S/PV.539 Security Council

The statements made yesterday and eartier this 1110rning by my distinguished colleagues on the Security COllncil have been cIcar and extensive. l believe there is little 1 can add which might aid the Council in reaching a conclusion on the revised draft resolution submitted jointly by the United Kingdom and the United States. However, may 1 be permitted to address myself ta one point raised by Sir Benegal Rau in the statement he made yesterday? 43. The distinguished representative of India objects to the operative part of the draft resolution, because, as 1 understand it, he interprets paragraphs 3 and 6 of the ch-aft resolution as giving to Pakistan rights of consultation which had not existed tlnder the August 1948 resolution of the United Nations Commission for India ane! Pakistan. Sir Benegal, 1 be1ieve, saie! that the e!raft resolution now before the Security Council reopened issues which had been settled by the August 1948 resolution; that it sought to give Pakistan a voice in matters in which it had been denied an)' voiee pre- 44. l can only say that the revised draft resolution submitted ta the Security Council on 21 March would instruct the United Nations representative, after consulting the Governments of India and Pakistan, ta effect demilitarization on the basis of the two agreed United Nations Commission resolutions. For this purpose, obviously, he must consult the Gov~rn;llent of Pakistan as well as the Government of Indla 111 arder to obtain their views. The very preamble to part II of the 13 August 1948 resolution says 1: 44. lution 21 après Pakistan, cieux sur représentant consulter le nière partie suit "Simultaneously with the acceptance of the proposaI for the Immediate cessation of hostilities as outlined in part l, bath governments accept the following principles as the basis "for the formulation of a truce agreement, the details of which shall be worked out in discussion between their representatives and the Commission." Le liberté aussi nécessaires. The United Nations representative must be free ta consult with the Government of Pakistan as well as India in working out the necessary details. 45. sion maintenant pas tion rer du d'un pices concert détails les d'accord qu'elles rente moyen quoi 45. As we see it, the two United Nations Commission resolutions provide a framework which remains ta be filled in. These resolutions do not set forth a complete plan for accomplishing del11ilitarization and a plebiscite. The parties will have to develop and consider with the United Nations representative the details which fi.!l out this framework, in arder ta honour their cOl11mitment ta settle the issue of accession ta India or Pakistan by a fair and impartial plebiscite under United Nations auspices. If the parties do not agree upon these details in filling out the framework established by the two United Nations C.onunission resolutions, it will be because the parties glve differing interpretations. In such a case there must be some way of resolving the dileml11a, and we have suggested arbitration as that way. 46. deux cie au-delà ne les est Jammu et 46. Tt seer:1? ta us that the commitment of the parties an~ the l~gltImate interests of the Security Council in seemg thlS dispute settled do not stop with these two resolu~ions. They are not the end of the road. The commltment of the Governments of bath India and Paki?tan is. ta settle the question of accession by a free andImpartlal plebiscite. 48. All members of the Securitv COllllcil who have spoken have ilIuminated the spirit in which the resolution has becn offered. That spirit springs from the sincere belief that the Security Council must aid the parties to advance toward a solution of the dispute by providing reasonable means through which issues which the parties cannot themselves resolve may be brought to a speedy and mutually acceptable solution.

Before calling upon the last speaker, 1 wish to remind the Secl1rity Council that it is my intention to put the revised joint ch'ah resolution now hefore us to the vote immediately after we have heard that speaker.

