Finally, I should like to state that in regard to the question of extending an invitation to a particular entity to come here, have pointed out that it would be not only a violation of rule 39 of the provisional rules of procedure of the Security Council, but also a violation of the Charter. That has been brought out with sufficient force by the Representative of Argentina among others. Whatever may have been India's actions yesterday that in no wise alter the force of the arguments that have been urged before the Council, and should the Council act in an unlawful manner; we should have to consider that to be an unfriendly act towards the Government of Pakistan.
In order not to take the floor another time, I should like briefly to give my views on the draft resolution proposed by the Representative of France with his characteristic eloquence, precision and lucidity.
We are conscious of the concern of his Delegation and the British Delegation that the Council should achieve some result and not be completely paralysed by vetoes. Therefore, while we appreciate thee laudable motives, and the concern for peace that have prompted him to put forward a proposal, we are constrained to observe that nothing has been said about the proven fact of aggression and the fact that India has admitted this aggression. Nothing has been said about the cessation of interference in the internal affairs of Pakistan and subversion and the fomentation of armed rebellion by India. Furthermore, the draft resolution does not provide for withdrawal of armed personnel and forces. In other words, occupation would continue and then, by the time the Security Council were to consider the situation further; Pakistan would be called upon to acquiesce in its own dismemberment.
We note that the draft resolution contemplates that the Council should meet again to consider what further steps within the framework of the Charter could be taken on the issues which rise to the hostilities, but we know very well that any proposal for the withdrawal of occupation forces is likely to attract a veto, and the Security Council would not be in a position to deal with the question of withdrawal of forces. By not dealing simultaneously with the question of withdrawal together with that of cease-fire, the Council would legitimize military occupation and perpetuate it.
For these reasons, we would hope that the Council would ponder the considerations. I have urged and also be conscious of the fact that while it has a responsibility for peace and security, the United Nations as a whole cannot absolve itself from that responsibility just because a veto power is being arbitrarily exercised.
