S/PV.537 Security Council

When I last spoke in the Security Council concerning the India-Pakistan question, on 21 February [532nd meeting], l said that the United States Government believes the Couneil should exercise its responsibility to narrow further the area of disagTeement between the parties. We thi~lc this resp?t;sib~lit;: can best be performed by effectmg the deml1ttanzatlOn of Kashmir in order that a plebiscite can be held under United Nations auspices. The joint draft resolution introduced by the United Kingdom and the United' States, pr?posed ta de.al with the principal issues arising in thl~ area of ,dlsag-reement by establishing machinery WhlCh we beheved would capitalize on the experience of the past two years of repeated attempts to carry out the 13 August 1948 and 5 Tanuarv 1949 resolutions of ~he United Nations Commission for India and PakIstan. 24. The United States; in acting with the Governme!1t of the United Kingdom to offer this draft resolutlo? last month, did not helieve that the machinery provlded by the resolution which we put forward then was the only means of helpîng the parties advance towards ~ settlement of this dispute.. However, we themg-ht lt w~s a reason.able proposaI and, like any sug-gested clevlce for helpmgsolve a complex issue, it was ahyays open to revision desi,gned to improve the sng-g-estlOn we m~cle whil~ retfLining the essential minimum necessary, 111 our Vlew, to help advance the -dispute. toward a reasonable solution acceptable to both ~rtles..That ;vas the basis upon which we, along with e Umted Kmgdom, 5ubmitted our draft resolution. 25. Since then the Governments of both P k' t ..1 I cl' h . cl . • a 15 an an~ n. la, ave VOlce ob1ectlons to the drait resolution as submltted. The Government of P k' t "d" d th l' 1" .. a IS an ln lcate roug lits (lst~ngUJshed spokesman. that it would prefer a resolutIon by which the Se 't C '1 cun y ounCl 26. On its part, the Governl11ent of India, through Sir Benegal Rau, declared that it was whol!y unable ta accept the draft resolution, because it conceived the resolution, in many respects, to go beyond the terms of the 13 August 1948 and 5 January 1949 resolutions of the United Nations Commission. The representative of India particularly mentioned the reference in the draft resolution to Sir Owen Dixon's demilitarization proposais, and the possibility that United Nations troops l11ight be used to facilitate del11ilitarization and the holding of a plebiscite. 27. In accordance with our concept that the joint draft resolution submitted on 21 February last might be improved by revisionas long as the objective remained of providing machinery to help the parties advance toward a reasonable and mutual!y acceptable solution of the dispute - we have joined with the United Kingdom in sponsoring revisions of that draft resolution of.21 February. These revisions, as has been sa ably pointed out by Sir Gladwyn Jebb, take into ~ccount objections made by both parties, the most Important of these being the insistence by the Governments of both India and Pakistan on holding finn to the August 1948 and January 1949 resolutions of the United Nations Commission for India and Pakistan. T~e. revised text is, in my opinion, the irreducible mlllll;1Ul11 in this case if the Counci1 is to provide ~chme:y which. wil! in fact aid the parties to carry out thelr commItments, as Members of the Unitec1 Nations, to settle their disputes by peaceful means. 28.. These amendments have four principal effects, whlch l should like now briefly to outline. In the first place, the U~ited Nations representative would now be charged wIth the duty of effecting demilitarization of the State of Jammu and Kashmir on the basis of ~e two United Nations Commission resolutions of 13 ugust 1948 and 5 January 1949. This does not mean t~t webelieve the United Nations representative Gou1d disregard the efforts of more than two years by eneral. McNaughton and by Sir Owen Dixon in :emptmg .to carry out these two resolutions. This S pen.ence surely forms a part of the record of the . ecunty Council and neither can nor should be Ignored. ~. I~n this connexion, we believe that both parties hou be led, by virtue of their attitude as expressed ere toward the two resolutions of the United Nations 30. The parties, moreover, are committed to permit t~e people of Kashmir to decide the question of accession of the State of Jammu and Kashmir ta India or to Pakistan. That commitment is not, as the distinguished representative of India has said, and 1 quote the words he use.d in the Security Council, "to give the I?eople th.e nght ,;0 decide whether t~e~ would r~mal.n 111 ~ndla or not . Ta phrase the plebiscIte question lU thls form would be to disregarcl the binding agreen;ent accepted by both parties. The Security Councii has from the beginning held that the issue of ~ccessi?n is o.ne. which is to be settled by a fair and ImpartIal'ple~lscIte under United Nations auspices, and both partles, lU the language of their own commitments h~ve accepted this view, 1 am confident, therefore, that Sir Benegal Rau did not have and did not intenc1 ta suggest a contrary interpretation. 