U.S. NEWS AND WORLD PRESS
U.S. NEWS AND WORLD PRESS THE 25th NOVEMBER, 1971
Washington Post’s Carroll Kilpatrick, reporting from San Clemente said that the White House is considering the possibility of taking the India-Pakistan issue to the Security Council, the issue is a delicate one for President Nixon. He wrote that if the issue is taken to the Council it could result .acrimonious debate among the great powers without having any practical impact on India and Pakistan. Kilpatrick continued: “If allowed to. .however, there is an adverse effect on great-power relationships, since all are deeply interested in the shifting power balance in South Asia, with China supporting Pakistan and the Soviet Union supporting India. An all- out war in the area could even force the President to cancel 'his plans to visit Peking and Moscow next year.”
N.Y. Times special from San Clemente said Western influence in India and Pakistan has been declining while Russia has strengthened its ties with India and the Chinese their support for Pakistan. The story said “accordingly it is thought that a •concerted effort in the Security Council to bring the India - Pakistan dispute under control might have more chance of success than diplomatic initiatives undertaken by the United States alone.”
Washington Post’s Anthony Astrachan at the United Nations said “some third world ambassadors said Pakistan did not want Council action because impartial investigation would reveal the extent to which Pakistan had exaggerated the scale
of the fighting, if not the degree of Indian involvement
Third world ambassadors say India expects the ultimate outcome to suit its strategic aims of weakening Pakistan if the United Nations does not intervene.”
N.Y. Times’ Henry Tanner at the United Nations said Pakistan was still reluctant to call for a Council meeting because she is uncertain whether she would get the necessary support from the Big Powers. Tanner said UN officials said it would be the “height of irresponsibility” for Secretary- General Thant to call for a meeting knowing that the principal members of the Council were deadlocked on the issue. Tanner said “Pakistan, it is reported, does not want to go into the Council if all she can obtain is a resolution calling for an im¬mediate cease-fire. This would freeze the present military positions and make it impossible for the Pakistani army to press its fight against the guerrilla forces.”
N.Y. Times’ Benjamin Welles in Washington said President Nixon reportedly was contemplating a personal appeal to President Yahya to release Sheikh Mujibur Rahman from prison and to seek, by personal negotiations, a peaceful solu-tion to the crisis in East Pakistan.' Welles said “the report that Mr. Nixon was weighing a personal appeal to President Yahya Khan—which came from highly placed sources could not immediately be confirmed. A White House spokesman declined to comment and senior State Department officials said that they knew of no such plan in the immediate future.”
Washington Post’s Robert Trautman, reporting on Secretary Roger’s Wednesday meeting in Washington with Indian and Pakistani diplomats, said “the State Department maintained silence on the direction U.S. diplomatic moves were taking, although acknowledging that the United States was in touch with the Soviet Union.”
Baltimore Sun’s Charles W. Corddry also reporting on the Rogers meeting, said “authoritative sources here accept that there is Indian support for the Mukti Bahini, the East Pakistani independence fighters operating from Indian territory.... The degree of the operating support and the extent of the fighting are both unclear, officials still were saying yesterday (Wednesday).”
Baltimore Sun’s John E. Woodruff in New Delhi reported Western diplomatic sources said Indian forces are understood to be withdrawing to Indian territory after making relatively brief incursions, sometimes lasting only hours. He continued: “most diplomats here are apparently interpreting India’s activities to date as a step-up within an over all Indian strategy of applying military pressure at levels calculated to be too low to require any all-out war by Pakistan. These are described as an all-out Indian initiated war on Pakistan and a continuation of the Pakistani army’s terror in East Bengal.
N.Y. Times James P. Sterba in Dacca reported a senior Pakistani military commander as saying there were only scattered shelling and harassing attacks Thursday along the East Pakistani border.
N.Y. Times Sydney H. Schanberg in Calcutta, reporting Indian sources feel that Pakistani troops are being hurt so badly that President Yahya will have to react soon with a declaration of war, wrote: These sources do not now
think his reaction will be a meek withdrawal from East Pakistan ”
Some foreign diplomats seem to share the Indian sources’ view that Pakistan may opt for full-scale war as the only face-saving way out of its apparently desperate
situation... .Some observers think that India may be trying to provoke Pakistan into declaring war as a way to solve the Indian predicament.”
N.Y. Times’ Max Frankel, on a world trip, wrote from New Delhi: “Influential Indian officials now acknowledge that they are resolved to apply as much military pressure as necessary short of all-out war to help wrest East Bengal from the control of embattled Pakistani forces there. The effort may take weeks or even a few months, these officials say, but they are confident that it has gained them the advantage in the eight-month-old duel over the eastern portion of
Pakistan. They think the coordinated challenge by their
army and East Bengal insurgents has left Pakistan’s military leaders with only a bitter choice between a politically humiliating or militarily devastating path to partition of their country.”
Washington Post in a story compiled from news dispatches and the N.Y. Times with an Associated Press item from Rawalpindi reported, informed sources said, that the Soviet Unio,n delivered a notice to President Yahya demanding that Pakistan come to political terms with the Bengali insurgents..
