This is my second visit to your new and very impressive Academy. Before I came here I told the Commandant of the Staff College that I will make an informal speech. I will tell you why I do not want to make any formal speech here. In the first place, far too many important and delicate matters are taking place in the world for me to speak on them. There is crisis and trouble almost everywhere. You know so well that the situation in the Middle East is causing great agony and concern to everyone. There is trouble and turmoil in other parts of the world also. And on top of that a number of important conferences are to be convened in the near future. One very important conference that is going to take place this month is the non-aligned conference in Colombo.
These are not the only reasons why I would not like to make a speech at this juncture before this audience, on any important external matter. You know at the same time while these developments are taking place everywhere, here in our region also matters are not static and we are going through a process of transition. Our relations with a number of countries are undergoing examination and change and in this very month of August we are to receive a number of distinguished foreign visitors. The Secretary of State of United States is coming to Pakistan on the 8th of this month. Before that on the 6th of August, the President of Mauritania will cone to Pakistan. And of course we are eagerly looking forward to the visit of the President of Afghanistan which is also going to take place this month. You will therefore appreciate my reluctance to talk on these delicate and important international matters at this point of time. I have given you three reasons and I will recapitulate them briefly.
Firstly, the whole world, particularly the Middle East and certain parts of Europe, regions of Greece and Turkey and certain other areas which are not far away from us are undergoing great deal of change and there is great deal of turmoil and cause for anxiety. Secondly, in this very month important conferences are going to take place, the most important of them being the nonaligned conference. Thirdly, we are ourselves ordering our relations on fundamental matters with our neighbouring countries on a basis which we hope will be different from the past. Now when I say this I would at the same time like to make it quite clear that while the Government of Pakistan stands for normalization of relations with India, with which we have had considerable trouble in the past, at the same time genuine and sincere normalization of relations with India cannot come until and unless there is a settlement of the Jammu and Kashmir dispute on the basis of the right of self-determination of the people of Jammu and Kashmir. This is axiomatic and we cannot brook any compromise on so fundamental a principle.
SPIRIT OF COMPROMISE
Very often we have seen that in an effort to find solution with the best of intentions, compromises are effected. However, when compromises come into light, when they concretize, we find that instead of solving the problems, the problems have become more complicated, more complicated than they were before. I am not against compromise. The spirit of compromise is a civilized spirit. Compromise is a part of a civilized code of conduct. Human beings are, and human society is given to making adjustments and compromises. There is nothing wrong with adjustments and compromises. Indeed, as I said, it is part and parcel of civilized norms. But there are certain fundamental issues, certain issues which affect the very basis of society’s outlook, and on those issues it is much more difficult to compromise. It is not only difficult to compromise but, as I have said, with good intentions an effort is made to compromise you find that the compromise itself rather than solving the problem makes the problem much more intransigent, much more difficult. Therefore, please do not misunderstand me. We believe in the spirit of accommodation. We believe in the spirit of adjustment. We believe in the spirit of compromise. Many problems can be solved on the basis of give and take. But this principle or this yardstick of give and take cannot be taken to its logical conclusion in each and every aspect of human life or of the nation’s vital interest. There are certain issues on irreducible minimum of which it is simply not possible to compromise. Not only it is simply not possible to compromise but that compromise leads to greater confusion and disaster.
JAMMU & KASHMIR DISPUTE
I will not like to give any recent examples where with the best of intentions States have tried to find compromises to fundamental problems and instead of resolving those problems they have not only created greater complications but have enlarged the area of confrontation and conflicts. As I said it would be wrong for me to give specific examples. But why talk about the present and give specific examples of the contemporary times? If I was not holding this office, I would have given the contemporary examples, because I would not then be responsible in the same way as I am responsible today when I speak on such issues. But I can give examples of the past and most striking example of the past was Munich. Now this does not mean that by saying that the spirit of compromise in Munich led to the Second World War, we have a Munich mentality. Not at all. We do not have a Munich mentality. We are not obsessed by this expression of Munich because there are issues on which give and take is possible and on which compromise can be made. Yet people shout another Munich has taken place. We do not take that approach. We do not say that every area of accommodation, every area of compromise means that a Munich has taken place. We do not have that mentality. In other words I am trying to impress on you that we are not rigid and dogmatic. We are not obstinate and we are not fanatically and irrationally committed to certain matters and that we have this kind of mentality that every time there is an honourable adjustment, there is honourable basis of accommodation we should shout hoarse that a Munich has taken place. There are countries and there are people who take that position, when even a Munich does not take place, they say another Munich, another Munich. Munichs do not take place every day because wars do not come like that every day. But that is a striking example. So there are cases in which such compromises which are inexpedient, which are not acceptable by and large to the people, which are not acceptable to their very moorings and the very culture and the very values of that society, those compromises cannot last. So therefore please understand our policy. We believe in compromise and adjustment and at the same time we believe that there are certain fundamental matters on which compromises and adjustments only complicate matters and only make matters worse. And in our opinion the question of Jammu and Kashmir is one such matter. We do not take an impracticable approach. We take a practicable approach. We are taking a very sensible approach. We stand by our principles. We do not compromise our principles. We do not make expedient arrangements but at the same time we do not take any impracticable approach. We believe that there is room for normalization, but normalization is one thing, co-existence is another thing. These are different matters. Normalization in certain areas and certain fields can take place, without the settlement of the Jammu and Kashmir dispute. But the point is that until the problem is resolved on the basis of right of self-determination we cannot move from the phase of limited normalization,, to progressive normalization leading to co-existence.