31. 1 eml?hasize this, now, to make clear the position of ~he UU1t~~ State~ Government in this vital matter. It IS a 1?osltlOn whlch rests upon the belief that the most frUltft~1 approac~ which the Security Couneil can take .at thls stage IS ta provide the parties with machl11ery for the solution of this dispute. 32. The sec~md of the four principal effects of the amendment~ ~s the complet~ elimination of paragraph 4 of. the ongmal draft. ThiS change results from the the.sls that the August 1948 and January 1949 resolutIOns should be set forth c1early a,s the basis upon 33. Thirdly, if the United Nations representative has not effected demilitarization or, at least, obtained agreement of the parties to a plan for effective demilitarization he is to report to the Council, within three months' from the date of his arrivai on the sub-continent, those points of difference between the parties, in regard to both interpretation and execution of the August 1948 and January 1949 resolutions, which he considers must be resolved in order to enable demilitarization to be carried out. This formulation by the Council's representative of these essential points of difference is important, not only in focusing the attention of the Security Council on the principal issues between the parties, but also because of the revised paragraph 6 and its arbitration proposaI. 34. Paragraph 6, to which I now turn, embodies the fourth principal change proposed in our revisions presented today. Although, as previously, the new draft caUs upon both parties to accept arbitration upon s.uch outstanding points of difference as may remain after conc1uding discussions with the United Nations representative, it is now altered to declare that arbitration should be accepted upon those points which may be reported to the Council by the United Nations representative. Furthermore, the arbitration proposaI now provides that the arbitrator or panel of arbitrators is ta be appointed by the President of the International ~ourt of Justice after ~onsultation with the parties, mstead of by the Court as a whole. This latter change, we think, is more in accordance with the international p.ractice, and should serve also to expedite the arbitratlon process if resort to arbitration should become necessary. 35. .The Government of the United States regards th!s arbitration proposaI as one of the key elements of th1S draft resolution. The representative of India has not: as. we understand it, rejected the concept of a.rb1tr~tlOn, but has said that under the gUise of arbitratlon lSsues cannot be reopened which have already been c10sed by the resolutions of August 1948 and Januar~ 1949 and by the assurances given to India by the Ul11ted Nations Commission. 36. f trus~ th~t, if it ~e~omes necessary to give effect ta. th1S ar.b1tratlOn prov1s1on, the Government of India Will ~nd ltself. able to accept the arbitration provisions ~~. th1~ resol~tlon. The commitment of both parties in f ~s d1sput; 1S to settle the question of accession by a air and 1mpartial plebiscite under United Nations supe" l' h rV1Slon. t 1S also the parties' commitment under ~ e ~harter of the United Nations, to seek a ~olution y a manner of peaceful means of their own choice. 37. The members of the Security Council will note that the original draft resolution submitted by the United Kingdom and the United States remains the same in one important respect: the language in the preamble concerning the Kashmir National Conference has not been changed. In my statement on 21 February in support of the draft resolution [532nd meeting], l expressed my Government's concern about the action which the authorities in the Indian-controlled area of Kashmir are undertaking ta determine the future shape and affiliation of the State of Kaslunir. l wondered whether it might interfere with a fair and impartial plebiscite under United Nations auspices in the entire state. l associated myself with the anxiety expressed by Sir Gladwyn Jebb in this regard, and hoped that, if the Security Council received an explanation, we would find ourselves reassured that the action of the Kashmir National Conference would not prejudice the prior commitments of the parties. 