19081948 Notes on the meeting of the Minister for Foreign Affairs of Pakistan with three members of the Commission (S/AC.12/41) Held at Karachi on Thursday, 19 August 1948 at 10 a.m.
19081948 Notes on the meeting of the Minister for Foreign Affairs of Pakistan with three members of the Commission (S/AC.12/41) Held at Karachi on Thursday, 19 August 1948 at 10 a.m.
Chairman: Mr. Lazano (Colombia).
Present
Government of Pakistan. Sir Mohammed Zafrullah Khan (Minister for Foreign Affairs), Mr. Mohammad Ali (Secretary General), Mr. M. Ayub (Deputy Secretary).
Members of the Commission. Mr. Lozano (Colombia), Mr. Siri (Argentina), Mr. Oakes (United States of America), Mr. Bloch (Secretariat). The Chairman opened the meeting by inviting Sir Mohammed Zafrullah Khan to make his remarks on the cease
fire proposal submitted by the Commission.
Sir Mohammed Zafrullah Khan stated that his Government had given serious consideration to the proposal submitted by the Commission. It had found, however, that before it would be able to arrive at any conclusions which it could transmit to the Commission, it would be necessary to ask for certain elucidations. To this effect, he had brought a written list of points which he submitted to the Commission. He stated that, in addition to the written memorandum, he wanted to make certain oral observations.
The Pakistan Government was not sure of the objective which prompted the Commission to make the proposal, i.e., whether the Commission considered that the proposals should work in the direction of putting into effect the Security Council resolution of 21 April (S/726) or whether they were to lay a foundation for the creation of conditions which might either result in enforcing the Security Council resolution or in finding alternative solution. Specifically, his Government wondered whether the objective was to work out a free and impartial plebiscite or to obtain an intermediate stage which might enable the Commission to come to another solution. If the Commission had anything else in mind, the Government of Pakistan would like to know the Commission's intentions so that the Government could evaluate the proposals made against that background. The view of the Pakistan Government was that the Commission, although its function was that of a body of mediation, was bound to achieve a result which would make it possible to put the resolution of the Security Council into effect so that a free and impartial plebiscite could be obtained. He said that he knew that he could not impose the view of the Government of Pakistan on the Commission but that he would like to know what the Commission's views were on the matter.
He stated that Pakistan still adhered to the view that, as far as a cease-fire was concerned, it would have been easier if a simple appeal had been made to stop fighting and nothing more. Although he admitted that the Commission might turn out to have been right, Sir Mohammed felt that the other method would have been the correct one. He considered himself unable to come to any conclusions in regard to part I as long as he did not have a clear view with regard to parts II and III of the proposal made by the Commission. Since parts II and III could not be divorced from part I, the Pakistan Government would like the Commission to clarify parts II and III in writing. The Government of Pakistan also wished to be informed as to the procedure, programe, time-table and methods of further discussions contemplated by the Commission. Sir Mohammed appreciated the fact that the Commission had to divide itself into two parts so that the proposals could be brought simultaneously before the two Governments. His Government wanted to know how the Commission intended to proceed from then on, and what the next contemplated stages were.
Mohammed repeated that, in addition to the points raised in the written memorandum, he would like to know what the objective was which the Commission had in mind in making the proposals. Was it to establish conditions for a free and impartial plebiscite and were those proposals designed with this point in view or were the proposals made in order to create the possibilities for different solutions? If the latter should be true, he would like to know what alternatives to a plebiscite were being considered.
Sir Mohammed added that there were certain points. which he had submitted in writing which must also be clarified. The stoppage of fighting, he repeated, could have been done more easily if there had been a simple call to stop fighting. The Government must know exactly what the Commission had in mind in regard to parts II and III.
He concluded by saying that the Commission might find it more convenient to study at leisure the points submitted by him, but he was ready to talk on the spot if the representatives so desired.
The Chairman said he had already notified New Delhi that mutual discussions were necessary in order to clarify certain points of the proposal, as suggested, on both sides. The memorandum would be studied and a clarification would be given, if possible, by that afternoon or the following day.
Mr. Lozano continued by saying that the first point regarding the objectives which the Commission had in mind in formulating the proposal was the opinion that the prompt cessation of hostilities and the correction of certain conditions, the continuance of which was likely to endanger the peace, were essential to implement the endeavours of the Commission, which were to assist the Governments of India and Pakistan in effecting a final and peaceful settlement of the situation.
