20011948 Mr. F. Van Langenhove (Belgium)Statement of the President of the Security Council
20011948 Mr. F. Van Langenhove (Belgium)Statement of the President of the Security Council
I have a brief statement to make.
Since our last meeting, the representative of India, the representative of Pakistan and I have been continuing our consultations. In the course of these the following points were raised:
1The object of the investigation to be undertaken by the Commission set up under the resolution of 20 January 1948;
2The measures to be taken with a view to putting an end to the acts of hostility and violence which are taking place in the State of Jammu and Kashmir, taking due account of the participation of both indigenous and foreign elements;
3The organization of a plebiscite, the principle of which is agreed to by both parties, with a view to deciding the future of the State of Jammu and Kashmir;
4The conditions under which such a plebiscite might be organized under the authority of the Security Council, so as to ensure a free and impartial consultation of the population of the State of Jammu and Kashmir.
I convened the Council today in the first instance because of the desire expressed by the representative of India to make a statement in reply to that of the representative of Pakistan of 16 and 17 January; and secondly, because of the letter dated 20 January which I received from the representative of Pakistan, the text of which has been placed before the members of the Council.
Before opening the debate, I think it will be useful if I explain the present situation and summarize briefly the progress achieved so far.
To begin with, there is our resolution of 17 January [document S/651, 229th meeting in which the Security Council calls
upon the Governments of India and of Pakistan to immediately take all measures within their power calculated to improve the situation, and to refrain from any acts which might aggravate it, and also ask both Governments to inform the Council of any material changes in the situation.
In the second place, there is the resolution of 20 January, by which the Council appoints a Commission to proceed to the spot as quickly as possible, investigate the facts of the case, exercise, without interrupting the work of the Council, a mediatory influence and carry out the directions given to it by the Council.
Thirdly, both parties in their introductory memoranda have stressed the urgent nature of the situation. The Council took note of that fact in its resolutions of 17 and 20 January.
Fourthly, the United States representative asked me at our 230th meeting on 20 January whether, following the adoption of the second resolution, the conversations between the parties would continue under the aegis of the President of the Council, and I replied that I believe I was interpreting the intentions of the representatives of India and Pakistan correctly when I said that both of them recognized the desirability of pursuing their conversations without interruption with a view to working out a basis for a settlement. My statement was not contradicted. Furthermore, the resolution of 20 January makes it clear that the functions of the Security Council Commission will be pursued without interrupting the work of the Council.
Fifthly, both parties have admitted in principle that the future of the State of Jammu and Kashmir should be decided by plebiscite. The communication from the Government of India to the President of the Council, dated 1 January, states that in the final analysis the people will be free to decide their future by the recognized democratic method of a plebiscite or referendum, which might be held under international auspices in order to ensure its complete impartiality. That declaration was confirmed in a statement by the representative of India on 15 January before the Council [227th meeting]. The same principle may be noted in the Pakistan representative's communication of 15 January to the Secretary-General.
Such is the basis upon which the Security Council is to • carry out the mission invested in it by the Charter in the matter that has been brought before it. I am informed that the statement the representative of India wishes to make will take some time—about two hours. On the other hand, the desire has been expressed that this meeting should not go on after 6 p.m. Under the circumstances, in order to avoid interrupting the speech of the representative of India, I wonder if it would not be better if his statement were deferred until our next meeting. If so we have to fix the date and time of that meeting.
The Security Council is to convene tomorrow morning to deal with another matter on its agenda. Tomorrow afternoon is free; the Council might therefore devote the afternoon to the continuation of this debate, which would begin with the statement of the representative of India.
(SCOR, 3rd Year, Mtg. No. 231, pp. 164-166)