02041951 Text of the speech made by Sir Mohammad Zafrulla Khan (Pakistan) in the Security Council meeting No. 540 held on 2 April 1951

02041951 Text of the speech made by Sir Mohammad Zafrulla Khan (Pakistan) in the Security Council meeting No. 540 held on 2 April 1951

The point that has been raised by the representative of India is such that I would be extremely loath to put the Presi­dent to the trouble—possibly even the embarrassment—of having to give a ruling on it. Therefore, in deference to his desire, I shall omit that part of my speech and .take up the last part in which I propose to place before the Council the view of my Government and its attitude towards the resolution which was adopted on 30 March 1951.

With regard to the resolution adopted by the Security Council, I shall start by saying that I have been instructed by my government to submit to the Council its acceptance of the resolution. The Government of Pakistan accepts the resolu­tion and is determined to afford the fullest cooperation to the United Nations representative who may be appointed by the Security Council, and later, in case of differences arising which cannot be resolved by agreement between the parties, to the arbitrator or arbitrators that may be appointed under para­graph 6 of the resolution.

In the view of my government the resolution divides it­self into three parts. The preamble deals with the constituent assembly that is proposed to be convoked in respect for Kashmir. We read the preamble along with paragraph 8 of the resolution, the last part of which requests the Governments of India and Pakistan "to refrain from any action likely to prejudice a just and peaceful settlement of the dispute". Obviously, if the proposal with regard to the constituent assembly is persisted in, it would amount to action that is likely to prejudice a just and peaceful settlement. We have no doubt therefore that the Government of India will give due effect to the wishes that have been expressed by the members of the Security Council as expressed in the debate on this Question. In that connection I ought draw particular attention to what was said by the representative of China [539th Meeting],

The second part of the resolution deals with interpre­tation : the principal provision in that respect being contained in paragraph 3 which states :

"Instructs the United Nations representative to proceed to the sub continent and, after consultation with the Govern­ments of India and Pakistan, to effect the demilitarization of the State of Jammu and Kashmir on the basis of the United Nations Commission for India and Pakistan resolutions of 13 August 1948 and 5 January 1949;"

Some objections were taken to "after consultation" but that was duly dealt with by the representatives in the Security Council, particularly those of the United Kingdom and the United States.

The resolutions of the United Nations Commission for India and Pakistan of 13 August 1948 and 5 January 1949 [S/1100 SI 1196] at each stage of a cease fire and a true agree­ment provide for consultation, and part III of the resolution of 13 August 1948, which was not specifically referred to with regard to the settlement of the conditions of a fair and impar­tial plebiscite, predicates consultation with the two governments and  the settlement of these details by agreements between them. We accept that part also.

But the part that particularly calls upon the two govern­ments to accept a provision is contained in paragraph 6 which:

"Calls upon the parties, in the event of their discussion with the United Nations representative failing in his -.opinion to result in full agreement, to accept arbitration upon all outstanding points of difference reported by the United Nations representative in accordance with para­graph 5 above; such arbitration to be carried out by an arbitrator, or a panel of arbitrators, to be appointed by the President of the International Court of Justice after consultation with the parties;".

1. all respect we submit that at this stage, and having regard to the difficulties that have arisen, that is the only method of making progress. The manner in which the Government of Pakistan regards this question as follows. Here is an international agreement between the two parties. Differences have arisen which, let us say, relate to the interpretation of the agreement. It has been said any arbitration with respect to our interpretation would reopen issues that have already been settled. Assume that the Government of Pakistan or the Government of India regards a particular question as already settled with reference to that agreement, and the other govern­ment considers that that question is not settled or that it is settled in a manner contrary to the one that has been alleged. Then surely that is a question for arbitration. Is this question already settled ? If it is already settled, it will not be allowed to be raised, and the parties will be called upon to implement it in the manner in which it is already settled. If, in the view of the arbitrator, it is not already settled, then it will be set­tled. How else is this difference to be resolved, the difference where one party says that a certain matter is settled and where the other party says, "No, it is not settled", or that it is settled in a different manner ? Here is a controversy arising with regard to implementation which must be settled by arbitration. We accept that on principle.

With all respect, I am explaining why we fully accept this and are able today to answer the request made in paragraph 6 calling upon my government, as well as the Govern­ment of India, to accept certain principles. So far as I am concerned, calling upon my government to accept arbitration upon all those out-standing points of view is different.

My government is able to say here and now that if, unfortunately, it should transpire that matters that are dealt with by the resolution cannot be settled by agreement and there are still outstanding differences, we accept what we are called upon to accept in paragraph 6 because we feel that is the only way of making progress. We accept this in particular because, as Members of the United Nations, we have under­taken the obligation to seek pacific settlement of all our disputes. In this particular dispute negotiation, mediation and conciliation have not as yet brought about a settlement. matter has been carried some distance. There was a cease-fire which was very satisfactory. There has been an inter­national agreement incorporated in those two resolutions, but further progress must now be made and quickly.

If we continued to insist that our own particular view on all these matters should prevail, and if we hesitated to accept the method that the Security Council now proposes, we would be failing in the obligation which we have undertaken as Members of the United Nations. Also, our conduct would amount to a repudiation of the international agreement which is contained in the two resolutions of the United Nations Commission for India and Pakistan.

We therefore accept this resolution in 111 its parts and aspects—and particularly paragraph 6—because that is the only course open to us as Members of the United Nations : it is the only course consistent with our honour, and we consider that any other course would not be honourable.