22011948 Speech of Mr. Noel Baker {United Kingdom) in the Security Council on change in Agenda of the Council Meeting held on 22 January 1948

22011948 Speech of Mr. Noel Baker {United Kingdom) in the Security Council on change in Agenda of the Council Meeting held on 22 January 1948

Since my legal adviser, Mr. Bathurst, called my attention to the item as it now stands on the agenda, to the change in the heading, I have taken the trouble to inquire how the item came to be included in the agenda as it now stands. I understand that the heading of the item was decided upon by the President and the Secretariat. I am certain, of course, that the change was made in complete good faith, and I understand very well, I think, the arguments in favour of that change which seemed convincing to the President.

However, if I had been in the President's place—and I am very glad that I was not—I think I should have handled the matter differently. Broadly, I agree with the representative of India. I think that I should have arranged the agenda as follows:

necessary to discuss the other matters here at all, because the Governments mav be able to arrange them between themselves.

I therefore hope that the Security Council will agree to arrange the agenda as I have just suggested that I should have arranged it. If it is desired, t shall make a formal proposal to that effect. At this point, however, I should like to amplify what I have said by referring to something that was mentioned by the representative of India. He said that the other questions could be discussed only after the question of Kashmir had been disposed of. That is the plan which I think is right. But it means, of course, that the question of Kashmir must be disposed of without delay. We cannot deny to the representative of Pakistan the right to raise a matter which he thinks urgent, and his letter of 20 January makes it quite plain that there are other questions which he thinks urgent. We cannot, I say, deny him that right by having the discussion of the Kashmir question unduly prolonged, without any proper progress being made. Therefore, in proposing—with all respect to our President, and with a full understanding of the reasons why the agenda stands at it does— that we rewrite that agenda, I also express the hope that the President will bring the parties together again very quickly and will proceed with negotiations for a final settlement of the Kashmir problem on the basis which was previously discussed.

(SCOR, 3rd Year, Mtg. no. 231, pp. 147-149)

I have asked if I might speak on a point of order in order to withdraw the proposal which I put forward. It seems plain to me that the proposal I put forward is not going to secure the support of a majority of the Council, and I therefore hope that I may save time and debate by withdrawing it now.

I confess that the reasons adduced by other members of the Security Council against my proposal were precisely those which seemed to me to be most strongly in favour of it. The essential point in my mind was well expressed by the representative of Syria: Would it be desirable to deal, for example, with Kashmir and Junagadh in one resolution or in two? I should have said, from what I know of the subject, that it would probably be much better to deal with it in two. That is not excluded if we leave the agenda as it was drafted today by the President.

I think the substance is what matters. I believe the members of the Security Council really agree on the substance, and I think it is this: that all these matters are on the agenda. As I think the representative of Colombia and the representative of Syria said, they all have a relation, one to the other. The representative of Argentina argued very cogently, and with force, that you cannot exclude a later point brought in by a defendant. They are related to each other; they can be mentioned.

We are all agreed that, broadly, we want to take Kashmir first, but Kashmir must be dealt with swiftly. We must try to get a settlement because the other questions also are urgent, and we cannot impose an undue delay. If that is agreed all around the Security Council table, I think it would be very safe for me to withdraw my proposal. I therefore do so, and I hope the debate may reach a speedy conclusion.

(SCOR, 3rd Year, Mtg. no. 231, p. 154)

I only want to say to the representative of India that I did not withdraw my motion because I thought it inelegant, inappropriate or wrong. I withdrew my motion because I saw that it was not going to receive the necessary majority and I hoped that we might perhaps save time, and I felt then quite clearly that we were—all of us—agreed on the substance.

Now the debate which has taken place since I withdraw my motion has confirmed me in my view, and I think, if I have understood the speeches, that the representative of India can have from these speeches the assurance he desires as to how our work is now to be conducted.

(SCOR, 3rd Year, Mtg. no. 231, p. 163)