l think that l should follow the United States representative in dealing, very briefly, with one or two points which have arisen dl1ring the course of the dehate on the revised draft resolution submitted on 21 March by the de1egations of the United States and the United Kingdom. l cCl'tainly hope that that draft resolution will very saon come to the vote. 51. Il) the first place, l must say how glad the sponsors of the draft resolution have been - how glad l think we have al! been - to note the general agreement among members of the Security COtmcil that in our approach to this problem we should concentrate on one alI-important principle, name1y, that the future accession of the State of Tammu and Kashmir shou1d he settled by a United Nàtions plebiscite, held in conditions which will enable the inhabitants of the State to express their preference, free from improper influence by any of the authorities interested in the resuJt. l am sure that mell1bers of the Secmity Coundl have been cncouraged by one thing, at any rate: the reaffirmation by the l'epresentatives of the Governments of India and Pakistan of their own adherence to this prillciple. 52. As l be1ieve the representative of the United States has already said, the President himself expressed this principle very clearly in the statement which he made to the Council yesterc1ay. l should like, if l may, actualIy to quote his words, since they impl'cssed me so much. He said 1538th meeting]: proce~ure which ~ill create. the most f~vourable conditlOns for a falr expresslOn of the w111 of the people, who wan~ t? l~ak~ th~ir choice free from any kind of fear or l11tlmldatlOn. The President's eloquent words do, l think, contain the whole key to the problem, and our conviction of this fact has guided the representative of the United States and me in formulating our proposaIs. 53. In his statement to the Council yesterday, Sir Benegal Rau mentioned two aspects of these proposaIs which, in the view of his government, were not in accord either with the facts or with the agreements which the Commission embodied in its two resolutions of 13 August 1948 and 5 January 1949. If l may, l should like to comment briefly on these two aspects. 54. The first concerns the validity of the accession of the Maharaja of Kashmir. On this point l 111USt say at once that l do not propose to indulge in a sort of logomachy in which there is some risk that my learned friend with his great forensic ability might appear to emerge triumphant on points. l would hesitate ta do that. But l doubt in any case that it will help to bring a solution of this dispute nearer if the Council were to retrace its steps behind the agreed principles and to take up the legal issues concerning the validity of the Maharaja's accession. The Council has heard the arguments of both parties on this particular point. l think itis only too dear that any detailed consideration of the issues involved in this would only lead the Council into an examination of all the events leading up to the Maharaja's letter requesting accession. If this took place, how could the Council escape from going on to c?nsider paraUe1 cases in which the question of acces- ?lon may well at first sight appear to have been decided 111 accordance with entirely different principles ? My government, from the outset of the Council's deliberation on this question, thought that we would do well to concentrate our attention on the plebiscite and on the means whereby it should be fairly conducted. 55. Remarks which l made in my statement of 21 March [537th meeting] on the question of the legality of the accession of the Maharaja of Kashmir, though ~ do not. in any way go back on them, were therefore, 11~ Ollr Vlew, subsidiary to the main argument. If they dld not deal in detail with the merits of the c1aims of either of the two parties in this question, l can assure !he representative of India that it was not due to any 19norance of or inattention to these c1aims on my part, bl~t rather because of my impression that a consideration of their merits would 110t advance the COlmcil any nearer to a solution of the dispute. mel~t a right to b~ consuIted in matters wl?ich the Commission had already agreed were outSlde the competence of the Government of Pakistan to discuss. 57. l would only remind members of the Coullcil that the whole of part II of the resolution of 13 August 1948 is prefaced by the statement that: " ... both governments accept the following principles as the basis for the formulation of a truce agreement, the details of which shall be workec1 out in consultation between their repl'esentatives and the Commission". 58. Since the truce agreement has still to be. formulated, l would suggest that in no sense is consultation with both parties exc1uded by that resolution. But my government would not wish to prejudge the findings of any arbitrators on this point. The extent to which the matters deaIt with in the two agreed resolutions are already decided and the extent to which Pakistan has a right to be consulted are, we be1ieve, in themselves two points eminently suitable for determination by arbitration. Indeed, since there is disagreement by the parties on them, arbitration provides the only suitable and perhaps the only possible means of determination. Of course, it is not my government's intention that any matter which has been clearly decided in favour of the Government of India should now be decided otherwise. Of course not. The exchange of letters quoted by Sil' Benegal Rau will be taken into account by the arbitrators and, in so far as they decided certain points in India's favour, arbitration could only, of course, confirm these decisions. 59. There remains one further point arising out of the statement by the representative of India yesterday whieh l think l ought ta mention. He suggcsted l was inconsistent in appealing to his government to ensure that the proposed Kashmir constituent assemhly did Ilot in any way prejudice the work of the Couneil while, at the same time, emphasizing the view of my government that the accession could not be regarded a's a matter which bas already been settled. l do not really think that there is any incompatibility between thesc two views. This dispute is one between India and Pakistan. It is obvious that, if there is one of these two parties ta whom the Coul1cil must appeal in order to prevent prejl1dicial action by the Kashmir constituent asscmbly, it is to the Government of India. Thol1gh l hesitate to cross swords with such an anthority on constitutional law, l believe this is a matter wl;ich the Council must regard sole1y from the sta.ndp01l1t of how the two governments can help to give effect to the agreement embodied in the two resolutions 60. The proposaI is really very simple. All we askis that both parties to the dispute should give their full assistance to the Council so that - and here l quote the paragraph l of the United Nations Commission's resolution of 5 January 1949 2 : "The question of the accession of the State of Jammu and Kashmir to India and Pakistan will be decided through the democratic l11ethod of a free and impartial plebiscite." 61. It is in the conviction that the revised draft resoll1tion that the representative of the United States and l11yself have placed before the Council provides the best l11ethod of achieving this that l express the hope that the Council will adopt it.

