--- Bernado Colaco <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > Both the U.S. and the U.N. rushed to head off the > impending conflict. In an ironic reversal of roles, > Nehru, who savors the part of international > peacemaker, found himself on the opposite side of > the table. U.S. Ambassador to India John Kenneth > Galbraith four times tried to talk Nehru out of > taking military action; Nehru was not listening. > Replying to U.N. Acting Secretary-General U. > Thant's appeal that India and Portugal negotiate > their differences, Nehru said: "It is hardly > possible to negotiate with a government that takes > its stand on 16th century concepts of colonial > conquest by force." > Mario observes: > As usual the UN and other countries moved to head off a conflict after it is too late. They had 14 years to convince Portugal to end its aggressive hold on Goa since the era of colonialism had begun to unravel in 1947? > I agree with Nehru's comment in the last sentence above. In 1510 colonialism by force was commonplace. By 1961, the era of colonialism had long since ended and the continuation of colonial rule in Goa under the transparent sophistry that Goa was an overseas province was clearly an act of continuing aggression that had to be confronted likewise. > What was left to negotiate with the Portuguese after 14 years of stubborn obstructionism? >
