21021957 Text of the speech made by Mr. Noon (Pakistan) in the Security Council meeting No. 774 held on 21 February 1957.
21021957 Text of the speech made by Mr. Noon (Pakistan) in the Security Council meeting No. 774 held on 21 February 1957.
The debate on this question has roamed over a wide field and a large number of seemingly controversial issues have been canvassed. I am sure it would help the Security Council if I were to state in concise terms the position as Pakistan views it. I venture to submit that the points of controversy between Pakistan and India over the question of accession of the State of Jammu and Kashmir to Pakistan or to India lie within a narrow compass, and the records of the Council disclose a much larger degree of agreement between the two Governments both on principles and on procedure than the debates before the Council might lead the members to imagine,
I submit that India is fully committed to the principle formulated by the Government of India and communicated to the Government of Pakistan and reiterated on several occasion; before the Council that in the case of a State where the ruler belonged to one community and the majority of the people to the other, the question of accession must be determined in accordance with the freely expressed wishes of the people of the State. Further, there is agreement with respect to the State of Jammu and Kashmir that once the tribesmen have withdrawn and law and order has been restored, the Government of India would withdraw its armed forces from such areas of the State into which they had entered and that the wishes of the people in the matter of accession would be ascertained through the democratic method of a free and impartial plebiscite carried out under the auspices of the United Nations. This would appear both from the telegrams exchanged between the two Governments before the matter was brought to the Security Council and the resolutions of the United Nations Commission for India and Pakistan accepted by both Governments.
A certain degree of progress towards the implementation of these resolutions was made in the first months of 1949, but since then a deadlock has prevailed, mainly in respect of the compliance with those portions of the resolutions that relate to what has generally, since, been described as the demilitarization of the State.
It has been contended on behalf of India that progress towards the holding of a free and impartial plebiscite under the auspices of the United Nations cannot be made until Pakistan's armed forces are withdrawn from the Kashmir territory. "Azad" I wish to state clearly and definitely that the Government of Pakistan has at all times been ready and, indeed, eager to carry out all its obligations under the resolutions of the Commission, including the obligation of the withdrawal of its troops in accordance with the terms of the resolutions. On no occasion has there been any agitation or equivocation on the part of Pakistan in respect of the discharge of its obligations. Pakistan has been so anxious to proceed towards a settlement of this question in accordance with the resolutions of the Commission that on occasions it has been willing to do more, and earlier than the resolutions call for, so that rapid progress might be made. I repeat that Pakistan is willing to proceed with this matter in accordance with any of the proposals hitherto made by any of the United Nations representatives, provided India is willing to do its part at the same time.
My Government deplores the exercise of the veto by the Soviet Union [773rd meeting] in respect of the four-Power draft resolution [S/3787]. The situation in Kashmir constitution a grave threat to the maintenance of international peace, and it has come as a shock to the people and the Government of Pakistan that a great Power like the USSR should have seen fit to veto resolution designed to promote a solution of this very grave and thorny problem through peaceful methods.
It has been said that India objects to the consideration of the Pakistan proposal for the introduction of a United Nations force on its own side of the cease-fire line. The sole purpose of this proposal was to facilitate the withdrawal of Pakistan troops to which India attaches so much importance, so that the process of demilitarization could be put into operation and completed thereafter in accordance with the terms of the resolution of the Commission. It was never intended to be utilized in the holding of a plebiscite as the representative of the Soviet Union mentioned in his speech [773rd meeting, para. 21]. The task of organizing and actually holding the plebiscite is under the terms of the resolutions, assigned to the Plebiscite Administrator. In a sense, the introduration of a United Nations force would amount merely to an augmentation of the United Nations observers. It could thus be tantamount to a use of those procedures which have so far been followed with some success under Chapter VI of the Charter.
This is one of those instances where Pakistan has been willing voluntarily to do more than it had undertaken to do under the resolutions of the Commission to meet India's objections. We are at a loss to understand for what reasons the consideration of this proposal made by Pakistan was considered objectionable by the USSR.
The second reason put forward by the USSR is that, inasmuch as India is not willing to accept the resolution, the resolution should not be adopted. The Council is engaged in the very difficult and delicate task of bringing about a settlement through peaceful methods of a long-standing dispute which, as I have said, constitutes a grave threat to the maintenance of international peace. In carrying out this task, it was seeking to adopt a resolution which would start the final stage of achieving the objectives aimed at by the Security Council from the very beginning and agreed to by the parties to the dispute and clearly set out in the resolutions accepted by them. In respect of several previous efforts of the Council in the same direction, a similar situation had arisen. India had indicated its willingness to accept the proposed solution. Indeed, there may have been instances when neither party was willing to express its acceptance of the resolution in advance. Nevertheless, the resolutions were adopted, and both parties thereafter co-opera ed with the United Nations Representative in the efforts to carry out the objectives of the Council's resolutions.
The Government of Pakistan is distressed to learn that a permanent member of the Security Council should consider the unwillingness of a party to accept a resolution in advance as sufficient reason for the exercise of a veto. I venture to submit that such a negative attitude on the part of a big Power would hardly be conducive to the settlement of any dispute. It is surprising to us that the representative of the Soviet Union should argue that the voice of India alone should decide this case, and not that of Pakistan.
To sum up, the position is this. The question of the accession of the State of Jammu and Kashmir to Pakistan or to India is a matter in dispute between Pakistan and India. The dispute involves in essence the right of self-determination of the people of the State on this disputed question of accession. Whatever the defaults on the part of India or of Pakistan, the people of the State possess this right and cannot be deprived of its free exercise. India and Pakistan have agreed, and this agreement has been endorsed by the Security Council, that the question shall be determined through the democratic method of a free and impartial plebiscite held. under the auspices of the United Nations. Until the plebiscite is held and is certified by the United Nations Representative to have been free and impartial in accordance with the resolutions of the Commission, the territory of the State of Jammu and Kashmir is neither part of India nor part of Pakistan. The de facto position is that India occupies certain parts of the territory of the State, and the remaining parts are under the control of the "Azad'' Kashmir authority.
The international agreement is binding upon India and Pakistan. Indeed, it has been clearly stated on behalf of India, during these last debates also, that this agreement is the only binding obligation upon the two Governments in respect of the State of Jammu and Kashmir, and that the whole of this agreement stands together-no part of it can be used laterally, repudiated or frozen. Any such attempt would amount to a repudiation of the principles of the United Nations Charter, which obligate all Member States to seek a settlement of their international disputes through peaceful means,
Finally, Mr. President, about your own mission: we have already said, and I repeat, that you are most welcome.