22011948 Speech made by Mr. Austin (United States of America) in the Security Council Meeting held on 22nd January on change in the Agenda of the Council
22011948 Speech made by Mr. Austin (United States of America) in the Security Council Meeting held on 22nd January on change in the Agenda of the Council
I understand that the question pending is on the adoption of the agenda, nothing more. Therefore, the technical matter of whether this is the agenda of the Security Council must be determined by the provisional rules of procedure of the Security Council, and it is so determined. Rule 10 of the provisional rules of procedure of the Security Council states:
"Any item of the agenda of a meeting of the Security Council, consideration of which has not been completed at that meeting, shall, unless the Security Council otherwise decides, automatically be included in the agenda of the next meeting."
Item 2 on the agenda of our last meeting was: "The Jammu and Kashmir question," and it contained sub-paragraphs (a) and (b). Sub-paragraph (b) was: "Letter dated 15 January 1948 from the Minister of Foreign Affairs of Pakistan to the Secretary-General concerning the situation in Jammu and Kashmir." In sub-paragraph 4 of part E of document II of that letter, which is contained in document S/646, we find the following:
"...that Junagadh, Manavadar and some other States in Kathiawar, which have lawfully accepted to Pakistan and form part of Pakistan territory, have been forcibly and unlawfully occupied by the armed forces of the Indian Union and extensive damage has been caused to the life and property of the Muslim inhabitants of these States, by the forces, officials and non-Muslim nationals of the Indian Union."
Therefore, it seems clear that the item on this agenda should be exactly the same item that was on the last agenda because it falls within rule 10 of the rules of procedure, and it has not been concluded. To use the language of rule 10, consideration of the item has not been completed.
Now then, of what force is this letter of 20 January 1948 from the Minister of Foreign Affairs of the Government of Pakistan, which is included in the agenda before us* Does it have anything to do with the agenda? The letter reads as follows: "I beg to request that a meeting of the Security Council may be called at as early a date as possible to consider the situation...set out in my letter dated 15 January 1948 addressed to the Secretary-General." The rest of the letter is an urgent statement of fact in support of that request for a meeting.
That decision is wholly under the control of the President under rule 1 of the rules of procedure of the Security Council. It has no place whatever on the agenda. Rule 1 of the rules of procedure of the Security Council reads as follows:
"Meetings of the Security Council shall, with the exception of the periodic meetings referred to in rule 4, be held at the call of the President at any time he deems necessary, but the interval between meetings shall not exceed fourteen days-"
The paper which is before us as a provisional agenda does not conform to the rules. If there is anybody who cares enough about this fact to make a point, he stands on good parliamentary ground.
However, the whole matter is before us on that agenda as it lay on the table when we parted last. We have not concluded the business. Junagadh, as well as many other things, was included in the agenda of that date. Absolutely nothing new has been added to the agenda by the inclusion of sub-paragraph (c) of item 2, and, of course, no change is made in the issue by editorially changing the heading of the item. The substantive issue is in these papers, and nothing whatever that the Secretary-General can do can change the issue. So when we get right around to it, it makes no difference whether you title item 2 with the editorial heading that is now put on it, or whether you leave it exactly as it was headed before. It seemed perfectly clear to me that the rational procedure for the Security Council in this case was recognized in the resolution adopted on 20 January [document SJ654]. We referred to the matters before us in this language:
"The Security Council,
"Considering that it may investigate any dispute or any situation which might, by its continuance, endanger the maintenance of international peace and security; that, in the existing state of affairs between India and Pakistan, such an investigation is a matter of urgency..."
That is the way we used the item on the agenda then. In another part of the resolution, we find this construction of our duties and of our rights with respect to the order in which we will handle this business. Clause D of the resolution reads as follows:
"The Commission shall perform the functions described in Clause C:
1. In regard to the situation in the Jammu and Kashmir State set out in the letter of the representative of India addressed to the President of the Security Council dated 1 January 1948"— that was sub-paragraph (a) of item 2 of this then agenda and the now legal agenda—"and in the letter from the Minister of Foreign Affairs of Pakistan addressed to the Secretary-General, dated 15 January 1948..." which refers to Junagadh.
Clause D continues with the construction that we put upon the order in which these matters are to be taken up. It continues as follows:
2.In regard to other situations set out in the letter from the Minister of Foreign Affairs of Pakistan addressed to the Secretary-General, dated 15 January 1948, when the Security Council so directed".
That clause does not bar the Security Council from taking, any course which it wishes to take, but is a practical construction of the business in hand. It is a reasonable interpretation of what we can do and what we wisely should*in determining this matter—namely, go ahead first with that imminent question of Kashmir and Jammu. However, that does not exclude the consideration of all the other questions that are involved here, including that of Junagadh, which, in due time and in its regular order when it will be given the right consideration by the Security Council, will be taken up too. But the urgent business before us is to expedite further consultations with reference to laying down some arrangement upon which the parties can agree, under the guidance of the President of the Security Council. That is what we most desire: an arrangement to which the parties can agree in order to take care of the military and political situations in Jammu and Kashmir. The "other situations" will undoubtedly be attended to. They will probably be simplified greatly by the orderly disposition of this first business that is before us. Therefore, so far as I am concerned, it makes no difference whether the title "India-Pakistan question" is used or whether the title "Jammu and Kashmir question" is used. The same substantive matter is arrived at on our agenda.
(SCOR, 3rd Year, Mtg. no. 231, pp. 154-157