N.Y. Times carried an A.P. report from Belgrade, based on a Tanjug dispatch from Peking, quoting Premier Chou is expressing concern over “military provocation” by India against Pakistan. The A.P. said that Peking’s press, while reporting an “invasion” by India, has shown a notable restraint in the last few days.
N.Y. Times Thursday carried a brief “background of the conflict,” a factual summary under the headings “historical,” “the conflicts,” and “the present crisis”.
Christian Science Monitor’s David Winder at the U.N. wrote it is now readily apparent that the East Pakistani guerrillas are able to hamper internal communications and curtail the U.N. relief programmer within East Pakistan. He concluded: “There is a general consensus that the only permanent solution to the massive refugee problem would be a political settlement in East Pakistan that would encourage refugees to return to situation of normalcy. Thus far officials estimate that only a paltry 200,000 refugees have returned.”
Christian Science Monitor’s Henry S. Hayward in Hong Kong wrote that several points are now clear amid conflicting reports on the India-Pakistan undeclared war: “One point is that the Indians have indeed been fighting Pakistanis. This despite official Indian protestations that, with the exception of one border skirmish, only the rebel East Pakistani Mukti Bahini have been involved. Another clear fact is that both sides have exaggerated the magnitude of attacks already supposedly launched against them. And both sides have been less than candid about their own offensive moves.”
Wall Street Journal’s Peter R. Kann in Dcicca wrote that a full-scale war this year or next between India and Pakistan would be longer and bloodier than the 1965 one. “Analysts say both countries are considerably stronger than they were in 1965; India is believed less amenable to any international calls for a cease-fire; a war now would see heavy fighting on both the eastern and the western fronts rather than only in the West as in 1965, and bitter civil war raging in East Pakistan adds a bloody chapter.
New Dimension
Kann said the real roots of the current crisis are sunk deep in the poverty, misery and frustrations, the prejudices and passions not only of East Pakistan but also of the entire sub-continent.
Washington Post’s Lee Lescaze in Akhaura, East Pakistan, noted official Pakistani claims that the two nations were already unofficially at war. Well informed sources in Dacca said yesterday (Nov. 24) that the situation was not as serious as the initial reaction indicated. Lescaze reported tllat one inquirer was told by a senior Pakistani official that “it is not yet time to evacuate Dacca.”
Baltimore Sun carried an Associated Press story from Washington that widespread famine in East Pakistan has been averted at least temporarily by emergency international aid and an expected heavy rice harvest. The A.P. said A.I.D. officials, in reporting this, cautioned that widespread fighting could quickly worsen the food situation again.
Washington Post’s Carroll Kilpatrick, reporting from San Clemente said that the White House is considering the possibility of taking the India-Pakistan issue to the Security Council, the issue is a delicate one for President Nixon. He wrote that if the issue is taken to the Council it could result .acrimonious debate among the great powers without having any practical impact on India and Pakistan. Kilpatrick continued: “If allowed to. .however, there is an adverse effect on great-power relationships, since all are deeply interested in the shifting power balance in South Asia, with China supporting Pakistan and the Soviet Union supporting India. An all- out war in the area could even force the President to cancel 'his plans to visit Peking and Moscow next year.”
N.Y. Times special from San Clemente said Western influence in India and Pakistan has been declining while Russia has strengthened its ties with India and the Chinese their support for Pakistan. The story said “accordingly it is thought that a •concerted effort in the Security Council to bring the India - Pakistan dispute under control might have more chance of success than diplomatic initiatives undertaken by the United States alone.”
Washington Post’s Anthony Astrachan at the United Nations said “some third world ambassadors said Pakistan did not want Council action because impartial investigation would reveal the extent to which Pakistan had exaggerated the scale
of the fighting, if not the degree of Indian involvement
Third world ambassadors say India expects the ultimate outcome to suit its strategic aims of weakening Pakistan if the United Nations does not intervene.”
N.Y. Times’ Henry Tanner at the United Nations said Pakistan was still reluctant to call for a Council meeting because she is uncertain whether she would get the necessary support from the Big Powers. Tanner said UN officials said it would be the “height of irresponsibility” for Secretary- General Thant to call for a meeting knowing that the principal members of the Council were deadlocked on the issue. Tanner said “Pakistan, it is reported, does not want to go into the Council if all she can obtain is a resolution calling for an im¬mediate cease-fire. This would freeze the present military positions and make it impossible for the Pakistani army to press its fight against the guerrilla forces.”
N.Y. Times’ Benjamin Welles in Washington said President Nixon reportedly was contemplating a personal appeal to President Yahya to release Sheikh Mujibur Rahman from prison and to seek, by personal negotiations, a peaceful solu-tion to the crisis in East Pakistan.' Welles said “the report that Mr. Nixon was weighing a personal appeal to President Yahya Khan—which came from highly placed sources could not immediately be confirmed. A White House spokesman declined to comment and senior State Department officials said that they knew of no such plan in the immediate future.”
