EDITORIAL: CONCERT OF POWERS; Published with The New York Times and The Washington Post

HERALD TRIBUNE International, August 9, 1971 Published with The New York Times and The Washington Post.

It would seem that the imminent possibility of a major clash between India and Pakistan has mobilized, if not the conscience, at least the practical interest, of virtually all the world’s powers. The Soviet Union is reportedly urging India toward restraint; Red China is reportedly doing the same with Pakistan ; the United States is using what influence it still retains in both countries to similar purpose, and the Western nations in general are trying to apply the brakes before collision occurs. The United Nations—in the person of Secretary-General U Thant is being consulted. This unanimity is as rare as the situation is dangerous.

The hostility between the two states that occupy the sub¬continent antedates independence ; the friction that divided Moslem and Hindu (to say nothing of the Sikhs and other creeds that make up non-Moslem India) is of centuries-old standing, and created both the partition of India and the numerous territorial disputes that have since exacerbated relations in the divided region.
Neither India nor Pakistan can come before the court of world opinion with wholly clean hands. India’s hold on Kasmirr may have satisfied the legalistic requirements under which the princes were permitted to opt for either Pakistan or Indian It satisfied no other consideration. Pakistan’s sin against Kant Pakistan was far more grievous and more recent. Moreover, It dumped seven million refugees into an India which certainly needs no increments of population, particularly of uprooted peasants with no means of livelihood. The Indian response—to encourage an independent Bangla Desh by every means short of open war—may have been natural, but it certainly was risky, and not necessarily wholly inspired by humanitarian motives.
But war, with its concomitant arousal of the worst forms of communal hatred throughout the sub-continent, and the eventual involvement of other states (the Soviet Union and mainland China, in particular) would be a human tragedy on a scale that would make the respective degrees of guilt of the primary contenders almost irrelevant. An awareness of this has called into being something like that concert of Europe, which functioned, after a fashion, from the downfall of Napoleon to the outbreak of World War I.
The concert of the powers is hardly a perfect device for maintaining the peace. Indeed, it reflects, as much as any¬thing, the weakness of the United Nations. It may be unable to prevent Indians and Pakistanis from grasping at one another throats. But that it exists at all may give a glimmer of hope for the future, for a day when the UN will be not only universal, but be backed by a measure of recognition useful in preserving the pace.
The present urgent necessity is to find some better way than force to resolve the terrible dilemma of East Pakistan.. But beyond that lie the equally portentous problems of Southeast Asia and the Middle East. Con6ert there could mean a genuine rebirth of confidence for the world.
Letters—On Pakistan
The details (IHT, Aug. 6) of the so-called white paper released by the authorities in Pakistan claiming the killing of 109,000 civilians by Awami League workers before the military action of 25th March, 1971, seem unconvincing for more than one reason.
During the period from March 1 to March 25 there were more than one hundred foreign journalists in East Pakistan who were covering the minute-to-minute developments without any press censorship. None of them saw or heard of the mass killing. Besides, all through this period the West Pakistan Army were in full and effective control of the airports and seaports. Their ominous presence at every street corner was also there for all to see. To believe that they were mute observer of such a killing would mean giving the Pakistani Army the credit for self-restraint which unfortunately, they have already proved, is the quality they are lacking most.
As one who was not involved in politics but who nevertheless got very much caught in the holocaust, may I be allowed to put the successive incidents in their correct sequence.
Before March 25 when the first ship carrying arms and ammunition from West Pakistan docked at Chittagong Port, the Bengali dockers refused to unload the cargo under instructions from the Awami League on the valid ground that they should not carry the cross on which they were to be crucified.
At this point the local non-Bengali workers who have been looked after by Bengal for the last 23 years volunteered to unload the cargo in defiance of the sentiment and interest of the Bengalis. Hundreds of non-Bengali marched to the port and menacingly confronted the Bengali. In the fight that ensued, the army supported the non-Bengali by shooting dead most of the Bengali dockers.
Mujib demanded an official inquiry which was grudgingly agreed to by President Yahya with a significant condition which was that the commission would be headed by the General who, the Bengalis believed, had given the order to hoot. There was, however, no inquiry and Mujib was taken prisoner on the night of March 25.
As the stories of the ruthless massacre of the unarmed Bengali civilians by the army reached Chittagong on March 26, the Bengali Officers and men of the East Bengal Regiment and East Pakistan Rifles revolted and took control of the town of Chittagong. During the eight or nine days that the rebels were in control the Bengali civilians of the town Hot buck at the non-Bengalis who only a few days back Joined hand with the West Pakistani Army in killing the dockers.
Several hundred non-Bengalis were killed during this period, but os soon as the town fell back into the hands of the West Pakistani Army they went on a rampage of killing, raping and burning that was vividly described in all its brutality by foreigners, including UN workers who were later on evacuated to Calcutta.
A murder is a murder, irrespective of the sequence of events, but a trial is not a trial without the sequence of events,especially when it is claimed that Mujib is going to have a fair trial.              : Zurich, A. MAJID

