement and energetic support of the Soviet social-imperialists, brazenly launched a large-scale war of aggression against Pakistan and seriously undermined the peace on the south Asian subcontinent. On December 7 last year, the United Nations General Assembly, breaking through the numerous obstacles raised by the Soviet Union and India, adopted Resolution 2793 (XXVI) with the overwhelming majority of 104 votes, the operative paragraph 1 of which explicitly “calls upon the Governments of India and Pakistan to take forthwith all measures for an immediate ceasefire and withdrawal of their armed forces on the territory of the other to their own side of the India-Pakistan borders.” Subsequently, on December 21, the Security Council adopted Resolution 307 (1971) with the great majority of 13 votes. Apart from reiterating the demand for troops withdrawal by the two parties, the resolution in its operative paragraph 3 “calls upon all those concerned to take all measures necessary to preserve human life and for the observance of the Geneva Conventions of 1949 and to apply in full their provisions as regards the protection of wounded and sick, prisoners of war and civilian populations.” The Geneva Convention of 1949 referred to in this connection stipulates in article 118 in explicit terms: “Prisoners of war shall be released and repatriated without delay after the cessation of active hostilities.” However, what is the actual state of affairs now? The actual state of affairs is: The Indian Government has failed to withdraw all its troops to its own territory in accordance with the U.N. resolutions concerning troop withdrawal, and has been detaining over 90,000 Pakistan prisoners of war and civilians. “Bangla Desh” is even holding out threats for the trial of Pakistan prisoners of war. This constitutes a gross violation of the relevant resolutions of the U.N. General Assembly and the Security Council. At the same time, “Bangla Desh” is insisting on its recognition by Pakistan before it can agree to hold negotiations with the latter. This is simply to collude with India in blackmailing Pakistan and in continuing to obstruct the implementation of the relevant resolutions of the United Nations. This is indeed bullying others too much. We would ask: Whether or not Resolution 2793 (XXVI) adopted by the U.N. General Assembly with 104 votes and the Security Council Resolution 307 (1971) adopted with 13 votes remain valid? Obviously before the true implementation of the relevant U.N. resolutions and pending a reasonable settlement of the issues between India and Pakistan, and between Pakistan and “Bangla Desh,” “Bangla Desh” is not qualified at all to be admitted into the United Nations, and the Security Council’s consideration of “Bangla Desh’s” application for membership in the United Nations is entirely out of the question. Otherwise, where will the United Nations Charter stand? Where will the relevant resolutions of the U.N. General Assembly and the Security Council stand? When one refuses to implement the relevant resolutions of the United Nations, how can he possibly speak of “accepting the obligations contained in the present Charter” and of being “able and willing to carry out these obligations”? This is indeed a sheer hoax and a gross mockery of the United Nations. 2. To put it bluntly, in resorting to such unreasonable course of action, the Indian Government and its behind-the-scenes supporter the Soviet social-imperialists are aimed at encouraging the aggressor through the instrumentality of the United Nations and continuing to maintain the tension on the south Asian subcontinent. A clear evidence is found in the report that after the Simla talks between India and Pakistan, the Indian Prime Minister Mrs. Indira Gandhi claimed that pending the “final settlement” of the Jammu and Kashmir dispute, she would not permit the repatriation of Pakistan prisoners of war. Approval of these acts of theirs would be tantamount to giving aid and abetment to evil-doings. Consequently, in defence of the principles of the U.N. Charter and in the interests of the entire people of the south Asian subcontinent, it is essential to insist on the following: Only when the relevant U.N. resolutions have been truly implemented and only after a reasonable settlement of the issues between India and Pakistan and between Pakistan and “Bangla Desh” has been achieved, can the Security Council consider “Bangla Desh’s” application for membership in the United Nations. In view of the above reasons, the Chinese Delegation firmly opposes the Security Council’s consideration of the application of “Bangla Desh” for membership in the United Nations. Contents page for this Peking Review issue. Return to Peking Review article list |
|