l shall now put the revised joint draft resolution to the vote. The text is contained in document S/2017/Rev.l, which is before the Council.

l have one more speaker on my list. The representative of Pakistan has requested an opportunity to make a statement after the vote has been taken. l understand that his statement will take about three-quarters of an hour to one hour. In view of the fact that it is now LlO p.m., l should like to hear the views of the Council as to whether it wishes to listen to the representative of Pakistan now or to adjourn the meeting and give him an opportunity to explain his views on Monday moming, 2 April 1951.

l wish only to say that it would clearly be better to hear the representative of Pakistan on Monday 2 April, unless any member of the Council finds that inconvenient. However, if we hear him on that occasion, it would be equally possible then for any other representative to ex.plain his vote. .

l see no objection at all to th~t procedure. As the Council agrees, the meeting is adJoumed until Monday morning 2 April at 10.30 a.m. The meeting rosa at 1.10 p.m. ---- 2 Ibid., FoU'rth Year, Supplemellt for January 1949, p. 23. SALES AGENTS FOR UNITED DEPOSITAfRES DES PUBUCATIONS ARGENTINA - ARGENTINE Edlt"ial Sudamerlca;la S.A., Calle Alsina 500, Buenos AIres.. FINLAND - FINLANDE Akateemlne~ KirJakauppa, kalu, Helsinki. FRANCE Edi tlons A. Pedone, paris V. GREECE - GRECE HE leftl1ercudak1s," Llbralrle nale, Place de la Constitution, AIiSTRA~lA - AUSTRA~IE . H. A. Goddard (Ply,l, ~td., 255a Gmge Street, Sydney, N.S.W. BELGIUM .:.- BELGIQUE Agence el Messageries de la Pre"e S.A.. 14-22 rue du Persil, Bruxelles. W, H. Smith & Son 71-75 Boulevard Adolphe·Max, Bruxell... BOLIVIA - BOLIVIE ..lbrer;a Clentlflca y Literaria, Avenida U de Julio 216, Casllla 972, La paz GUATEMA~A Go.ubaud & Cla. ltda. num. 2B, 2 do Piso, .Guatemala HAlTl Ma~ Bouchereau, librairie ue"e!' Boite postal. PrinCe. HONDURAS Llbrerfa Panamerlcana, Fu.nte, Tegucigalpa. ICELAND-ISLANDE Bokaverzlun Slgfusar Au,turstreti lB, ReykJ"vlk. IN DIA ....:. INDE Oxlord Book & Stalionery House, New Delhi. INDOMESIA- INDONESIE Jalasan Pemb.ngunan, B4, Djakarla. IRAQ-IRAK Mack.nzle·s 800kshop, Statloners, Baghdad. IRAN Kelab·Khaneh Danesh, Avenue, Teheran. IRELAND- IR~ANDE Hibernian G.neral Agency