LIMITATIONS OF THE UN
Some people have been telling us why we don’t rush to the United Nations. Well, we have been to the United Nations. We know the limitations of the United Nations. All of you here, both foreign guests, as well as our Pakistani compatriots have seen the United Nations in action for the last thirty years. I do not speak in disrespect of the United Nations but we know the Charter of the United Nations. We know the limitations of the United Nations. We know how the power of the Veto has made the Security Council ineffective on so many matters, on so many issues’. I think the Kashmir issue is one of the oldest disputes before the United Nations. I think there is more literature and there are more documents in the United Nations on the Kashmir dispute than there are on the Cyprus dispute or even on the Palestine dispute or on any other problem. The archives of the United Nations at least must be half full with the documents of the Kashmir dispute. But then you know there is the Veto and the Veto has been applied in the United Nations on the Kashmir dispute. You also know the outcome when the Veto is applied.
There are resolutions of the United Nations, the most important is the United Nations Resolution 242 on Palestine, which have not been vetoed by any of the great powers. But it is, still not implemented. So there are two limitations to the United Nations; when I speak of the United Nations I speak primarily of the Security Council, because the Security Council is the basic organ, the executive organ, the law enforcing organ, of the United Nations. One is that the resolutions are either subject to Veto, and then of course they fall apart. If a resolution is vetoed, there is no resolution. But there are also occasions when the Veto has been applied yet the United Nations has not been able to enforce its resolutions, and I gave you example of the Palestinian question.
Even on the Kashmir question, there were resolutions which were not vetoed and they were proper resolutions. There were resolutions in 1948 and there were resolutions in 1949 calling for plebiscite in the disputed State of Jammu and Kashmir. Those resolutions were not implemented because one of the parties was not prepared to comply with the United Nations Resolutions. Unless the parties are ready and willing to abide by the resolutions of the United Nations those resolutions cannot be enforced. But in spite of these well-known facts, in spite of these well-known limitations of the United Nations, every now and then, we are told by some people that we should take the issue back to the United Nations. Now the problem is that we have seen through our experience, long experience, that there is no Alladin’s Lamp available in the United Nations which will transform resolutions into enforcement resolutions or will prevent these resolutions from being vetoed. We believe that now we must give bilateral negotiations a chance, because bilateral methods are the most efficacious methods. We have progressed, according to the Simla Agreement, step by step and resolved all other issues, except the Jammu and Kashmir issue. Now the Jammu and Kashmir dispute is there for India and Pakistan to take it up bilaterally. We must make an effort. As I said it is the most efficacious method. If these bilateral efforts fail we can then consider other methods, other peaceful methods of settling the Jammu and Kashmir dispute, even, if necessary, going back to the United Nations, because the United Nations is not barred. It is possible for us to go to the United Nations at any time for whatever it is worth. However, now according to the Simla Agreement we will await the bilateral negotiations.
TENSIONS GONE DOWN
We have had bilateral negotiations with Afghanistan. I do not know what will be the end of these bilateral negotiations. But we have found that for the time being, without prejudicing the coming negotiations with Afghanistan, the Kabul talks were satisfactory to the point that a good beginning has been made and the ice has been broken. We have started our dialogue. We are talking to one another. We are having our discussions. Tensions have gone down. It is not the same as it was. Of course, I cannot say for the future. I do not know how the next round of talks will proceed, but you have seen here the efficacy of bilateral negotiations.