38. The representative of India, in adverting to this problem in his statements, dec1ared that, sa far as the Government of India is concerned, the constituent assembly is not intended to prejudice the issues before the Security Council or to come in the Council's way. He subsequently stated that, while the constituent assembly might, if it so desires, express an opinion on the question of accession, it .could make no clecision on the question. However, the representative of India also said that the Kashmir State Government is a unit of the Indian Federation, sllbject to federal jurisdiction in regard to defence, external affairs and communications, but completely autonomous in aU other matters. Sir Benegal Rau emphasized the autonomous nature of the Kashmir Government, affirming that the State is entitled to frame its own constitution and to convene a constituent assembly for this purpose. In discussing the question of supervising the activities of the Kashmir State Government for purposes of a plebiscite, the representative of India emphasized that the authority of the Government of India over the Government of Kashmir is limited to certain s~bjects; outside that sphere it could only advise and could not· impose any decision. 39. In addition to this careful statement of the Government of India's limited control over the Government of the State of Kashmir, a number of statements bearing directly on the problem before the Security Council have been made recently by ranking leaders of the Governments of India and Kashmir concerning the constituent assembly and its purpose. One such statementwas made by Sheikh Abdullah as recently as 2S February, when he said that the constituent assembly would decide the question of accession of 40 The United States believes that the Security Council'can and should affirm what the parties have agreed upon - that final disposition of the State of Jammu and Kashmir will be made by the will of the people of Kashmir as expressed through a fair and impartial plebiscite conducted under United Nations auspices. We believe that it is important that the Security Council hold firm to the language in the preamble regarding this matter as a minimum statement of its attitude toward the proposed constituent assembly and toward the obligations of the Government of India in respect to this constituent assembly. The matter of the final disposition of the State of Jamm,u and Kashmir is an international question, a matter which this Council has had within its purview for more than three years. It c1early falls within the field of external affairs, and Sir Benegal Rau has told the Council that the external affairs of the Government of Kashmir are within the control of the Indian Government. The Security Council, therefore, should be entitled to assume that the Government of India will prevent the Government of Kashmir from taking action which would interfere with the responsibilities of this Counci1. 41. Members of the Security Council will note that paragraph 8 of the revised draft resolution caUs upon the parties to take all possible measures to ensure the creation and maintenance of an atmosphere favorable to the promotion of further negotiations, and to refrain from any action likely to prejudice a just and peaceful s<;ttlement. This language is similar to that used in prev~ous Security Council resolutions in the course of this dispute. The Government of Pakistan and the Government of India have both condemned appeals to force to settle the Kashmir dispute, appeals which have been mad~ by irresponsible and intemperate elements. Conhnued efforts by the parties to discourage such appeals to force will help ensure and maintain an atmosph.ere which is. favourable to pro01oting further negotlatlons toward a peaceful settlement. {2. Let me close my remarks by repeating the hope of ~y Government that the Security Council will give senous, and prompt consideration to the revised cIraft r~solubon. The proceedings before the Security Council stn7e 21 February have indicated clearly the degree to whl.ch ,the Kashmir dispute continues to be an irritant Pred' f' JU IClOg nendly relations between the Govermnents ~~ these two great Powers, India and Pakistan. This Ispute blocks the restoration of the friendship and mutu~l esteem which is necessary for the peace and ëcunt.y of South Asia. l believe that the Security ounctl must assist the parties to reach a peaceful and ~~~U~lly acceptab~e solution of this protracted dispute. raft resolutlOn, as we have revised it offers a reasonabl d . , . I.e eVlce to help the parties solve a complex ISSue. t IS off d' th' . fr f' ere 111 e s111cere bellef that the present ri~mc 0 ~{n~ of both parties requires that the Secuy OunCl ald them in attempting to advance toward

l have no more speakers on my list. As there are no representatives who wish to speak, we shall have ta fix the date of our next meeting. Because sorne representatives will have ta be absent for a few days and becal1se there are meetings of other Committees on certain days, l would suggest that the next meeting of the Council be held on Thursday, 29 March 1951 at 3. p.m. Printed in Canada