Major Powers Seek To Avert War In Bengal By Tad Szulc
The principal Western powers, the Soviet Union, China and Secretary-General Thant were reported yesterday to be engaged in new diplomatic efforts to prevent the possible out¬break of fighting between India and Pakistan.
Authoritative diplomats said that, acting independently, a half dozen governments with special ties to India or Pakistan have taken initiatives aimed at persuading the Indians and the Pakistanis to seek a peaceful solution to the crisis involving East Pakistan.
For the United States, the State Department spokesman, Robert J. McCloskey, said yesterday: “We have been and continue to be concerned about the possibility that the security situation in East Pakistan and eastern India could escalate and we have accordingly counseled restraint on both sides”.
On President Nixon’s instructions, Secretary of State William P. Rogers and Assistant Secretary of State for Near Eastern and South Asian Affairs Joseph J. Sisco are to confer in New York tomorrow with Secretary-General Thant and other UN officials on the humanitarian aspects of the East Pakistan crisis.
But administration officials said that inevitably these conferences would touch on the political situation as well as on international peace-keeping possibilities.
Last Monday, Mr. Thant warned in a. memorandum to the members of the Security Council that a major conflict could erupt between India and Pakistan and “could all too easily expand"
Officials here said that Washington’s diplomacy was directed chiefly at Pakistan. Where the United States hopes to have retained some influence with President Mohammad Yahya Khan through the continued flow of economic aid and the refusal to block shipments of military equipment purchased by the Pakistanis before the East Pakistan conflict erupted in March.
U.N. relations with India are at one of the lowest points in decades, largely because of Indian anger over the military equipment shipments.
India believes that American policies serve to support President Yahya whose West Pakistani troops have been attempting to crush a secessionist movement in East Pakistan.
This repression has caused more than seven million East Pakistanis to flee to eastern India, creating the current tensions between India and Pakistan, which have remained hostile since their brief war in 1965.
Diplomats here said that one of the most positive recent developments has been a new awareness in the international community that both the Soviet Union and China are as anxious as the West to avoid a major conflict on the sub-continent.
Consequently, they said, Moscow which has close ties with India, is quietly counseling caution in New Delhi while publicly offering support for the Indian cause.
Diplomatic reports reaching Washington late last week indicated that Peking, which last March publicly proclaimed its determination to help defend West Pakistan, is privately advising President Yahya to act with prudence.
The threat of a war between India and Pakistan had raised fears of direct involvement by the Soviet Union and China on opposing sides.
But responsible American officials and foreign diplomats are now reported to believe that neither Moscow nor Peking wishes to see a war in which they might be forced into a direct confrontation.
Consequently, the judgment here is that the suddenly announced visit to New Delhi by the Soviet foreign minister, Andrei A. Gromyko, is more of a diplomatic peace-making mission than simply a gesture of support for India.