Washington Post’s Robert Trautman, reporting on Secretary Roger’s Wednesday meeting in Washington with Indian and Pakistani diplomats, said “the State Department maintained silence on the direction U.S. diplomatic moves were taking, although acknowledging that the United States was in touch with the Soviet Union.”
Baltimore Sun’s Charles W. Corddry also reporting on the Rogers meeting, said “authoritative sources here accept that there is Indian support for the Mukti Bahini, the East Pakistani independence fighters operating from Indian territory.... The degree of the operating support and the extent of the fighting are both unclear, officials still were saying yesterday (Wednesday).”
Baltimore Sun’s John E. Woodruff in New Delhi reported Western diplomatic sources said Indian forces are understood to be withdrawing to Indian territory after making relatively brief incursions, sometimes lasting only hours. He continued: “most diplomats here are apparently interpreting India’s activities to date as a step-up within an over all Indian strategy of applying military pressure at levels calculated to be too low to require any all-out war by Pakistan. These are described as an all-out Indian initiated war on Pakistan and a continuation of the Pakistani army’s terror in East Bengal.
N.Y. Times James P. Sterba in Dacca reported a senior Pakistani military commander as saying there were only scattered shelling and harassing attacks Thursday along the East Pakistani border.
N.Y. Times Sydney H. Schanberg in Calcutta, reporting Indian sources feel that Pakistani troops are being hurt so badly that President Yahya will have to react soon with a declaration of war, wrote: These sources do not now
think his reaction will be a meek withdrawal from East Pakistan ”
Some foreign diplomats seem to share the Indian sources’ view that Pakistan may opt for full-scale war as the only face-saving way out of its apparently desperate
situation... .Some observers think that India may be trying to provoke Pakistan into declaring war as a way to solve the Indian predicament.”
N.Y. Times’ Max Frankel, on a world trip, wrote from New Delhi: “Influential Indian officials now acknowledge that they are resolved to apply as much military pressure as necessary short of all-out war to help wrest East Bengal from the control of embattled Pakistani forces there. The effort may take weeks or even a few months, these officials say, but they are confident that it has gained them the advantage in the eight-month-old duel over the eastern portion of
Pakistan. They think the coordinated challenge by their
army and East Bengal insurgents has left Pakistan’s military leaders with only a bitter choice between a politically humiliating or militarily devastating path to partition of their country.”
Washington Post in a story compiled from news dispatches and the N.Y. Times with an Associated Press item from Rawalpindi reported, informed sources said, that the Soviet Unio,n delivered a notice to President Yahya demanding that Pakistan come to political terms with the Bengali insurgents..
N.Y. Times carried an A.P. report from Belgrade, based on a Tanjug dispatch from Peking, quoting Premier Chou is expressing concern over “military provocation” by India against Pakistan. The A.P. said that Peking’s press, while reporting an “invasion” by India, has shown a notable restraint in the last few days.
N.Y. Times Thursday carried a brief “background of the conflict,” a factual summary under the headings “historical,” “the conflicts,” and “the present crisis”.
Christian Science Monitor’s David Winder at the U.N. wrote it is now readily apparent that the East Pakistani guerrillas are able to hamper internal communications and curtail the U.N. relief programmer within East Pakistan. He concluded: “There is a general consensus that the only permanent solution to the massive refugee problem would be a political settlement in East Pakistan that would encourage refugees to return to situation of normalcy. Thus far officials estimate that only a paltry 200,000 refugees have returned.”
Christian Science Monitor’s Henry S. Hayward in Hong Kong wrote that several points are now clear amid conflicting reports on the India-Pakistan undeclared war: “One point is that the Indians have indeed been fighting Pakistanis. This despite official Indian protestations that, with the exception of one border skirmish, only the rebel East Pakistani Mukti Bahini have been involved. Another clear fact is that both sides have exaggerated the magnitude of attacks already supposedly launched against them. And both sides have been less than candid about their own offensive moves.”
Wall Street Journal’s Peter R. Kann in Dcicca wrote that a full-scale war this year or next between India and Pakistan would be longer and bloodier than the 1965 one. “Analysts say both countries are considerably stronger than they were in 1965; India is believed less amenable to any international calls for a cease-fire; a war now would see heavy fighting on both the eastern and the western fronts rather than only in the West as in 1965, and bitter civil war raging in East Pakistan adds a bloody chapter.
New Dimension
Kann said the real roots of the current crisis are sunk deep in the poverty, misery and frustrations, the prejudices and passions not only of East Pakistan but also of the entire sub-continent.
Washington Post’s Lee Lescaze in Akhaura, East Pakistan, noted official Pakistani claims that the two nations were already unofficially at war. Well informed sources in Dacca said yesterday (Nov. 24) that the situation was not as serious as the initial reaction indicated. Lescaze reported tllat one inquirer was told by a senior Pakistani official that “it is not yet time to evacuate Dacca.”
Baltimore Sun carried an Associated Press story from Washington that widespread famine in East Pakistan has been averted at least temporarily by emergency international aid and an expected heavy rice harvest. The A.P. said A.I.D. officials, in reporting this, cautioned that widespread fighting could quickly worsen the food situation again.
Posts
0 Comments :
Post a Comment