cial Buildings, Dame ISRAEL Leo Blumslein, P.O.B. 35 Allenby Road. Tel·Aviv. ITALY -ITAUE CoJ1bri S.A., Via Chlosselto LEBANOfll- LIBAN librairie universelle, UBERIA J. Momolu Kamara, Streets, Monrovia. LUXEMBOURG Librairie J. Schummer, Luxembourg. MEXICO-MEXIQUE Editorial Hermes, S.A., cal 41, Mexico, D. F. NETHERLANDS- PAYS.BAS rI.V. Martlnus N/Jhoff. il, 's-Gravenhage. f,lEW ZEAlAND- NOUVELLE.ZE~N!)E United Nations A'soclalion tand, G.P.O. 1011, WellIngton. f,lICARAGUA Dr. Ramiro Ramirez l'ubllcaciones, Managua, BRAZI~- BRESIL Livrarla Agir, Rua Mexico 98-8, Calxa' Postal 3291, Rio de Janeiro. CANADA - CANADA The Ryerson Press, 299 Queen Slreèl West, Toronto. CEYLON - CEYLAN Tho A,soclated Néwspapers of Cei!.o", Ltd., Lake House, Colombo. CHILE- CHILI Llbrer fa Ivens, Calle Monoda 822, S.ntlago. CHINA - CHINE Th. Commercial Press, ltd., 211 Honan Road, ShanghaI. COi.OMBIA - COLOMBIE Llbrerla latlna Uda., IIparlado .A~reo 'l011, Bogot;!. COSTA RICA - COSTA·RICA 'Trdos Hermanos, Aparlado 1313, San Jos~. CUBA la Casa Bolga, RenE de Smodt, D'Reilly '155, La Habana. CZECHOSLOVAKIA - .. TCHECOS~OVAQUIE Ceskoslmnsky Spi,ovalel N'rodn! Tl!da 9, Praha 1. . DENMARK - DANEMARK Einar Munk,gaard, N~rregade 6, K,benhavn. DOM INICAN REPUBllC- REPUBLIQUE DDMINICAINE tibrerfa Oominlcana, Calle Mercede& No. 49, Aparlado 656, Ciudad TruJll/o. ECUADOR,.... EQUATEUR Mu~ot Hermanos 't Cia" Plaza deI r.alro, Quito. EGypi - EGVPTE· llbr.i\irie "La Renai.5!ôance d'EgYDle/' 9 SH. Adly P;uha, Calro. EL SALVADOR - SALVADOR Manuel Navas y. Cla. "La Casa dellibro Barato" la Av~nlda sur oum. 31, San Salvador. ETHIOPIA - ETH10PIE Agence Ethiopienne de PublicitE, Box 8, Add is-Abeba. IInfled Nations publications can further be ob'a/ned 'rom tAe follow/1I9 ooob.llers: GERMANY-ALLEMAGNE AUSTRIA-AUTRICHE lluchhMd/ung Elwert & Meurer, Haupt.· e. Wiillmtorff, Waagplatz, strasse, 101, Berlln-Schôneberg. Salzbur~. W. E.. Saarbach, Franke~stra'se, 14, l(ëln·Junkersdorf. JAPAN - JAPON Alexander florn, Splegelgasse, 9, Maruzen Co., Ltd., 6 Wiesbaden. Nlhonbashi, Tokyo Central. Order. and inquiries 'Irom countrie. w~ere sale. agents ~a.v. not yet been appolntod mey be sent to; Sale, and Clrcillation Secfion, United Natrons, New York. U.S.A.; <)r Sales Section. United Nations Office, Palais des H"lon., Geneva, Switzerland.