Part I had as its objective to obtain a ceasefire order immediately upon the acceptance of the principles contained in part II, the details of which could be discussed between both Governments and the Commission. He stated that the Commission had mediated for a long time on the conditions presented by the two Governments. He referred to his visit to the Minister for Foreign Affairs in Karachi when the latter himself had said it was the hope of his Government that the Commission would formulate definite proposals regarding a cease-fire order. He felt that the purpose of part III could be fulfilled only if the cease-fire could be maintained for a long period of time. The objectives of part III were based on the points of reference of the Security Council resolutions. By creating a tranquil and peaceful atmosphere, the Commission hoped that the representatives of both Governments, together with the Commission, would enter into consultations regarding the problems to be solved and, by aiming at fair and equitable conditions, would assure the exercise of the will of the people as stated in the resolution. There was no doubt that both the Governments and the Commission would study in common the differences and the best way to arrive at a solution, whether through a plebiscite or other alternatives, which would assure always that the will of the people prevailed. The good offices of the Commission constituted a common ground between the two Governments so that consultations could be held for the solution of the issue. He then addressed his colleagues of the Commission and asked them to comment. Mr. Oakes referred to the question of the Pakistan Minister for Foreign Affairs regarding the objectives of part II as they were to affect conditions for a final settlement. He stated that he inferred from the letters remarks that the Government of Pakistan perhaps thought the Commission considered that conditions as they would exist upon implementation of part II would be such as to permit a fair and just expression of the will of the people. He wished to make it clear that the Commission by no means thought that this would necessarily be the case.
Sir Mohammed Zafrullah Khan said that it was quiet. clear to the Pakistan Government that part II of the Commission's proposal would not create conditions under which a fair and impartial plebiscite could take place.
Answering the request of Mr. Oakes that Sir Mohammed elaborate on his question concerning the Commission's thought regarding part II, he replied that he wished to know whether the Commission's point of view was that these proposals should clear the way for the holding of a fair and impartial plebiscite to decide to which Dominion Jammu and Kashmir should accede or whether the Commission had something else in mind. Sir Mohammed understood that the Chairman had clarified this point but, according to the Chairman, part III left it open to discussion as to what would be the basis for a fair settlement.
The Chairman replied that the basis was the points of reference of the Security Council resolutions.
Mr. Oakes said that the Commission might, of course, recommend any solution if acceptable to both Governments. However, if either of the Governments continued to demand a plebiscite, the Commission had no intention of insisting upon a different solution.
Sir Mohammed Zafrullah Khan said that it would not be within the powers of the Commission to insist on a different solution, since paragraph 18 of the Security Council resolution bound the Commission to execute the resolution. He continued that, unless the Government of Pakistan was quite clear, not only with regard to the nature of the objective but that the objective was agreed upon and conditions pertaining to it laid down, it would be found difficult to comply with conditions presented in part II. Parts II and III were inseparable. Either the Commission should have stopped at part I or, if it thought it necessary to go further, it should have gone beyond part II because parts II and III stood together. Part II laid down what each was required to do, and part III left what was to be done more or less open for settlement and discussion. In his opinion, settlement of part III should have precedence. However, the whole picture would have to be settled before any acceptance of part III could be considered. Sir Mohammed stated that the intention of the Commission in regard to part III had been clarified by the Chairman but this did not bring the solution any closer.
The Chairman stated that as far as procedure was concerned, the Commission could stay in Karachi to allow the necessary time for the Government of Pakistan to express its views before the Commission and to clarify any other points. Details of the truce settlement and other matters could be discussed. But the principles, however, should be accepted first so that afterwards the discussions could take place. There would have to be a conference between the two High Commands regarding the issuance of the cease-fire order, and then there would be discussion of the details of the truce after its acceptance by the two parties concerned,
Sir Mohammed Zafrullah Khan stated that if the elucidation were obtained, the Pakistan Government would put forward its views on the proposals which had been transmitted to it on behalf of the Commission. He wanted to know if further substantive discussions of the proposals would be with only a part of the Commission or with the Commission as a whole and where the discussions would take place.
The Chairman replied that the purpose was that as soon as the principles were found acceptable by the parties, the Commission as a whole would enter into consultation with both Governments in Srinagar or another place in order to assure the final and peaceful settlement under the aims sought in the resolution.
Sir Mohammed Zafrullah Khan observed that he had not said whether or not they were acceptable, which could be decided after the only requested elucidation had been received. Nothing had been said on the merits of the proposal. He would like to know whether discussion of proposals and recommendations would be with the full Commission or with only part of it.
The Chairman said that the principles of the proposal must be accepted, but that the details of the truce were to be discussed. Once the principles had been accepted, the whole matter would be referred to the Commission for study.
Sir Mohammed Zafrullah Khan said that he felt that he was ready to confer as soon as the Commission had studied the points submitted by the Government of Pakistan. He felt that the written record should be studied because oral recitations were insufficient.
To the Chairman's question whether the answers were requested in writing, Sir Mohammed Zafrullah Khan said that recollection of oral communications was sometimes unreliable. The Chairman assured him that the matter would be studied with great care, giving both India and Pakistan ample opportunity to obtain clarification of the points embodied in
the resolution submitted for their consideration by the Commission on 14 August.
The meeting rose at 10.30 a.m.