Our unfortunate differences with Afghanistan are also not new. They have been there for a very long time, as long as the Kashmir dispute. But the differences have not been taken to the United Nations, either by Pakistan or by Afghanistan, because both have found that sooner or later a time will come when they will come when they will have to bilaterally discuss these problems and the time has come now when we are involved in these bilateral discussions and negotiations. As I said I cannot speak for the outcome, the final result. It is difficult to anticipate what will be the outcome, but for the time being, the negotiations, the bilateral negotiations, have to some extent eased the situation, created a better atmosphere, created a more congenial climate for the negotiations to enter into the second round and for President Daoud to come to Pakistan. We will welcome him, as a neighbouring President, as the President of a Muslim country, as a President of a great country. The people of Pakistan will give him the hospitality which is characteristic of them and we will have these bilateral negotiations. This is the efficacy of bilateralism and bilateral negotiations. So we believe that on the same basis we should make a good and genuine effort for bilateral negotiations with India on the question of Jammu and Kashmir.
The other point I would like to make quite clear is that no transit facilities of any kind have been given to India because that is not just normalization. That goes a step beyond normalization. We have not agreed to give transit trade facilities to India by road and the Indian Railway arrangements also cease at the border and we do not allow their railways to come and go through our country. Nor by road they have been given these facilities. Our whole approach to these problems has been based on the supreme interest of Pakistan and the people of Pakistan.
A RATIONAL APPROACH
As I told you we have taken a rational approach in a world-wide perspective, taking into account the way the world is moving. No nation today can move in a spirit or in a style different from the way the whole world is moving. Now, we have to take the movement of the world into account. We cannot go on taking exceptions to the movement of the world. So taking into account the general international climate, the general norm prevailing in the world at large and then seeing how it fits into our region because the region fits into the world, the world does not fit into the region, it would be too much for the region, to expect the world to march to its tune. We are taking the whole world-wide perspective into account, the currents in the international situation, the various tendencies and propensities that are taking place on all major issues and in this way we are also adjusting, compromising, believing in the principle of give and take but not on fundamental matters. It is an illusion to think that it can be done on fundamental matters and therefore it is not obstinacy. It is actually a submission to reality and logic. It is not an obstinate approach.
GOOD RELATIONS WITH COUNTRIES
I am very happy to tell you that our relations with the Middle East are excellent. We have made sincere and concrete and sedulous efforts to have these good relations with the Middle Eastern countries, It is a belief of Pakistan, it is not based on any new factor that has arisen in the Middle East, it is not because the Middle East has now acquired greater importance than it had a few years ago. Right from the birth of Pakistan, we have pursued a consistent, a moral and a logical policy in the Middle East, and this has not been influenced, like in the case of many other countries, by the new importance that the Middle East has acquired for certain well-known reasons. With or without those accretions to the value and strategic importance of the Middle East, our policy has remained consistent and, Insha Allah, it would continue to remain consistent on the Middle East. So I am happy to say that Pakistan has excellent relations with the Middle East.
We have good relations with the nations of South East Asia, because we are in Asia. We are partly on the periphery of the Middle East, and partly on the periphery of South East Asia. So we have good relations with the States of our propinquity. And we have good relations with the Great Powers. We have good relations with the States of Europe both East and West. We have good relations with the States of Latin America. We have very good relations with the United States, with Canada. And as far as India and Afghanistan are concerned I have spoken at length to you.
ARTICLE ON THE THIRD WORLD
Finally before I take my seat you will recall that in April, I had written a signed article on relations between Turkey, Pakistan and Iran. That was in April, now we are in August, and if some of you take the trouble to re-read it you would see that what I had said there has been in accord with what I anticipated. I had also said at that time that in the month of July, I would write another article on the Third World, on what the Third World should do to assert for its right, to attain its rightful position, primarily in the economic field. As I had announced in Ankara I was to write this article in July. I have deliberately withheld the publication of that article. I have withheld it because in August this month the nonaligned conference is taking place. I do not want to cause any misunderstanding that we want to undercut the non-aligned conference. That’s why I have withheld the publication of that article. We do not want to undercut the non-aligned conference, because in the non-aligned conference also most of the States are from the Third World. As a matter of fact all States are from the Third World. We will not seek to undercut any part of the world especially the Third World. So for that reason I am not publishing this article on the Third World and my proposal for a Summit Conference of Third World leaders. This I will do when the nonaligned Conference is over and when all the fallout of the nonaligned conference is also passed, because after all it is not only necessary for the Conference to finish, it is necessary for the consequences of the non-aligned conference to reach their conclusion.
Finally, actually I have made a speech. I thought I will just come and say hello and tell you that I am very happy to be with you but then I cannot hide the fact that I am a politician and when a politician takes the microphone, well, then he does not know when to stop. So I am sorry I have over spoken but at the same time I am glad that I had the opportunity of meeting you again.
Thank you very much.