Security Council fails to agree on cease-fire

Press, Volume CXI, Issue 32783, 7 December 1971, Page 17

Security Council fails to agree on cease-fire

(N.Z.P.A.-Reuter—Copyright) NEW YORK, December 6. Russia with its second veto in less than 24 hours, last night paralysed Security Council efforts to get a cease-fire in the war between India and Pakistan. The Council adjourned shortly after the Soviet action and was planning a final bid at 330 p.m. today to obtain unanimous agreement on a cease-fire resolution.

Plans to transfer the problem to the General Assembly, where there is no veto, were held in abeyance while delegates consulted on a lastchance draft introduced by the Italian Ambassador (Mr Piero Vinci).

This would have the 15nation council call “upon the governments concerned forthwith, as a first step, for an immediate cease-fire.” Leaving other questions—including, implicitly, withdrawal—until later. U.S. requirement Diplomatic sources said that by ignoring the withdrawal point, it might run into United States objections. The United States Ambassador (Mr George Bush) has been insisting all along that the Council must demand withdrawal of forces and a cease-fire.

After the adjournment shortly before midnight last night Mr Bush told reporters: “We are continuing to hope there will be some common ground, but I have to admit the outlook seems bleak.”

He was asked about a possible move to invoke the so called "uniting for peace” procedure established at the initiative of the United States in 1950 to transfer matters concerning the maintenance of peace and security to the General Assembly in the event of a veto.

“We are making no such proposal at pre&nt, but we are keeping all our options open, including that one,” he replied.

The procedure requires the affirmative votes of nine Council members, with the right of veto in suspense, and some sources said that there was doubt whether that tally could be obtained. Britain and France were both understood to be reluctant to support such a move. "Uniting for peace,” was essentially a United States Cold War tactic and its legality has often been held to be dubious.

But rather than see the United Nations paralysed in the present crisis, with Russia refusing to permit any

cease-fire resolution to go through and the United States insisting that cease-fire must be accompanied by withdrawal, members might feel willing to compromise their principles to free the assembly, observers said. Moral pressure

Assembly resolutions are only hortatory, but an overwhelming vote for a ceasefire would be expected to

exert considerable moral pressure on the two sides.

The resolution which Russia vetoed last night was submitted by Argentina, Belgium, Burundi, Italy, Japan, Nicaragua, Sierra Leone and Somalia.

The United States, China, and nine other members voted for it—as they did early yesterday morning for the United States draft, which Russia also vetoed. As before, Britain and France abstained. Poland joined Russia in voting no.

The Soviet veto came shortly after the council rejected a Soviet resolution containing a call on Pakistani forces to stop “acts’of violence” in East Pakistan. Only Russia and Poland voted for this resolution, which would also have called for a "political settlement in East Pakistan, which would inevitably result in a cessation of hostilities.” China voted against the resolution and the council’s 12 other members abstained. Name-calling

Last night’s council debate again was marked by angry name-calling by the Soviet Deputy Foreign Minister (Mr Jacob Malik) and the Chinese Ambassador (Mr Huang Hua). These sharp exchanges have become a regular feature of United Nations discussions. At one point, Mr Huang said: "The great foreign policy of the great revolutionary government of China cannot be distorted by a small Mr Malik.” He accused him of resorting to delaying tactics in the United Nations to enable India, “within a short time to change the military situation in Pakistan.” The Soviet delegate said that anyone who heard Mr Huang would know to what a low level "social treachery” had fallen on the Chinese side.

"The Chinese delegate, with his vicious pathological slander against the Soviet Union, is aspiring in the principal

organs of the United Nations to the role of an imperialist jest,” Mr Malik said. Earlier, he said that the Chinese name-calling was emphasising the differences between their two countries and delighting Western bystanders. Chinese resolution During the debate China introduced its first United Nations resolution to call on India and Pakistan to cease hostilities and withdraw and disengage "so as to create conditions for a peaceful settlement” of their disputes. It would also call on aD States to “support the Pakistan people in their just struggle to resist Indian aggression." To the surprise of tnany delegates, the draft was prepared and tabled'in English.

Later, Mr Huang said he did not want -it ‘ put •to the vote until there had been further consultations on the text Informants said that the proposal, as tabled, had no chance of being adopted. The Pakistani Ambassador (Mr Agha Shahi) and the Indian Ambassador XMr Samar Sen) also renewed their charges and counter-charges, and Mr Sen was critical also of American policy. Mr Bush said that he could not understand why. He said what the United States wanted was an end to the shooting, and the withdrawal of troops. “There has been a massive invasion of Pakistan,” he said. “It is aggression.” It was time to end the war.