11011948 Text of the Speech made by Mr. Lopez (Colombia) in the Security Council Meeting No. 245 held on 11 January, 1948

Text of the Speech made by Mr. Lopez (Colombia) in the Security Council Meeting No. 245 held on 11 January, 1948

I regret that I have to tax the indulgence of the Security a Council in support of my point of view, which is opposed to this draft resolution. The representative of Syria has just said that this request is based on the draft resolution submitted by the President and the Rapporteur to the Indian delegation. I contend that the letter of the Indian delegation [document S 658 does not say so.. In conveying the request of the Indian delegation, the letter says:

"In view of the fact that some of the proposals in the draft resolution" -it does not specify which-"differ fundamentally from submissions and suggestions made by you on behalf of the Government of India, Government wish to discuss the whole position with you and your colleagues of the delegation personally before determining their attitude towards these proposals." It goes on to say, "The Government therefore desires you to request the Council to adjourn proceedings in order to enable you to return immediately to New Delhi for consultation."

Thus the original request, as it stands, is to have the Security Council adjourn the proceedings because some proposals we are not told which-differ fundamentally from the submissions and suggestions of the Indian representative. I do not want to insist too much, but I believe it is worthwhile and necessary to point out once more the extreme care with which the Indian delegation has insisted, all along, that the Security Council should accept its submissions and suggestions. When we did not agree with the members of the Indian delegation they actually withdrew from the conversations with the President of the Security Council, and now they are preparing to withdraw from the Security Council itself. That is putting it rather crudely, and in fact they do it more intelligently and in a very nice manner, but that is the net result of this suggestion in effect.

In explaining the position of his delegation, the representative of India said only yesterday very definitely, "We have at the Headquarters of the United Nations a permanent representative of our own, and we shall clothe him with sufficient authority to speak with full responsibility for India when such a situation does arise. The question of whether any one of the present members of the delegation should be left behind, or somebody else should represent India at such meetings or on such occasions, is-I hope the Security Council will agree-an internal matter to be settled by our Government. We shall do the best we can in order to see that the Security Council's work in connection with the Jammu and Kashmir question, should any such emergency arise, is not inconvenienced thereby."

They refer restrictively to the Jammu and Kashmir question for the purpose of being represented in the further deliberations of the Security Council. I think that is perfectly clear, and that is why I called the attention of the Security Council in my previous statement to the fact that they had been careful to say that, so long as this item is on the agenda, India is under an obligation to see that any inquiries-only inquiries, it should be noted-made in regard to any emergency situation are answered by someone who has full authority to speak in the name of India. "If it so happens, the representative of India said, "that the Security Council holds a meeting for the purpose of discussing any such emergent situation, India certainly will make arrangements to be properly represented at such a meeting."

I believe that we have no right to overlook these statements, which tell us only too clearly that the delegation of India has expressed unequivocally its intention of being represented only when we discuss the Jammu and Kashmir question, and not when we discuss other matters, some of which are very important.

Item 2 of the agenda, to which the Chinese proposal refers, reads:

"India-Pakistan question :

(a) Letter dated 1 January 1948 from the representative of India addressed to the President of the Security Council concerning the situation in Jammu and Kashmir (document S/628).

(b) Letter dated 15 January 1948 from the Minister for Foreign Affairs of Pakistan addressed to the Secretary-General concerning the situation in Jammu and Kashmir (document S/646). (c) Letter dated 20 January 1948 from the Minister for Foreign Affairs of Pakistan addressed to the President of the Security Council (document S/655).

The letter referred to in (c) is of a very serious character. We have been informed by the Minister for Foreign Affairs of Pakistan that "the continued occupation by the armed forces of India of the State of Junagadh, which is part of Pakistan, and the oppression and spoliation of its Muslim population constitute a casus belli and may necessitate military action on the part of Pakistan unless urgent action is, taken by the Security Council."

The whole question here hinges on that one point. So far India has taken the position that we should reach a decision regarding the question of getting Pakistan out of Jammu and Kashmir, and regarding that only. Only after that is done will India agree to discuss the other matter.

As I understand it, the attitude of the majority of the members of the Security Council is that it is right to take up that matter first because the primary necessity is to have peace and order restored in Kashmir, but there is absolutely no reason why we should not immediately make provision for the plebiscite that has to be taken as a sine qua non of peaceful conditions in Jammu and Kashmir. About that, however, the Indian delegation is perfectly clear. The position it takes is : "We wish the Security Council to instruct Pakistan to do this and that to get the tribesmen out of Jammu and Kashmir. Next, we want a national assembly convened; then we must have a Government and, after all this, we will have the plebiscite." It is because we have not agreed to that order of business that the Indian delegation wishes to return to India. I believe that it is the duty of the Security Council to be very clear as to what this adjournment means, and as to where we shall stand if we agree to the adjournment.