Ambassador Malik has totally chosen to disregard. He thinks that Pakistan is the guilty party and that it should be punished for its crimes by being made to submit to its disintegration by force. However, I should like to state that we have a Will to survival and we will resist all attempts from any quarter to destroy our territorial integrity.
One of the reasons why India has chosen this time to launch an aggression against us is to disrupt the time-table laid down by President Yahva Khan to induct a representative government in Pakistan for which the date had been fixed between the 20th and 27th of this month. History is full of dangerous pitfalls emanating from the desire of big and powerful States which tried to impose a political settlement on relatively small and weak neighbors, Munich is a classical example We know that India considers the existence of Pakistan as a threat to its security, but now that the Soviet Union has articulated a new security doctrine for South-East Asia, perhaps all of us should seriously think of what it may portend.
The Representative of the Soviet Union spoke about the Tashkent spirit, but that spirit prevailed much before the signing of the Indo-Soviet Treaty, of what is euphemistically called a treaty of friendship and co-operation. In content and effect, it is nothing less than a military alliance. Events have conclusively proved it to be so, Actions speak louder than words, and guns even louder. What are these actions? Immediately after this Treaty was singed, a series of feverish military consultations started in Moscow and New Delhi under Article IX of the Treaty, which pledges the parties to consultations with a view to taking what in diplomatic language, has been described as effective measures to remove any threat to peace. We have sufficient experience of military pacts to know that similar clauses exist in those instruments, and world opinion and the parties themselves construe such language to be sufficient to constitute a military pact. Supplies of sophisticated armaments, such as MIG-23s, tanks and other military equipment, were dispatched post-haste to Calcutta and other Indian ports.
Having thus upset the balance of power in the sub-continent, the Indo-Soviet Treaty emboldened the Indians to opt for a military invasion of Pakistan under the pretext of self-defense. I said in the First Committee in October, and in the plenary meeting last month, that this Treaty must be judged by its results, whether it will act in restraint of war' or will precipitate war. We now have the answer; we have it in India's aggression and the Soviet veto last night of the proposal for a cease-fire and withdrawal.
A double pretension surrounds the Indo-Soviet Treaty. One party makes it possible for the other to launch subversion and aggression against a third country and yet invokes the Tashkent spirit. The other party closely binds itself to a military alliance and yet claims to be non-aligned. Who is so naive as not to see through these pretensions? If any further evidence were necessary, it has been provided by the Soviet statement circulated by the Tass news agency this morning. The statement in effect says that Pakistan was following a dangerous course in defending itself and resisting a military occupation and implied that Pakistan action even posed a threat to the Soviet Union's security interests. I submit, how can we believe any more in the existence of the Tashkent spirit?
The Representative of the Soviet Union, in his statement a few moments ago, referred to what he called an attack by Pakistan on 3rd December. He did not refer at all to the
